Upgrade to enjoy this feature!
Vital MX fantasy is free to play, but Premium users receive great benefits. Premium benefits include:
- View and download rider stats
- Pick trends
- Create a private league
- And more!
Only $10 for all 2026 SX, MX, and SMX series.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Egyptian_pyramids
Research some of the earliest writings we have, most of which come out of Egypt as well. Again I don't know why so many have taken such a dismissive attitude towards them, seems to me they provide some valuable sources. You might be surprised at some of the possible answers within.
The Shop
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
I'll give you aboriginals, yes. But bums, street walkers, poor people? No.
Here is why. Those people are given many things and still can't seem to carve out a decent life. Free education, free meals, free healthcare, free housing, etc etc.
What makes you think that "smart" people would not be able to adapt to a cataclysmic event? Because they work and are successful? I think you are looking at it backwards.
Many smart people came from nothing. Worked their butt off. Raised good kids.
These are the survivors because they will find a way. They will adapt. If you have to dig through a dumpster to feed your family a smart person is just as likely to do "what it takes to survive" as a bum on the street.
So I think you are drastically underestimating the "grittiness" of smart people.
No I have not read any early writings about Aliens. Void I thought you were a follow the evidence kind of guy. I was just suggesting some avenues of evidence, you will have to do your own research and draw your own conclusions,.
Yes, many smart people came from nothing (a relative term that is highly overstated). But dont overstate your "grit & will power". Lebron James "came from nothing".... but to say he overcame odds when the reality is he won the genetic lottery would be wrong. He was born with a pre-set of genetic factors that has allowed him to be a "success" and seen as "smart" in today's world. The same goes for all of us. The very fact that we're born in America has given us inherent advantages. To think that everyone in the "first world" who were literally born on 3rd base compared to the rest of the world would be better equipped to survive is laughable.
Wall Street executive? Politician? Banker? Brain Surgeon? They have very specialized skills that work in today's day and time but would they have any value in the real world? The "smart & successful" in today's civilization have compromised immune systems due to access to antibiotics and other medical crutches.
A post cataclysmic world would be as harsh of conditions as it gets. It's going to be physically grueling as well as mental. You ever played sports with a brain surgeon? The doctors at UCLA when I lived there had their own court. Let's just say it was it's own brand of basketball that was non-contact and non-athletic. On the other courts you had what I refer to as "neanderthal man". Guys that couldnt do math with a calculator but we're physically quite gifted.
Nature is going to favor a combination of the two at best. The extreme smart & hard working end of the spectrum that is successful in today's safe version of the world is not likely to succeed in a much more dangerous & primal world.
Yes, they exist. It's a mathematical probability.
The math also says that it's improbable that they would find us out of all the planets in the solar system. Getting here presents it's own set of improbabilities.
BUT... it's also probable that the technology needed to get here is something we couldnt even fathom and likely never will. So we shouldnt limit the discussion to our imagination. We can only acknowledge that we are extremely limited in our scope.
That said, it's entirely possible (and likely) that we wouldnt know a alien or evidence of aliens if it was staring us in the face. Let's be honest, we're a pretty dumb species. Our smartest scientists set off atom bombs in the atmosphere just to see what would happen. So even the smart do equally dumb shit.
That's why the possible intervention from a non-Earth species is impossible to say one way or another IMO.
You'll never go broke underestimating the stupidity of humans. The Earth was flat for a very long time, then it was a raging debate when it was discovered otherwise. Fast forward a few hundred years and now it's a debate again. Knowing that, it makes these discussions very difficult. And it doesnt surprise me why we still havent figured out the pyramids.
Yes, and as i have tried to point out, many of those early writings tell us as much. Often it is clearly presented as factual information with a great deal of detail within the context. But i gotta say i am with Void and draw the line on the likelihood that we have ever had an intervention from a race that didn't originate on Earth?
The brain surgeon with his white shoes vacationing at Martha's Vineyard has about as much of a chance surviving an cataclysmic event as the bum who can't tie his shoes. They are both at two ends of the spectrum and each is about as useless in the primordial world as the other.
I shouldn't have used the word "smart" as that was inaccurate. I think words such as "determined" or "useful" or "resourceful" would be better and that really describes the middle class I think. Yes, there are those at the extreme ends who fit this too, but by and large it's the middle class.
Humans are not far from their primitive ways. It's still there under the surface. If put in a position to have to go back to those ways then we easily could. I think many of us would have no problem being brutal in a tough environment if it meant our survival or that of our family. Those raw instincts are still there. No matter how "sophisticated" society likes to think it is.
It's been shown over and over, it only takes about 2 weeks after society breaks down for humans to go back to being "animals". Civilization is a fragile deck of cards.
If that show "The Walking Dead" does anything well, I think it was accurate in showing how some of the seemingly weakest characters initially, became some of the strongest assets to survival.
Survival is gonna be a combination of (3) factors IMO:
Smart vs Dumb (and mind you, today's smart isnt necessarily nature's smart)
Prepared vs Unprepared (Im talking about genetics here)
Lucky vs Unlucky (it catches up to all of us eventually)
Where you and I might disagree, is what we define as the "middle class". You're looking at it as the middle class of America. Im looking at it as the middle class of the entire planet, of which very few in America qualify. America is so far removed from survival. Natural selection left this culture a long time ago. All of our modern medicine havent helped the gene pool, one would argue it has made it worse. Since it's kept all of the worst stock alive. But the bottom line, the "middle class" in America are considered ELITE by world standards. We're all the entitled rich kids by that standard.
I dont know what the % is, but lets say after a cataclysmic event only 2% of the world is expected to survive. (And that figure might be VERY generous). That leaves 150 million people. Africa is 1.2b people by itself. And they are far more equipped to survive as they're already living in hell.
To your point that those living in hell in Africa would somehow be better suited to a cataclysmic event is what I disagree with.
Hell is subjective to me. That mother who betters her life and her kids would likely have no problem surviving in Africa. Just as I assume Jeff Bezos would also find a way. Just like I would also find a way for my family.
Pluck a sub Saharan African and plop them down in today’s society and let’s see how long they make it. Fact is they don’t. Not without a lot of assistance as I mentioned above. And even with all that assistance they still struggle immensely.
There is no guarantee Jeff Bezos' skillsets would translate at all in a SHTF situation.
Your example of a sub Saharan African not likely excelling in our corporate society is accurate. So why do you think a corporate CEO would survive in sub Saharan Africa? We literally survive in America "with a lot of assistance". What do you call modern medicine? Technology? Electricity? Infrastructure? Opportunity everywhere?
If you're white, a male, and born in America you have been born into the most advantageous position on the planet. Underestimating this privilege is extremely short sighted. The fact is, guys like you and myself are the most pampered on the planet and the least likely to succeed when things truly get tough. Conditioning matters and the fact is, you and I are not conditioned for just how hard it would be.
That's not to say all white/male/americans would perish. They'd simply have the most to adjust too and likely have the worst attrition rate.
The sub Saharan African has not excelled in their own environment. They don’t excel in a modern environment where they are gifted everything. What will they excel in that anyone else won’t?
Let’s assume the apocalypse has happened. Please tell me the wagon of ten people you are tying your star too?
You may think guys like me or you are the most pampered. But really we are just one step away from poverty. Be honest. I’m frugal, I save. Blah blah blah. I have a college education. Graduated in the top of my class.
I know I’m no better then anyone. And put me in a tough situation and I will do ANYTHING to survive.
So you are underestimating the will power of people you tag as successful. Remember you agreed humans are not very far from their primordial instincts.
And your comment on white Americans?
They have prospered and succeeded because they are determined and one of the most brutal races when it comes to survival in history.
So when the apocalypse happens. I wouldn’t discount them.
And the reality is, there are many places on earth that are already not far from a post apocalyptic setting. They're ready for it because it's pretty much all they know.
You ever coached youth sports at a highly competitive level? I'll break it down extremely honest for you. First and foremost, genetics matter. Most coaches I knew would not bother wasting time on a player who wasnt born September thru December. That's right, they considered every other kid a "waste of time". It's due to the age cutoff date and how a kid who is 9-11 months older than his competition will excel faster under advanced coaching (see Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers for a full explanation).
Secondly? Rich kids get exposed. Despite coming from good genetic stock when it comes to being ruthless or smart, their pampered life makes for a weaker player than a kid from the poorer economic scale. If you want to be successful at regional & national tournaments, you need kids that are used to having to "survive".
Granted, part of the problem with the rich kid is that he goes home to his pampered life every day and in a SHTF situation, that would not be the case so a much more resilient human would be unlocked over time. But in a SHTF situation, the bulk of the die off is in the first 6 months. If you have had it relatively easy your whole life, you are the least prepared to survive the initial fallout. And that is 99% of the battle. Just get thru the first 6 months. Yes, white westerners are as brutal as it gets. But we've been domesticated and that would hurt initial survival rates. Yes, we'd revert back to primordial instincts quickly but again, we're not as prepared as others for it. We'd have a higher attrition rate.
You asked earlier who I'd take as my top 10 with me to survive? It certainly wouldnt be these highly successful goons:
I would think those that have the best chance of survival in America would be the backwoods hicks of West Virginia (or those of their ilk). They know how to live off the land already. And they already know what it is to struggle. I would think their self induced addictions have prepped them plenty for the mental & physical struggle that would be in store when the SHTF. This may sound crazy but Im putting my money on these dirtbags to survive the apocalypse. Not exactly great genetic stock to re-populate the world huh? So if you consider that the theory of civilization starting over several times in humanity's span of existence, and only the fringes of society survive, it makes you wonder just how much smarter were past civilizations?
Those pictures are pretty damn impressive I can't even imagine what that must have been like.
But what's been explained here by the vital experts is 4000 years ago this kind of stuff was easily built and should not be questioned.....
This is kinda cool.
Pit Row
https://youtu.be/A0FZIwabctw
This is population growth just since 1800
The truth is Ice age people (Northern Europeans) will always fair better in the long run than non ice age people if all other things are equal because they are genetically better suited to survive in harsh conditions. Central Africa in the Pleistocene era was the easiest place to live. Aboriginal people are Aboriginal because they didn't have the necessity to form civilization. Ice age people didn't have the opportunity to form civilization because it required working all day just to get by. That's why civilization grew out of the Middle East. Warm enough to get beyond the daily needs, but lacking enough of the basics i.e. water, food etc that cooperation was still needed. Ice age people have a greater ability to foresee potential problems and find ways to solve them. That is why anxiety among ice age people is so much higher than Equator people. Ice age people are genetically predispositioned to focus too much on the future what ifs in the context of modern society where equator people are genetically predispositioned to adjust to immediate dangers.
So, in the short term aboriginals and scrappy people will fair better but in the long run those with a long term strategy and an ability to cooperate with others will fair best.
I have to disagree on the month born issue just a little bit. While it can certainly affect a "group's" probability to reach the highest level of a sport, it doesn't really equate quite that directly to each individual. The sport I've been the most involved in has been basketball, and at the elite club/AAU level I've never had a coach directly inquire about a month born, other than to verify that a player isn't too old for one of the age based tournaments. Never had it be an issue for coaches at the club baseball level, either, but after selecting teams it is likely that more kids are born in the "later" half of the year. This hasn't ever been a conscious factor in actuality selecting the teams, though, as a kid's ability is far more important than their birthdate to a coach.
Hockey is one of the sports most affected by birthdate, and even then you still find many players from every month in the NHL, and the feeder leagues like the BCHL that our hometown team competes in. If coaches truly weren't going to "waste their time" and use kids born in certain months, there'd be no players at the highest levels who were born in those months at all. That's obviously not the case.
Well done.
I coached in Southern California. Which is about as competitive as it gets for AAU. Every angle is used and abused to get an advantage. I coached against some programs in which the Head Coaches had $10k bonuses at stake from sponsors if they won games.
I realise you're a parent of a kid who plays AAU. But Im a coach. I have some insight on this topic you're not going to have.
If you're starting with kids that are 6 or 7 years old, ability is NOT a big factor. You look at their birthdate and then you look at how tall their parents are (mostly the mother) to guess genetic potential. And you take the kids that have the higher ceiling and coach them up.
Kids born Sept thru Dec are generally "alphas" in the classroom as well. Again, over the years, that talent pool will develop quicker due to getting the better coaching.
If the leagues you participate in arent taking these matters into consideration it's only because your leagues arent as competitive as what we're used to battling at the national level.
It's not fair. It's not nice. It's dog eat dog capitalism at it's finest and most raw.
Your comments about the NHL are also blatantly false. Read the chapter in Malcolm Gladwell's book on hockey. 90+ % of the players in the NHL at one time were born during this age window I speak of.
That's why they started alternate youth leagues for kids born in the later months. Thus doubling the potential talent pool to find future stars.
Of course there are some who are genetic freaks that buck the trend, but they do so against the odds.
The relative age effect would actually suggest that you should do the exact opposite of what you claim. If two players are equal in ability, yet one player is nearly a full year younger, then the younger player would likely have the higher "upside" than the older player, who's had the advantage of that extra year's growth and maturity. So selecting that older kid based on birth month alone would end up limiting your ability to develop an athlete fully, on "average" of course.
There's never been a time when 90% of NHL were born in the "first quarter" after the age cutoff. On a high year, it could be as much as 40% for some of the junior leagues, but for players in the NHL it sounds like right around 27-30%. Slightly higher, but definitely not a situation where you absolutely have to be born in the first quarter in order to receive coaching or make the top level.
Obviously coaches can look at parents, but even that doesn't likely override the kid's ability. When I helped coach middle school football, our high school coach visited practice one day and came over all excited to ask me who my kid was. He must have thought my son would be one of the bigger kids, I'm about 6'5 285. When I pointed out my son, who was one of the 5 smallest kids on the field, he wasn't nearly as talkative as he started out being.
Post a reply to: Please explain this then>>>>>