Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.usage.english > #579042
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | alt.usage.english |
| Subject | Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? |
| Date | 2016-01-04 10:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <deurn6Fr3nsU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | <61dc1$5686d9fb$636f74fc$1328@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com> <billvan-E2A749.00561804012016@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net> |
On 2016-01-04 08:56:18 +0000, bill van said: > In article > <7f49$568a0971$569cca28$7391@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>, > "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte.net> wrote: > >> On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 11:33:50 +1100, Peter Moylan wrote: >> >>> The point you're missing, I think, is that those books document a >>> gradual improvement in human behaviour over time. >> >> This is an interesting point, which you backed up below! >> >>> True, the god of the >>> early parts is a rather detestable psychopath by today's standards, but >>> that shows that standards have improved over time. If we were inventing >>> a god today, he would have more admirable qualities. >> >> This is also a good point, in that the "original" (1st book) god was >> despicable, while the "sequel" had a much nicer god (2nd book). By the >> 3rd book (the god of today), he'd be multi-racial, hermaphroditic, and >> downright genteel! >> >>> These days we do occasionally get a Hitler or a Bush who thinks nothing >>> of wrecking other countries for their own selfish reasons, but mostly we >>> manage to keep such people out of power. A few thousand years ago it >>> appears that practically every petty leader was heartless and cruel. >>> That's how they got to be leaders. >> >> Yes. Indeed. All rulers were despots (many are still today, by the way). >> (Think North Korea or almost any country in Central Africa, for example.) >> >>> Our species is only about 100,000 years old, depending on where you put >>> the boundary between human and pre-human. That's too short a time for >>> any noticeable physical evolution, so there's been hardly any change in >>> our brains and bodies in that time. On the other hand, we have had a >>> great deal of _social_ evolution, and from that point of view we've >>> improved enormously, even in the short time for which we have a written >>> history. >> >> Another good point that physically, we're the same as those who interbred >> with Neanderthals and Davisonians and whatever the Asian Neanderthals are >> going to be called, while socially, we have improved (although looking >> at 3xi.test >> the classic despots of today, I wonder if that's actually true). > > I'd just like to note that in places where the populace has not managed > to organize so as to protect itself from dictators, perpetrators of > genocide and worse, the populace continues to be slaughtered by people > who are largely without scruples. > > I don't think that suggests there is a "a gradual improvement in human > behaviour". Maybe not, so far as our instincts are concerned, but Steven Pinker makes a strong case in The Better Angels of our Nature that there is a long-term trend towards less violent behaviour all of the world. I don't much care for the later part of his book, where he tries to explain why this should be so, but the earlier part, where he sets out the evidence, is quite convincing. > Rather, I think it reflects that in many countries, we have > fought for and achieved systems of government with institutions that > largely protect us from genocidal behaviour by the people in charge. -- athel
Back to alt.usage.english | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte.net> - 2016-01-01 14:56 -0500
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte.net> - 2016-01-01 21:59 -0500
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2016-01-02 14:32 +1100
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte.net> - 2016-01-01 22:58 -0500
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-01 20:13 -0800
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte.net> - 2016-01-02 03:45 -0500
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-02 06:39 -0800
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> - 2016-01-02 11:04 -0500
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2016-01-02 11:00 -0800
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2016-01-02 10:55 -0800
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? "Traddict" <Traddiction@hotmail.fr> - 2016-01-02 20:29 +0100
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? "Traddict" <Traddiction@hotmail.fr> - 2016-01-02 20:18 +0100
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2016-01-03 11:33 +1100
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> - 2016-01-03 07:04 -0500
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? Richard Yates <richard@yatesguitar.com> - 2016-01-03 05:36 -0800
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? analyst41@hotmail.com - 2016-01-03 06:08 -0800
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte.net> - 2016-01-04 00:56 -0500
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> - 2016-01-04 00:56 -0800
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2016-01-04 10:18 +0100
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2016-01-04 20:34 +1100
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 11:03 -0800
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-04 11:53 -0800
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 12:21 -0800
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-04 04:22 -0800
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> - 2016-01-04 12:45 +0000
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-04 06:38 -0800
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte.net> - 2016-01-04 13:52 -0500
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-04 11:49 -0800
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca> - 2016-01-04 19:11 -0330
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> - 2016-01-04 19:06 -0500
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 16:18 -0800
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 16:34 -0800
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> - 2016-01-04 22:51 -0500
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 20:18 -0800
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> - 2016-01-05 18:36 -0500
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-04 19:56 -0800
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 20:18 -0800
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) - 2016-01-05 14:25 +0000
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? Will Parsons <varro@nodomain.invalid> - 2016-01-05 02:36 +0000
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2016-01-05 16:29 +1100
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? Will Parsons <varro@nodomain.invalid> - 2016-01-05 19:00 +0000
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 11:10 -0800
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-05 12:14 -0800
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2016-01-05 16:15 +1100
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> - 2016-01-04 21:40 -0800
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-04 19:52 -0800
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-04 21:02 -0800
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-04 21:12 -0800
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2016-01-05 16:39 +1100
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-05 07:38 -0800
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 10:26 -0800
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? "Percival P. Cassidy" <Nobody@NotMyISP.net> - 2016-01-05 22:10 -0500
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 19:43 -0800
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 22:14 -0800
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? bert <bert.hutchings@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-02 02:19 -0800
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte.net> - 2016-01-02 06:03 -0500
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> - 2016-01-02 11:02 -0500
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-02 11:02 -0800
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte.net> - 2016-01-04 00:58 -0500
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-01 20:08 -0800
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) - 2016-01-02 14:45 +0000
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> - 2016-01-02 11:13 -0500
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-03 11:05 -0800
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-02 10:57 -0800
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? Peter Young <pnyoung@ormail.co.uk> - 2016-01-02 07:40 +0000
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@gte.net> - 2016-01-02 03:47 -0500
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? Janet <nobody@home.org> - 2016-01-02 12:22 +0000
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> - 2016-01-02 11:25 -0500
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> - 2016-01-02 11:19 -0500
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2016-01-02 11:38 +0100
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? Ross <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> - 2016-01-02 01:16 -0800
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? Micky <NONONOmisc07@bigfoot.com> - 2016-01-03 05:55 -0500
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? Ross <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> - 2016-01-03 13:10 -0800
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? "Traddict" <Traddiction@hotmail.fr> - 2016-01-04 20:14 +0100
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? Ross <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> - 2016-01-04 12:51 -0800
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? "Traddict" <Traddiction@hotmail.fr> - 2016-01-04 22:20 +0100
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) - 2016-01-04 23:21 +0000
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? Ross <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> - 2016-01-04 16:53 -0800
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) - 2016-01-05 14:27 +0000
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2016-01-02 11:38 +0100
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? analyst41@hotmail.com - 2016-01-02 09:22 -0800
Re: Why is it "The powers that be"; but not "The powers that are"? James Hogg <Jas.Hogg@gOUTmail.com> - 2016-01-02 19:34 +0100
csiph-web