International I Hate Sports Club

The Imperialist wrote:Blond and blue eyed like Hitler, fit as Goring, tall like Goebbels, 20/20 eyesight like Himmler, German like Rosenberg

And all of them exceptionally obnoxious !

ChrisOH wrote:So, most "athletic" skills really don't help us much outside of the sport itself. I'm not at all saying we shouldn't keep our bodies healthy (after all, our brains need somewhere to live! ), but it's our intelligence that ultimately can give us a better quality of life.

Exactly. The obnoxious jocks who go around picking on those who they consider to be "geeks" should remember that if they are to be seriously injured in a game and need medical attention then they will be treated through the work of "geeks". The research and design that goes into providing them with high-quality gear is devised by "geeks". The people who create and manage the massive internet sports forums where the sports fans go to discuss the latest match results are "geeks". If the sports players were to reject the intelligence of others completely and go it alone, then they'd soon realise what a bad idea that was and how the intelligence of those they considered to be "geeks" helped make the world of sports a lot more accessible and safe for them.

Best regards,
i_like_1981

ChrisOH wrote:

Fat Man wrote: So what, if they can run faster, jump higher, and have more physical strength!

A horse is much stronger than a human being. It can run faster, and jump higher, therefore a horse must be superior to a human being! Right???

YEAH RIGHT!

A horse can't read and write, do complex math equations, invent new things, create works of art, or compose music.

Hello Fat Man!

I remember reading in my college anthropology text about what's called the "cultural takeoff", the point in human evolution where we stopped evolving physically, for the most part, and our brain size began to be our advantage in natural selection.

This was probably the point where early man began to fashion tools and weapons, rather than relying strictly on natural traits for survival. Physically, we don't have many advantages in the animal world -- we can't run or jump, as you mentioned, as well as animals like the horse, so our advantage in hunting food or escaping becoming food is lessened; we don't have protective armor, sharp horns or claws, or a heavy coat of fur to protect us from predators or the elements. What we do have is our brain capacity -- we can fashion these weapons and tools to compensate for our disadvantages, and even make us more efficient (e.g. using a bow and arrow or rifle to hunt expends less of our energy than running and chasing down prey for food). We also have the ability to plan strategies for using our inventions to our advantage.

So, most "athletic" skills really don't help us much outside of the sport itself. I'm not at all saying we shouldn't keep our bodies healthy (after all, our brains need somewhere to live! ), but it's our intelligence that ultimately can give us a better quality of life.

Yes, compared to our primitive ancestors, we are soft and weak little cream puffs.

But notice, we live at least twice as long!

Our primitive ancestors may have been much stronger, and much faster, but they only lived about 30 years on average, while we now live about 78 to 82 years on average.

When anthropologists examine the skulls and bones of our ancestors, most of them apparently died in their mid 20s while some did live longer than that.

But life was mostly short and brutal.

The human brain has actually doubled in size during the past 100,000 years, and hopefully, this trend might continue. Of course, there are probably limits. Perhaps there might be about a 25% percent increase over the next 100,000 years or so.

Yes, exercise is still necessary, as you have said . . .

I'm not at all saying we shouldn't keep our bodies healthy (after all, our brains need somewhere to live! But it's our intelligence that ultimately can give us a better quality of life.

When I was growing up, I enjoyed riding my bicycle, and swimming. I also like hiking in the woods collecting specimens to examine under my microscope. Even though my left knee was crippled up, and I couldn't run, and could only walk with a limp, I would still go out hiking in the woods when I was living up in Minnesota, and when our family moved down to New Mexico, I would hike out into the desert to collect some cactus for my cactus garden, and during the Autumn, picking cactus fruit. Also, when we went on camping trips to the state parks or national forests, I enjoyed hiking on the nature trails, and sometime I would rent a row boat where there were lakes. So, I did get some exercise.

One does not have to be in sports. There are far more pleasant and fun ways to get some exercise. Sports is boring. Hiking out in the woods or the desert is more fun, and you get to see all kids of interesting stuff on a nature trail. I would even look for fossils, and I had a collection of mostly fossils of small sea shells. Sometimes I would come home with a king snake or a bull constrictor, because I like reptiles. And of course, I can tell the difference between a poisonous snake and a nonpoisonous snake. I wanted to keep some reptiles, but my mother didn't like snakes.

I also had a dirt bike, a Honda XL 100, and I would romp around out in the desert, sometimes take a few spills, get up, dust myself off, and get back on my dirt bike again and keep on going. Yeah, when I came home, I would have a few cuts and bruises and be all dirty, then I would shower and relax for the rest of the evening.

It's a Hell of a lot more fun than sports! In sports, all one does is chase a ball like a retarded moron. I can teach a dog to chase a ball.

Now cats are too smart for that. You try to get a cat to fetch a stick, the cat will just give you a dirty look as if to say . . . "You want me to do what?" So, even cats think sports are stupid! They would rather go out and hunt!

Anyway . . .

While we still need some exercise, it's no longer necessary to possess all the brute strength of our primitive ancestors!

We have been able to accomplish a Hell of a lot more using our brains instead of brawn. I'll take brains over brawn anytime. Hey! It's why we live much longer than our primitive ancestors. Right?

Yeah, most football players are broken down wrecks by the time they're in their 40s, and not to mention, the typical trailer-trash-redneck sports fan living in his single axle trailer home, sitting around all day, watching nothing but football, swilling down that cheap Buckhorn beer, and eating nothing but greasy fried foods, and beating up on his wife and kids, and raping his daughters just after his favorite football team loses the big game of the season, he eventually ends up clutching at his chest, gasping for air, and passing out face down in the dog dish, DEAD from a massive heart attack while still only in his late 40s or early 50s. Yeah! Sounds like fun! Doesn't it?

Oh gee! Am I being too cynical again???

Fat Man wrote:
The human brain has actually doubled in size during the past 100,000 years, and hopefully, this trend might continue. Of course, there are probably limits. Perhaps there might be about a 25% percent increase over the next 100,000 years or so.

Ironically, if our brain size increased much more, we'd probably have to go back to being quadrupeds! I read a National Geographic article a few years back that the reason human females have so much difficulty in childbirth as compared to other mammals is that a baby's head needs to be relatively large to accommodate the brain size necessary for our intelligence -- but a woman's pelvic structure is comparatively narrow in order to maintain the balance required to stand and walk upright. It's kind of an evolutionary tradeoff.

Fat Man wrote: One does not have to be in sports. There are far more pleasant and fun ways to get some exercise. Sports is boring. Hiking out in the woods or the desert is more fun, and you get to see all kids of interesting stuff on a nature trail.

Yes, that's one thing that got me bored with sports -- every field, court, or stadium looks pretty much the same, and the same things happen in the games. Only so many different plays you can do in sports -- not much to discover or delve deeper into.

Fat Man wrote: It's a Hell of a lot more fun than sports! In sports, all one does is chase a ball like a retarded moron. I can teach a dog to chase a ball.

And we can just pay the dog in Milk Bones as opposed to eight-figure salaries! Plus, your dog will actually acknowledge your existence and appreciate you. Much better deal with the dog over sports players!

Fat Man wrote: Now cats are too smart for that. You try to get a cat to fetch a stick, the cat will just give you a dirty look as if to say . . . "You want me to do what?" So, even cats think sports are stupid! They would rather go out and hunt!

Yes, I'm used to such looks from my cat if I try to get her to do anything (usually to move from in front of the computer screen so I can see to type or read -- my cat should be an honorary member of this forum as many times as she's watched me read and post!). She pretty much trains herself when she feels like being trained. Perhaps that's why dog racing exists but not cat racing -- you'd never get them to run on command!

ChrisOH wrote:

Fat Man wrote:The human brain has actually doubled in size during the past 100,000 years, and hopefully, this trend might continue. Of course, there are probably limits. Perhaps there might be about a 25% percent increase over the next 100,000 years or so.

Ironically, if our brain size increased much more, we'd probably have to go back to being quadrupeds! I read a National Geographic article a few years back that the reason human females have so much difficulty in childbirth as compared to other mammals is that a baby's head needs to be relatively large to accommodate the brain size necessary for our intelligence -- but a woman's pelvic structure is comparatively narrow in order to maintain the balance required to stand and walk upright. It's kind of an evolutionary tradeoff.

Well, if you notice, the human female has a somewhat broader pelvis than the more primitive primates. This makes it possible to give birth to infants with a larger brain.

If the human brain gets any larger, I really don't think we would go back to being quadrupeds, because we need our hands free to use tools.

No, here is what I think would happen instead.

Having a larger brain would mean having a larger skull, and to support a larger skull, the vertebra in the neck would be thicker, and humans would have a shorter and thicker neck. But through out the entire spinal column, all the vertebra would have to be thicker, so we would then have a thicker spinal column, and a broader pelvis with thicker and somewhat shorter legs.

We would be more narrow in the chest, and broader in the hips. As the human skull becomes shaped more like a light-bulb, the human body would become more pear-shaped, so we would actually look somewhat fatter, more endomorphic. Our legs are already somewhat shorter than our primitive ancestors.

Let me use myself as an example!

I'm about 5 feet 6 inches, or 66 inches tall.

Just go to this web site titled Standardized body proportions for females and males by height based on United States Army data
http://robynw.faeriemanor.org/BodyProportions.phtml

Then enter your height in either inches or centimeters.

I entered 66 inches, and according to the chart, my torso length from shoulder to crotch should be about 22.70 inches for males or 23.23 inches for females.

The leg length or crotch height should be about 31.81 for males or 30.69 for females.

In either case, the length of the legs is greater than the torso length.

If you are an Ectomorph, having a more slender build, the torso length is somewhat shorter and the legs are somewhat longer.

I'm an Endomorph, having a more stocky build so my torso would be somewhat longer and my legs somewhat shorter. With most Endomorphs, the torso length and leg length are approximately equal.

But when I actually measured myself, I was surprised to find that my torso length was about 30 inches, and my legs were only 26 inches long, so in my case, my torso length is greater than the length of my legs.

So, I guess I would classify myself as being Hyper-endomorphic. I have noticed that a lot of people who are obese, like myself, often have much larger bodies and much shorter legs, so I'm really not all the unique. Yeah, one of my hobbies is observing people and taking mental notes.

This photo of myself was taken back in April 2007

I weighed about 370 pounds at the time, but
now I weigh about 400 pounds.

Notice, I'm slightly pear-shaped, measuring only 56 inches around my chest, 64 inches around my waist, 70 inches around my hips, and 36 inches around my thighs.

Also, I find that I'm attracted to women with broader hips and bigger thighs. I believe that our preferences are somehow genetically programmed.

Yeah, if we get any new members coming to our forums who are obnoxious sports bores, I will probably be subject to some more ridicule, but I really don't give a flying fuck!

As Popeye use to say "I yam what I yam, and that's all that I yam!" so, I guess they'll just have to deal with it. So, I say, fuck 'em!

Well, anyway . . . . .

I'm merely speculating about how we humans might evolve in the future.

The odds are, we'll probably do something stupid, like having a world wide nuclear war, or something, and if there are any survivors, we will have bombed ourselves back to the stone age!

Fat Man wrote:
Well, if you notice, the human female has a somewhat broader pelvis than the more primitive primates. This makes it possible to give birth to infants with a larger brain.

If the human brain gets any larger, I really don't think we would go back to being quadrupeds, because we need our hands free to use tools.

No, here is what I think would happen instead.

Having a larger brain would mean having a larger skull, and to support a larger skull, the vertebra in the neck would be thicker, and humans would have a shorter and thicker neck. But through out the entire spinal column, all the vertebra would have to be thicker, so we would then have a thicker spinal column, and a broader pelvis with thicker and somewhat shorter legs.

We would be more narrow in the chest, and broader in the hips. As the human skull becomes shaped more like a light-bulb, the human body would become more pear-shaped, so we would actually look somewhat fatter, more endomorphic. Our legs are already somewhat shorter than our primitive ancestors.

Hello again Fat Man!

Well, I found an article online that updates what anthropologists used to think about brain size vs. pelvic size. It appears, according to this source, that Homo erectus females had a wider pelvic structure than modern humans, yet still walked upright. (This article is from 2008, so is more recent than the National Geographic article I once read).

http://www.livescience.com/7602-painful ... odern.html

I also remember reading an article when I was in high school that if dinosaurs had not become extinct but had continued to evolve into something with the mental capacity of humans, this is what they/we might look like:



Of course, this is pure speculation...but it's kind of interesting to consider!

By the way, I just know Earl is dying to "accept such a caption" for this image -- so go for it, Earl!