Anthology of Ideas

Before Western society was introduced to the “Arabic” — technically, the number system originated in India — numeral system, it used the Roman system which uses six symbols to represent a base 10 numeric system (repeats every 10 digits) I,V,X,L,C, and M which referred to the numbers 1,5,10,50,100,and 1000 respectively, and the placement of the symbols determined their value. If a symbol with a smaller value came before a larger, it was subtracted from the larger; if it cam after it was added, so IV meant 4 while VI meant 6.

Humans who live in technologically primitive societies aren’t as intelligent as those who live in advanced societies…or so some of histories most influential personalities thought. The reasoning behind their thinking, when it was used as an honest theory and not a egocentric attack on another culture to legitimize their enslavement or destruction, is that primitive societies just harvest what is naturally provided, so while they have to physically work for their resources, there isn’t much innovation in the techniques used to collect and store it, and because there is no innovation the brain doesn’t develop all the skills that it would have if the person was forced to innovate–in short making the person less intelligent.

The four fields in American anthropology are usually classified as physical, cultural (or ethnology), linguistics and archeology. Cultural Anthropology deals with the aspects of human lives that are learned. It examines the way different groups keep societal control, delegate responsibilities and other such learned behaviors. Physical Anthropology studies the way humans have evolved over time and how different environmental and cultural influences affected human evolution. Archeology is the study of things humans have created in the past.

Before one can evaluate the theory itself one must first define economics. Therefore, economics — in its most basic sense — can be defined as the procurement of resources. The statement “It All Comes Down to Economics” reflects this basic sense of the term, but in doing so it raises economics from a means-to-an-end to the driving force. It also declares that all human conflicts and connections are based on the procurement and dissemination of resources. However, the human drive for resources, as with all creatures, is based on the need to successfully reproduce. This drive is what economics is based on, therefore while it does all come down to economics a better phrase may be “it all comes down to sex”. Technicalities aside all cultures and communities depend on economics to survive, if you take economics to be the gathering or reduction of resources. However if you consider economics to be trade, then only large societies have a need for economics on any large scale.

I. Introduction and Definitions Is the human propensity for violence caused by culture or our very instincts? More specifically, does “modern” cultural constructs such as video games cause aggression? The second question is easy to answer, but the first is much harder because the argument of “nature versus nurture” has existed before Darwin and is no closer to being resolved today. Their are three major sides to the debate: the first (represented here by Robert W.

Before Western society was introduced to the “Arabic” — technically, the number system originated in India — numeral system, it used the Roman system which uses six symbols to represent a base 10 numeric system (repeats every 10 digits) I,V,X,L,C, and M which referred to the numbers 1,5,10,50,100,and 1000 respectively, and the placement of the symbols determined their value. If a symbol with a smaller value came before a larger, it was subtracted from the larger; if it cam after it was added, so IV meant 4 while VI meant 6.

Humans who live in technologically primitive societies aren’t as intelligent as those who live in advanced societies…or so some of histories most influential personalities thought. The reasoning behind their thinking, when it was used as an honest theory and not a egocentric attack on another culture to legitimize their enslavement or destruction, is that primitive societies just harvest what is naturally provided, so while they have to physically work for their resources, there isn’t much innovation in the techniques used to collect and store it, and because there is no innovation the brain doesn’t develop all the skills that it would have if the person was forced to innovate–in short making the person less intelligent.

The four fields in American anthropology are usually classified as physical, cultural (or ethnology), linguistics and archeology. Cultural Anthropology deals with the aspects of human lives that are learned. It examines the way different groups keep societal control, delegate responsibilities and other such learned behaviors. Physical Anthropology studies the way humans have evolved over time and how different environmental and cultural influences affected human evolution. Archeology is the study of things humans have created in the past.

Before one can evaluate the theory itself one must first define economics. Therefore, economics — in its most basic sense — can be defined as the procurement of resources. The statement “It All Comes Down to Economics” reflects this basic sense of the term, but in doing so it raises economics from a means-to-an-end to the driving force. It also declares that all human conflicts and connections are based on the procurement and dissemination of resources. However, the human drive for resources, as with all creatures, is based on the need to successfully reproduce. This drive is what economics is based on, therefore while it does all come down to economics a better phrase may be “it all comes down to sex”. Technicalities aside all cultures and communities depend on economics to survive, if you take economics to be the gathering or reduction of resources. However if you consider economics to be trade, then only large societies have a need for economics on any large scale.

I. Introduction and Definitions Is the human propensity for violence caused by culture or our very instincts? More specifically, does “modern” cultural constructs such as video games cause aggression? The second question is easy to answer, but the first is much harder because the argument of “nature versus nurture” has existed before Darwin and is no closer to being resolved today. Their are three major sides to the debate: the first (represented here by Robert W.