Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 1x06 - "Lethe"

[Nerys Myk]

Gosh how did the hunter gatherer survive to perpetuate the species without science? But they did..

They used science. Figured out how to hunt better and gather the right things by advancing their technology and observation.

 

[Turtletrekker]

Gosh how did the hunter gatherer survive to perpetuate the species without science? But they did..

Actually, science is exactly what allowed them to survive. Experimental process, which fruits are safe to eat and which ones are not? Trial and error. This fruit tastes good and makes me feel well, this one does not. Therefore, through experimentation and scientific process, the hunter-gatherers to learn to survive. Learning to grow crops and irrigate fields.? Learning how to build huts and tools and weapons? All early examples of scientific research and experimentation.

Edit- Ninja'd!

 

[Nerys Myk]

Actually, science is exactly what allowed them to survive. Experimental process, which fruits are safe to eat and which ones are not? Trial and error. This fruit tastes good and makes me feel well, this one does not. Therefore, through experimentation and scientific process, the hunter-gatherers to learn to survive. Learning to grow crops and irrigate fields.? Learning how to build huts and tools and weapons? All early examples of scientific research and experimentation.

Edit- Ninja'd!

Yours was better

 

[Refuge]

Don't be silly that's farming.

 

[Tosk]

Don't be silly that's farming.

Farming is a science.

 

[Refuge]

It's management.

 

[Nerys Myk]

It's management.

Agriculture is science.

 

[Refuge]

Apparently eating and getting through the day is 'science' too for early man. Slap a scientist label on it number one

 

[Tosk]

How do you define science?

 

[indranee]

Hey! First post!
Another reviewer elsewhere said that DIscovery seems too small. Like - seriously, war ships don't have crew ready to take up slack security officers leave when felled in the line of duty? So Tyler's elevation to prominence should be causing morale problems outside of trust issues. These things are... just outside of reasonable, and take me out of the moment while watching.
Still - plot holes aside, this episode gives me hope for the future of Discovery.
QT

Welcome aboard! Get your seatbelt on
One reason I gave myself (LOL) is that Lorca doesn't trust anyone that quickly. He certainly may have put ALL his trust in Landry (just like he seemed to put it on Michael, and now Tyler).
He's a man for war, and war is a risky business where loyalty to one man is what some leaders are looking for.

 

[indranee]

That's not what "likeable" means.

care to elucidate?

 

[Nerys Myk]

How do you define science?

White coats and test tubes?

 

[rahullak]

And a vocabulary that's high-sounding.

 

[Jesse1066]

And a vocabulary that's high-sounding.

High like Stamets?

 

[Vger23]

Please...I beg you...stop talking about whether or not science is "gud" or "TEH sux".

 

[Vger23]

He committed betrayal when he opted not to mount a rescue. It was a big betrayal - he let a woman he cared about and had intimate relations with - just be stuck captured by Klingons.... who had JUST captured him. That's cold blooded. Perhaps the writers want us to think "he has nothing else!" but I would think that PTSD would mean he raced to her rescue even more than he raced to Sarak's rescue on Burnham's behalf. To me - this is bigger than the writers cn easily write their way through.

QT

He's done no such thing. Lorca asked Saru to wait for Starfleet to authorize a rescue mission. Lorca did not flat-out refuse to provide such a mission.



Cornwell is an Admiral. Lorca is a Captain. He could not possibly order her to do anything. Therefore, we can assume that Cornwell went on that mission because she chose to.

He beat me to it.

 

[Nerys Myk]

High like Stamets?

Groovy

 

[Mudd]

Yeaaaaaah, if you don't think the world is a safer place with science, just picture living back in hunter gatherer days where life was short, brutal, and sucked!

There is, in fact, reason to believe that pre-agricultural human beings often lived into their fifties, sixties and seventies - that is, if they survived infancy.

The "life expectancy myth" about our current civilization is based on the very high infant mortality rate of the pre-modern world. There has been some lengthening of our potential life span over the millennia, but not as dramatic as people now imagine. Are people in the developed world much healthier later in life than people a few centuries ago? Generally speaking, yeah.

Whether life was "brutish" and "sucked" in prehistoric times also depended on where a hunting/gathering group ranged. Again, folks today have a distorted image of what the world was like then - one might call it a Eurocentric image, since it's based largely on traditional renderings of Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon man on the European peninsula during an ice age. Since every hunting/gathering culture known other than those in very ice regions derives and derived most of its steady nutrition from the gathering part of the equation - meat is occasional and supplemental - people living in temperate and tropical climates did not necessarily have to work that hard or that often to feed themselves.

There's a neat little back-of-the-envelope equation - calories expended per calorie consumed for nourishment - that's revealing. Our civilization burns a tremendous amount more fuel in order to feed each human being than any in history.

 

[Mr Awe]

There is, in fact, reason to believe that pre-agricultural human beings often lived into their fifties, sixties and seventies - that is, if they survived infancy.

The "life expectancy myth" about our current civilization is based on the very high infant mortality rate of the pre-modern world. There has been some lengthening of our potential life span over the millennia, but not as dramatic as people now imagine. Are people in the developed world much healthier later in life than people a few centuries ago? Generally speaking, yeah.

Whether life was "brutish" and "sucked" in prehistoric times also depended on where a hunting/gathering group ranged. Again, folks today have a distorted image of what the world was like then - one might call it a Eurocentric image, since it's based largely on traditional renderings of Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon man on the European peninsula during an ice age. Since every hunting/gathering culture known other than those in very ice regions derives and derived most of its steady nutrition from the gathering part of the equation - meat is occasional and supplemental - people living in temperate and tropical climates did not necessarily have to work that hard or that often to feed themselves.

There's a neat little back-of-the-envelope equation - calories expended per calorie consumed for nourishment - that's revealing. Our civilization burns a tremendous amount more fuel in order to feed each human being than any in history.

All I know is that I want to live in a society with medicine, clean water, and good food. No doubt a few people lived to their 50s and beyond, but the average life expectancy of prehistoric humans was 20-35. No thanks!

"Dr. Trinkaus studied fossil records of humans from across Eurasia and of Neanderthals from the western half of Eurasia to estimate adult mortality. . . . . About 25 percent of adult humans and Neanderthals survived past 40." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/science/11obneanderthal.html

Totally agree though that some did make it to the ripe old age of 50! Just not too many. Now 50 is considered relatively short, which shows how much things have changed.

And, prehistoric life sucked relatively. You could die from an injury or an infection that is easily treatable today. Plus, they didn't have coffee.

I do totally agree about pre-historic people living in tropical climates. It probably was relatively easy to feed themselves. But, still, no coffee.

 

[Turtletrekker]

Don't be silly that's farming.

From Merriam-webster.com (emphasis mine)

Definition of agriculture
:the science, art, or practice of cultivating the soil, producing crops, and raising livestock and in varying degrees the preparation and marketing of the resulting products

• cleared the land to use it for agriculture