|
FreudianSlippers posted:Maybe for you people that live where trees grow on trees but over here we only had driftwood so unless you were rich enough to import wood you had to build your tiny mudhut hovel as tiny and hovely as possible. dude i literally have driftwood certs. you cant just grab wood off the beach, gotta pay the man. also pls dont speak to my transition lenses
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 02:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 10:46 |
|
|
Krankenstyle posted:false i know you guys are are talking about more recent periods but i've definitely read somewhere that in certain regions of europe at maximum second serfdom, where peasants had to reimburse their lords for absolutely everything they used off the land, that house designs were effectively funneled into making certain considerations so as to be as easy to heat as possible - not necessarily just room height per se but definitely things like creating inventive ways of passing heated smoke throughout the house the reason being that lovely lords could charge absolutely extortionist fees for things like using the mill, collecting firewood, letting your hogs forage on lands, etc; continental weather can get relatively extreme as well i'm not doubting the accuracy your figures for denmark, just adding that europe was such a mosaic different practices that it's a little precarious to generalize if by old houses we can mean pretty old
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 02:47
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I feel like it's veering into Turns out there's a lot of factors that influence height; everybody assumed it was just genetics setting your maximum potential height and then conditions like nutrition loving it up. Turns out that epigenetics is A Thing and certain genetic expression can turn on or off based on various factors. That and if a population of anything alive manages to survive in certain conditions for a time it will adapt to those conditions. This is why even if they're well fed you don't tend to get tall Inuit; being short and stocky is a pretty big advantage in cold climates so they just stay that way. Then you get stuff like the Sherpa having a beneficial mutation that makes their hearts more oxygen efficient or Polynesian people who live more or less permanently on house boats and dive for food having a specific set of physical adaptations to live that life. The human body is a really amazing thing; it's way more adaptable than we give it credit for. ToxicSlurpee has a new favorite as of 03:40 on Sep 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 03:15
|
|
but my understanding is that your potential height is rooted in your genetics and that some population regions, like west Africa and north Europe, have a notably high potential max height. (It's probably more like "the composite of various factors affecting how long your legs are, how long your spine is, and so on.") Most people realize a certain percentage of that potential while growing up, and nowadays, especially in the West, we have relatively few epidemics and relatively abundant food, so people are realizing more of that potential.
|
hard counter posted:i know you guys are are talking about more recent periods but i've definitely read somewhere that in certain regions of europe at maximum second serfdom, where peasants had to reimburse their lords for absolutely everything they used off the land, that house designs were effectively funneled into making certain considerations so as to be as easy to heat as possible - not necessarily just room height per se but definitely things like creating inventive ways of passing heated smoke throughout the house definitely lords will exploit as hard as they can but fair, when i say old/long time ago i mean before 1800.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 03:52
|
|
|
Krankenstyle posted:but compared to the 62.5 inch average it wasnt Look at the metric unit used.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 04:32
|
|
|
ubachung posted:Suits of armour were insanely expensive and it seems unlikely that smiths would go to the trouble of making them purely for display. Source: my brother is a blacksmith who specialises in recreating historically accurate armour and weapons. Because rich people have never had insanely expensive poo poo made to show off? And governments have never spent tons of money on military hardware that never sees real use?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 04:36
|
|
|
canyoneer posted:The late Sudanese American basketball player Manute Bol was 7'7". He says his great grandfather was 7'10" The man Bol is beside is Spud Webb. He was listed as 5'7". Webb won the 1986 NBA Slam Dunk competition. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1YRJvFvlgg
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 05:10
|
|
|
I'm not questioning that decorative or display armour exists, I just don't think it's a major factor in why historical armour often appears small to modern people. I think other goons covered it pretty well; armour made for younger people generally survived better, suits on mannequins don't sit the same as on a person, and depending on nutrition and region people were often smaller too. The average suit of surviving armour tends to be smaller than we'd expect, and it tends to look smaller still when it's not on a person. On the other hand there is plenty of evidence that there was big armour made for big people. It's just not as easy to find surviving examples.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 05:24
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I feel like it's veering into I saw on a video once that those giant statues outside ancient Egyptian temples and palaces are life size, because your body gets bigger the more levels of enlightenment you attain, and the ancients were pretty enlightened. The historical source for this is, of course, the Egyptian god Thoth (actually an ancient Atlantean king or something?) communicating to some guy who wrote it down via telepathy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 08:45
|
|
|
Of course the bin chickens know all the answers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 09:09
|
|
|
canyoneer posted:Ever wondered how you poop on a sailing ship? Not on the poop deck, that's for sure (that comes from French word for the stern of the ship, la poupe) Now consider that on a big warship, a few hundred people would do this every day*. And that such a ship might be becalmed for several weeks in the tropics. * Except for those suffering from constipation and other intestinal disorders, which were quite a few, due to their diet. Disclaimer: This all comes from Patrick O'Brien's fiction.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 18:56
|
|
|
Why wouldn't you poop in a chamber pot then tie a rope to the chamber pot and throw that over the side to clean it? Sounds like people were poop stuntin because they could.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 19:28
|
|
|
The not so ancients were not as enlightened as the ancients
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 21:57
|
|
|
zedprime posted:Why wouldn't you poop in a chamber pot then tie a rope to the chamber pot and throw that over the side to clean it? And slow down the ship? You're out of your mind! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9IJyFaI3_M
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 23:02
|
|
|
The way I figure is that they probably have pots for poopin in when necessary but sailors just find it more convenient to poop over the side when they're already out there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 08:24
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:The way I figure is that they probably have pots for poopin in when necessary but sailors just find it more convenient to poop over the side when they're already out there. Yeah, just be wary of doing that if the Captain has seized mystical seashells from the Formosan travelers tho.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 10:09
|
|
|
Samovar posted:Yeah, just be wary of doing that if the Captain has seized mystical seashells from the Formosan travelers tho. You need at least 3 seashells to poop properly though
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 15:48
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:The way I figure is that they probably have pots for poopin in when necessary but sailors just find it more convenient to poop over the side when they're already out there. i've read that on longboat-style ships the preferred way of poopin' was hanging over the side and having your buddies brace you but i had assumed that was a consequence of cramming so many people on a ship with such a shallow draft, narrow design where zero privacy was a given - can't speak for other vessels tho either way it beats going right where you are in church 
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 17:22
|
|
|
The book Robinson Crusoe was based off the real story of Alexander Selkirk, a Scottish sailor and privateer who was marooned on the Juan Fernandez islands for 4 years and 4 months. There was a sizable population of feral goats on the island, left there by sailors long ago. He would chase them and kill them for meat and skins. Also, he had sex with the goats. This was not included in the book Robinson Crusoe.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 17:43
|
|
|
By all accounts Selkirk was a violent drunk who was probably better suited to be marooned on an isolated island than being around other people. But his story is actually really amazing. He was only allowed to take a musket and some personal belongings (including a bottle of rum and a bible) with him and he managed to not only survive for four years but actually thrive. He certainly had a better time than Leendert Hasenbosch who was marooned as punishment for sodomy. He was put ashore on Ascension Island where the portuguese had earlier introduced goats to in order for the island to be a place where they could hunt for provision. Despite this Hasenbosch had a miserable time, he failed at killing any goats, couldn't find any of the freshwater springs and after six months of drinking turtle blood and his own urine he died of thirst. His diary was later published with the title Sodomy Punish'd.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 18:45
|
|
|
Not goats, but the same practice with feral hogs is why there's such a problem with them. They were dropped into North America to provide a roaming, rapidly reproducing food source that spread so fast that they traversed the country before European colonizers could. The "30-50 feral hogs in 3-5 minutes" tweet is funny, but they're a legitimate problem with how fast they reproduce and destroy crops. The only things that could actually stymie their numbers would also cause widespread ecological destruction.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 19:51
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:widespread ecological destruction. Don't worry, we're on it!
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 19:57
|
|
|
banging 30-50 feral hogs
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 20:27
|
|
|
canyoneer posted:Also, he had sex with the goats. This was not included in the book Robinson Crusoe. For real? I googled "alexander selkirk goatfucker" and found nothing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 20:31
|
|
|
Gargamel Gibson posted:For real? I googled "alexander selkirk goatfucker" and found nothing. I read it in a book last night. Shipwrecked by Evan Balkan, got it from a Humble book bundle. quote:He fashioned tools, became adept at catching goats—some of them for fornication, others for food and pelts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 21:26
|
|
|
canyoneer posted:banging 30-50 feral hogs So you've dated in my hometown then
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 22:48
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Not goats, but the same practice with feral hogs is why there's such a problem with them. They were dropped into North America to provide a roaming, rapidly reproducing food source that spread so fast that they traversed the country before European colonizers could. The "30-50 feral hogs in 3-5 minutes" tweet is funny, but they're a legitimate problem with how fast they reproduce and destroy crops. The only things that could actually stymie their numbers would also cause widespread ecological destruction. i cant find it but there's a really good twitter thread by a professor about how hogs were a big tool in colonization, and how the entire concept of being feral has roots in colonialism
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 15:46
|
|
|
Kanine posted:i cant find it but there's a really good twitter thread by a professor about how hogs were a big tool in colonization, and how the entire concept of being feral has roots in colonialism I read it, but I found it going too far into the narrative that everything Europeans did when colonizing was sociopathic destruction, either ridiculous levels of neglect or outright malice. The concept of an "invasive species" didn't even exist at the time this was standard practice (including on the many uninhabited islands they found while sailing around). Nobody, Native Americans included, could have predicted that dropping some pigs on the continent could lead to them spreading by the millions and wrecking crops. Hawaii, for instance, had virtually no native edible crops or animals; most of the "native" food is actually Polynesian species brought over by the initial colonizers. It's easy to end up going too far to the woke side and applying modern perspectives to history that didn't exist at the time. Many of the practices that led to the modern chaos in the roots of colonialism emerged from actions that a lot of countries, kingdoms, and tribes took among themselves and their neighbors. What changed was one of those groups getting big enough and with sufficiently advanced technology that they could cock up whole continents by doing it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 15:57
|
|
|
People were real stupid about invasive species for a shockingly long time. For example the european starling was introduced to America in 1890 because those admiring the works of Shakespeare wanted to see all the birds mentioned in his creations represented in North America. It is estimated that the starling causes damages worth 800 million dollars each year.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 17:31
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:People were real stupid about invasive species for a shockingly long time. For example the european starling was introduced to America in 1890 because those admiring the works of Shakespeare wanted to see all the birds mentioned in his creations represented in North America. It is estimated that the starling causes damages worth 800 million dollars each year. See also rabbits in Australia.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 08:16
|
|
|
Samovar posted:See also rabbits in Australia. In 1850 New Zealand asked Australia for advise about getting rid of their rabbits. No problem mate, just introduce these bushtailed possums was Australia's response. Turns out possums don't give a gently caress about rabbits but loves to gently caress up the native species with diseases and general fuckery.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 10:25
|
|
|
Australia does not have a great track record against wildlife.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 10:26
|
|
|
Anyone in the mood for a hoorifying documentary about invasive species should watch Darwin's Nightmare.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 10:27
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Australia does not have a great track record against wildlife. To be fair, no country does. Someone introduced Bambi Dracula to Britain because there was no way that was gonna go horribly wrong.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 10:33
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:To be fair, no country does. Someone introduced Bambi Dracula to Britain because there was no way that was gonna go horribly wrong.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 10:40
|
|
|
otoh wolves are back in Denmark which is p badass
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 10:50
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:I read it, but I found it going too far into the narrative that everything Europeans did when colonizing was sociopathic destruction, either ridiculous levels of neglect or outright malice. The concept of an "invasive species" didn't even exist at the time this was standard practice (including on the many uninhabited islands they found while sailing around). Nobody, Native Americans included, could have predicted that dropping some pigs on the continent could lead to them spreading by the millions and wrecking crops. Hawaii, for instance, had virtually no native edible crops or animals; most of the "native" food is actually Polynesian species brought over by the initial colonizers. Dropping pigs off as a backup pig larder into new land is then a neat encapsulation of the attitude that since we're the first people here (natives don't count) we can drop out pigs off and our pigs can live in our forest. Oh yeah the land is ours. Why wouldn't it be? E. Pig farming history is really cool. Modern pig farms where they are slopped in a pen and never leave are incredibly recent as the economics of feeding a pig feed sucked. I can't find the details again but there's a part of of me that wants to say letting your pig range during acorn season was economically required up until the last agricultural revolution around the Haber process. Each revolution before then just cutting out a season you needed to let your pigs range. zedprime has a new favorite as of 13:52 on Sep 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 13:47
|
|
|
If the natives hadn’t been nearly wiped out by infectious disease, it would have been cool if they’d killed all the pigs like it’s hypothesised their ancestors did to the North American megafauna. It’s pathetic that twenty‐first‐century America can’t lick the hogs with hundreds of millions of modern firearms.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 13:52
|
|
|
zedprime posted:Oh yeah the land is ours. Why wouldn't it be? They didn't have a flag and we did. It's all fair game 
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 13:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 10:46 |
|
|
Platystemon posted:If the natives hadn’t been nearly wiped out by infectious disease, it would have been cool if they’d killed all the pigs like it’s hypothesised their ancestors did to the North American megafauna. There is a reason the ancestors of the feral hogs lived on and the decadent megafauna did not
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 13:55
|
|