Ah the beginning of a New Year, time to set a resolution and make a change. For most people, it is health related. Sometimes it can be to give up a bad habit, such as smoking or drinking. But by and large it is about “making an improvement”.
This personal enhancement normally is based around two things, losing weight or getting fitter.
Before we start, first ask yourself why you have set yourself a resolution.
It is basic human psychology that achieving something that doesn’t have a professional motivation (that is, that you wouldn’t do day to day for your job) is easier done if it is started with a landmark setting.
We want to feel good about ourselves, and promising change always gives us a mental boost. This is often a bad thing, because we go insanely crazy over December because we know we are going to change our lives with a trusty resolution. In Australia, alcohol and calorie consumption triples over the last month of the calendar year.
So come December 31st, we need to make a change to our lives.
New Years Eve suits this down to a T.
But are you making a resolution just so you have something to say to someone who asks? Or are you doing it because you genuinely want to make a change?
So, why do you want to make that change?
Is it based on a person that is far bigger than he or she should be looking back at you in the mirror? Is it because a certain item of clothing doesn’t fit you anymore? Or is it that when you ran ecstatically into the ocean while at the beach, you realised once in the water than you felt like you had just run a marathon?
Hence, the reason for the resolution, but beware.
A resolution is just a statement of words. No resolution will ever be achieved without action, or more importantly, without change and sacrifice.
A New Year brings a second chance. But if we are really going to make it, we have got to be tough.
A good number of people break a resolution within 24-48 hours. I am never drinking again is destroyed by the fact that you still have beer in the fridge from New Years Eve and only that wonderful looking cold brew will take away the pain.
A third will break their resolutions within a week, and over half within the month.
I don’t mean to insult those who have already failed their resolutions, but this is about helping those who are still going strong.
With the most determined look on your face, yell this inside of your head.
I AM NOT A QUITTER. I AM NOT A FAILURE. I CAN ACHIEVE SOMETHING THAT I SET MY MIND TOO.
Because remember, you have made the resolution because you want to change something. And I am sure we can agree that the change is from something bad. It is hardly as if your New Year’s Resolution is to stop admiring attractive members of the opposite sex, or to no longer brush your teeth.
You are changing something that NEEDS CHANGING.
Now for the actual resolution!
A good thing to do is to actually give it the seriousness it deserves and sit down with a piece of paper. Under one heading write the bad things that will happen if you don’t make the change, and then make a list of the good things that will happen if you do.
Smoking (a common resolution) could have lung cancer, yucky smelly breath, statistically a 25% increased chance of dying, massively reduced fitness, even ineffective circulation that can affect your sex drive as the bad things
And the benefits are all but the exact opposite.
Aspects such as diet and exercise can be difficult, because make no mistake, they are hard aspects to change. We are creatures of habit and to make a change can be hard. Circumstances and lifestyle can make this difficult as well.
The good news is, if you persist, within weeks it becomes easier and easier.
For diet, here are some helpful tips.
• Every single thing you put through your mouth, food or liquid, affects your health. Think of this every time you eat or drink, especially in the initial weeks.
• Your choice affects you the next day. A day of bad food and drink and you feel and look like crap the following day. A day of healthy eating with fresh juices, herb tea and plenty of water make you feel great the next day. EVERYTHING HAS A REPRUCUSSION
• When you first make changes, the desired health or good feeling might not kick in straight away. This is natural, as your body needs to detox and get rid of bad crap that might lurk in your body. Keep at it.
• To eat well, you must always plan ahead. Bad eating is often the result of poor organisation. To be healthy you must do basic things like go to a fruit and vegetable market or go shopping regularly. Don’t do this and you will be more prone to get bad stuff like takeaways.
• Make little changes. Even healthy stuff can be bad for you. Think of a Subway sandwich, the healthiest “fast food”. Why eat white bread when they have wholemeal, a far more nutritional beneficial food source. Why get sauce or mayo, when you can go without, or if you can’t, ask for just a tiny dash.
• Finally, at the initial stages your biggest enemy is your taste buds. They want rich food. But take that away from them, and they will get used to it. A fantastic example is milk. Go from full cream to trim, and then from trim to low fat, and then every try non fat. At first you will think the better alternative tastes like water, but after a while, try and go back to the fatter alternatives. It will be gross. Train your taste buds.
With exercise, it can be difficult, but the benefits are immense.
• The first few times will be horrible, but with each time it will get easier and more enjoyable, BUT YOU MUST STICK TO IT. Beginners to training regimes have one immense advantage, the benefits and changes will kick in very quickly.
• When struggling, think of what you would do if you don’t go to the gym. Often, people go to the gym at night. If you don’t go, what are you going to do, watch TV? Will that hour of television benefit you in the coming days? As hard as a gym session can be, think of the benefits in the coming days, weeks, months and years.
• Just get in there. The hardest part of training is getting to the gym, or going outside to run, and so on. But once you start it gets easier, and at the end of your training session, the feeling of achievement is awesome. Get addicted.
• Consistently think of all the new things that will occur. You will be fitter, and won’t get puffed when walking up some stairs. You will be stronger, and can lift your kids with more ease. You will live longer, be at less risk of illness or disease, and the list goes on. Always think of the benefits.
At the end of the day, remember why you made these resolutions in the first place.
You wanted to make a change.
And you are going to make it happen.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Does a new financial and credit crisis loom due to the measures designed to stop it?
It is with almost terrifying certainty that another crisis threatens due to the extraordinary measures that have been undertaken to prevent the current problems ballooning into a full system shut down.
Most of this can be traced back to the remarkable phenomena of bubbles, many of which still exist hidden between deep within financial markets. These speculative price illusions will always exist, due to the adeptness of certain firms at inflating the particular value of a specific asset.
This occurs on a day to day basis. Property can have a 10-15 percent price variance based on the value given by a particular market index or estimated review.
Even now this is occurring, as damaged markets try to recover.
For all of the severity of the crisis, and the harm caused to global stocks, banks, property and the gross domestic products of nearly every country in the world, there are still massive amounts of money in the world market.
Or more accurately, and dangerously, still abundant amounts of credit. True, large amounts of it have subsided, mostly due to the fact that banks have become more aware of the inherent risk (especially in interbank trading) but either way, the world’s growth is and always will be supported by the foundation of lent monies.
In essence, this could be traced back to the root of all the problems, as the modern day blur between actual money and credit has blurred.
As a New York businessman (who wished to remain anonymous) said “if it was measured in actual money, I would be close to broke, but in terms of credit, I am one of the richest men in the city!”
Many of the measures in place now throughout the world economy are a deadly combination of low interest rates, low asset prices, and incredible opportunity.
There is also the swing of debt from the private sector to the public sector. It is quite incongruous to think that arguably the chief architects of this crisis in the banking districts are now better off due massive influx of taxpayers moneys. The world’s debt, for so long part of the risk takers and entrepreneurs, now are saddled with the world’s governments.
But there are a lot of prospects in the world for those who know how to look and how to leverage, and many banks will look at excessive risk taking to recoup heavy losses over the last two years.
Some financial markets have made strong gains in the last two or three quarters, and pockets of banks and fund managers have emerged “from the ashes” almost too strongly. Many European and American Central Bank officials have said that the performance of these institutions is against the grain, and show some uncomfortable parallels that were seen prior to previous disasters.
The same resemblances are being seen with some economist’s views of capitalism, stressing that one of the cores of the predominantly western economic system is that it often lends itself to auto-correction.
However, the laissez-faire approach of free market economies was seen as being largely responsible, as organisations ran rampant without any restrictions or impositions from their governments. Now, should not central banks and countries treasuries be reversing modern trend and putting in, dare we say it, slightly communist principles.
After all, those same governments effectively disregarded the basic tenets of “capitalism” when pumping taxpayer’s money into the system to stabilise it, which then meant that governments around the world suddenly had stakes in large portions of the private sector.
Governments all round the world have actively looked to impose some restrictions and measures on businesses, the most dominant being the curbing of executive payments.
But risk taking is inherently part of the free market model and capitalism.
Would the governments have been able to pump trillions of dollars into the markets if they themselves had not profited from the remarkable levels of income that the leading financial institutions had sustained for the years leading into the crisis.
Lest we forget, the world’s economic growth was humming along at an astronomical rate after the dot.com crash.
But now there are so many opportunities, as the “dead shells” of so many businesses and industries represent massive prospects, and despite the fact that the financial system is still recovering, there are trillions of dollars circulating now that weren’t in place before, thanks to government stimulus packages.
The real fear is that as businesses and banks move to rebuild their balance sheets, it is hard to be allayed that they will not (are not) making the same fundamental errors that caused the system meltdown in the first place.
The world we live in now is a credit based economy, and often the measurement and assessment of such credit is based on the value of assets, bonds, shares and the like, which as history has now proven to us, are susceptible to bubbles and inaccurate price portrayals.
The crisis wasn’t so much a crisis as a giant “correction”, and for all of the opportunities and growth afforded by capitalism and a free market mentality, the reality is that it is likely that we will be prone to another such correction in the coming years.
But with governments encumbered with record debt levels, what will be the solution and fix next time round?
Most of this can be traced back to the remarkable phenomena of bubbles, many of which still exist hidden between deep within financial markets. These speculative price illusions will always exist, due to the adeptness of certain firms at inflating the particular value of a specific asset.
This occurs on a day to day basis. Property can have a 10-15 percent price variance based on the value given by a particular market index or estimated review.
Even now this is occurring, as damaged markets try to recover.
For all of the severity of the crisis, and the harm caused to global stocks, banks, property and the gross domestic products of nearly every country in the world, there are still massive amounts of money in the world market.
Or more accurately, and dangerously, still abundant amounts of credit. True, large amounts of it have subsided, mostly due to the fact that banks have become more aware of the inherent risk (especially in interbank trading) but either way, the world’s growth is and always will be supported by the foundation of lent monies.
In essence, this could be traced back to the root of all the problems, as the modern day blur between actual money and credit has blurred.
As a New York businessman (who wished to remain anonymous) said “if it was measured in actual money, I would be close to broke, but in terms of credit, I am one of the richest men in the city!”
Many of the measures in place now throughout the world economy are a deadly combination of low interest rates, low asset prices, and incredible opportunity.
There is also the swing of debt from the private sector to the public sector. It is quite incongruous to think that arguably the chief architects of this crisis in the banking districts are now better off due massive influx of taxpayers moneys. The world’s debt, for so long part of the risk takers and entrepreneurs, now are saddled with the world’s governments.
But there are a lot of prospects in the world for those who know how to look and how to leverage, and many banks will look at excessive risk taking to recoup heavy losses over the last two years.
Some financial markets have made strong gains in the last two or three quarters, and pockets of banks and fund managers have emerged “from the ashes” almost too strongly. Many European and American Central Bank officials have said that the performance of these institutions is against the grain, and show some uncomfortable parallels that were seen prior to previous disasters.
The same resemblances are being seen with some economist’s views of capitalism, stressing that one of the cores of the predominantly western economic system is that it often lends itself to auto-correction.
However, the laissez-faire approach of free market economies was seen as being largely responsible, as organisations ran rampant without any restrictions or impositions from their governments. Now, should not central banks and countries treasuries be reversing modern trend and putting in, dare we say it, slightly communist principles.
After all, those same governments effectively disregarded the basic tenets of “capitalism” when pumping taxpayer’s money into the system to stabilise it, which then meant that governments around the world suddenly had stakes in large portions of the private sector.
Governments all round the world have actively looked to impose some restrictions and measures on businesses, the most dominant being the curbing of executive payments.
But risk taking is inherently part of the free market model and capitalism.
Would the governments have been able to pump trillions of dollars into the markets if they themselves had not profited from the remarkable levels of income that the leading financial institutions had sustained for the years leading into the crisis.
Lest we forget, the world’s economic growth was humming along at an astronomical rate after the dot.com crash.
But now there are so many opportunities, as the “dead shells” of so many businesses and industries represent massive prospects, and despite the fact that the financial system is still recovering, there are trillions of dollars circulating now that weren’t in place before, thanks to government stimulus packages.
The real fear is that as businesses and banks move to rebuild their balance sheets, it is hard to be allayed that they will not (are not) making the same fundamental errors that caused the system meltdown in the first place.
The world we live in now is a credit based economy, and often the measurement and assessment of such credit is based on the value of assets, bonds, shares and the like, which as history has now proven to us, are susceptible to bubbles and inaccurate price portrayals.
The crisis wasn’t so much a crisis as a giant “correction”, and for all of the opportunities and growth afforded by capitalism and a free market mentality, the reality is that it is likely that we will be prone to another such correction in the coming years.
But with governments encumbered with record debt levels, what will be the solution and fix next time round?
Friday, December 4, 2009
Has Obama made his first real mistake with the 30,000 troop surge?
President Barack Obama has signed off on an increase of United States soldiers to Afghanistan. In many respects his hands were tied, as it is now firmly part of the American strategy to make some obvious progress in the country.
The reality is that America, under both the Bush and Obama administrations have clearly stated that Afghanistan is the major thorn and threat to the free world.
The triple threat of al-Qaida, the growing strength (audacity?) of the Taliban and the presence of a nuclear armed and unstable government in Pakistan means that the United States yet again has to fight a different style of war.
In essence, it is a variation of the containment doctrine that the United States has followed in previous conflicts. While it is not to prevent the spread of communism as such, again the Americans are taking the security of their own country and the world into their own hands.
Some might mockingly call them the “world’s toughest cop” but again they find themselves doing the dirty work that few if any nations could or would wish to undertake.
Others believe that the United States has a point to prove after effectively losing the Iraq conflict. This though is a matter of opinion, and it is impossible realistically to quantify success in a modern war theatre. The final word on the Iraq conflict might be “well were there ever weapons of mass destruction”, but more prudently one should ask “Is the country and the world a better place for the absence of a certain Saddam Hussein”.
But while it is a vastly different conflict, there are basic comparisons with Afghanistan and Vietnam. Perhaps not with the cause or conflict itself, but in the situation that the United States again finds itself in, struggling to define an exit strategy.
These are not the simple days of World War Two when the mission parameter was essentially to defeat Germany and Japan. These are complex conflicts where the hardest part of the question is how can America confirm that the job is done (if they even know themselves what they are trying to ultimately achieve), and how do you then just up and leave.
Richard Nixon campaigned in 1968 to withdraw from Vietnam in his run to the presidency, but it took years before an effective exit strategy could begin.
The Nixon Doctrine, or Vietnamization, is essentially what America is trying to achieve on two fronts, both in Iraq and Afghanistan. But trying to prepare a country to fend for itself is almost an impossible task. Most of these areas have survived and become dependent on United States support, but the worse and possibly the most ignored lesson in all of this is Afghanistan itself.
It is a country well used to resisting occupying forces.
Throughout history the country has been conquered and subjugated by the Median and Persian Empires. Alexander the Great counted it among his territories, and the Turks and Mongols have ruled over the land.
In modern history, the USSR (nearly 30 years ago) invaded the country, and it was the Afghan Mujahideen that enabled the country to eventually set in motion the Soviets withdrawal in 1988/89.
Ironically they were funded largely by the Americans, but many believe that the United States and their allies did not adequately initiate any form of handover or help the country recover from a damaging ten year war.
As many people left Afghanistan, continuing infighting between Mujahideen and other local factions led to warlords rising and territorial battles. This was a contributing factor to the rise of the Taliban, which led to the Sunni Islamist movement eventually capturing Kabul in 1996, and years later controlled over 90% of the country.
Perhaps America feels as if they themselves spawned the Taliban.
But while al-Qaida and strengthening Pakistan is key; it is the essential removal of the Taliban that will be foremost amongst the United States objectives.
The surge – which had remarkable success in Iraq – will inflate troop numbers to nearly 100,000.
Also, which surprised many, Obama attached a deadline of withdrawal. This has been said by many, especially the Republicans, to be terrible mistake. As an Afghan sympathiser said to a high ranking American official of late “you might have all the watches, but we have all the time.”
With the deadline, the Taliban and insurgents may adopt a mere holding pattern, and patiently wait until the American withdrawal.
This is a United States machine that has as much practical war experience in the last seventy years as any fighting force seen over history. They might make mistakes time to time, but the most heavily funding military power the world has ever seen does have the resources and offensive force to beat this enemy.
But it is not a small mission.
Afghanistan is nearly a quarter of a million miles squared, with a population of nearly 30 million people. Current estimates put the Taliban forces at approximately 25,000-30,000.
As previous conflicts have shown, it is not so much about winning the war, but about putting the parameters in place to ensure that the war effort and billions of US Taxpayers dollars are not wasted if the country descends into strife months or years after American departure.
Is it a mistake on Obama’s part?
Perhaps it is, and there is no mistaking the irony that the current Nobel Prize peace winner has endorsed increased military presence and activity in the country.
But it is a no-win situation at this time. His experts on the ground demanded more troops, and few Presidents openly challenge or ignore the advice coming from the Pentagon.
The key now for Obama in making this commitment is making sure that there is a quantifiable result. That is the big difference in the United States and the Taliban.
The commander in chief has to make sure his constituents are sated, the Taliban warlords do not.
Who will blink first?
The reality is that America, under both the Bush and Obama administrations have clearly stated that Afghanistan is the major thorn and threat to the free world.
The triple threat of al-Qaida, the growing strength (audacity?) of the Taliban and the presence of a nuclear armed and unstable government in Pakistan means that the United States yet again has to fight a different style of war.
In essence, it is a variation of the containment doctrine that the United States has followed in previous conflicts. While it is not to prevent the spread of communism as such, again the Americans are taking the security of their own country and the world into their own hands.
Some might mockingly call them the “world’s toughest cop” but again they find themselves doing the dirty work that few if any nations could or would wish to undertake.
Others believe that the United States has a point to prove after effectively losing the Iraq conflict. This though is a matter of opinion, and it is impossible realistically to quantify success in a modern war theatre. The final word on the Iraq conflict might be “well were there ever weapons of mass destruction”, but more prudently one should ask “Is the country and the world a better place for the absence of a certain Saddam Hussein”.
But while it is a vastly different conflict, there are basic comparisons with Afghanistan and Vietnam. Perhaps not with the cause or conflict itself, but in the situation that the United States again finds itself in, struggling to define an exit strategy.
These are not the simple days of World War Two when the mission parameter was essentially to defeat Germany and Japan. These are complex conflicts where the hardest part of the question is how can America confirm that the job is done (if they even know themselves what they are trying to ultimately achieve), and how do you then just up and leave.
Richard Nixon campaigned in 1968 to withdraw from Vietnam in his run to the presidency, but it took years before an effective exit strategy could begin.
The Nixon Doctrine, or Vietnamization, is essentially what America is trying to achieve on two fronts, both in Iraq and Afghanistan. But trying to prepare a country to fend for itself is almost an impossible task. Most of these areas have survived and become dependent on United States support, but the worse and possibly the most ignored lesson in all of this is Afghanistan itself.
It is a country well used to resisting occupying forces.
Throughout history the country has been conquered and subjugated by the Median and Persian Empires. Alexander the Great counted it among his territories, and the Turks and Mongols have ruled over the land.
In modern history, the USSR (nearly 30 years ago) invaded the country, and it was the Afghan Mujahideen that enabled the country to eventually set in motion the Soviets withdrawal in 1988/89.
Ironically they were funded largely by the Americans, but many believe that the United States and their allies did not adequately initiate any form of handover or help the country recover from a damaging ten year war.
As many people left Afghanistan, continuing infighting between Mujahideen and other local factions led to warlords rising and territorial battles. This was a contributing factor to the rise of the Taliban, which led to the Sunni Islamist movement eventually capturing Kabul in 1996, and years later controlled over 90% of the country.
Perhaps America feels as if they themselves spawned the Taliban.
But while al-Qaida and strengthening Pakistan is key; it is the essential removal of the Taliban that will be foremost amongst the United States objectives.
The surge – which had remarkable success in Iraq – will inflate troop numbers to nearly 100,000.
Also, which surprised many, Obama attached a deadline of withdrawal. This has been said by many, especially the Republicans, to be terrible mistake. As an Afghan sympathiser said to a high ranking American official of late “you might have all the watches, but we have all the time.”
With the deadline, the Taliban and insurgents may adopt a mere holding pattern, and patiently wait until the American withdrawal.
This is a United States machine that has as much practical war experience in the last seventy years as any fighting force seen over history. They might make mistakes time to time, but the most heavily funding military power the world has ever seen does have the resources and offensive force to beat this enemy.
But it is not a small mission.
Afghanistan is nearly a quarter of a million miles squared, with a population of nearly 30 million people. Current estimates put the Taliban forces at approximately 25,000-30,000.
As previous conflicts have shown, it is not so much about winning the war, but about putting the parameters in place to ensure that the war effort and billions of US Taxpayers dollars are not wasted if the country descends into strife months or years after American departure.
Is it a mistake on Obama’s part?
Perhaps it is, and there is no mistaking the irony that the current Nobel Prize peace winner has endorsed increased military presence and activity in the country.
But it is a no-win situation at this time. His experts on the ground demanded more troops, and few Presidents openly challenge or ignore the advice coming from the Pentagon.
The key now for Obama in making this commitment is making sure that there is a quantifiable result. That is the big difference in the United States and the Taliban.
The commander in chief has to make sure his constituents are sated, the Taliban warlords do not.
Who will blink first?
Friday, November 27, 2009
Korea - As we commemorate one wall’s fall, what about the other?
This past month has seen the celebration of the fall of the Berlin Wall, which many believe signalled the end of communism in Europe. But as celebrations abound in Germany, are we any closer to seeing the fall of the other foreboding divide in the world?
The tension that still exists in divided Korea comes after reports earlier this month that a small fire fight erupted in the yellow sea, after a North Korean naval vessel crossed the disputed Northern Limit Line, the demarcation boundary (meaning essentially a temporary “geopolitical” border) in the yellow sea.
One of many disputed precincts between the two countries.
The up and down relationship between the nations had appeared to be cooling, after reaching an apex this year after North Korea tested nuclear devices despite United Nations sanctions.
The North Korean vessel had crossed the NLL at 11:27 am local time, had ignored five warnings, and then fired upon the South Korean vessel before they returned fire. This was from a statement from Seoul and the countries Chiefs of Staff.
Naturally the North offered a different story, and has asked for a formal apology for the “grave armed provocation”, stating that they were fired upon while north of the disputed border.
Now, reports have also emerged that South Korea executed at least 4,934 civilians (and some believe the numbers may actually be in the tens of thousands) between June and September 1950, when South Korean and US forces retreated before the onslaught of the invading Northern forces.
It was thought that the civilians were communist sympathisers.
These events bring into focus the single greatest divide between nations that still exists on the planet. One of the demarcation boundaries is mentioned above. The other border line is the Korean Demilitarized Zone, although to call it a wall as such is not technically correct.
But it remains the last “Berlin wall” on the planet.
This strip of land runs across the Korean Peninsula and effectively is the boundary proper between North and South Korea. The DMZ crosses the “38th Parallel” on an angle.
NOTE: The 38th Parallel is the circle of latitude that is 38 degrees north of the planets equatorial plane. It passes through Spain, Portugal, Greece, etc.
The DMZ is over 150 miles long and approximately 2.5 miles wide; this area of width effectively constitutes a killing zone, and the area is the most heavily militarized border on Earth.
It was formally created at the conclusion of the Korean War. This war, largely seen as a clash of greater powers other than the Koreans, was caused due to similar principles that affected Germany. Korea was effectively divided between the Soviets and the Americans.
While both North (USSR) and South (US) Korea were occupied, the Americans withdrew their military forces in 1949, while the Soviet Union reportedly sent large amounts of military resources to equip Kim Il-sung for an invasion of the South – although it is important to note that archival evidence does paint differing pictures, with some believing the North Korean prime minister/party chairman responsible, others saying it was Soviet design.
But most prudent is the fact that The Korean War technically has not ended.
After the invasion on the 25th June 1950, a cease fire armistice was declared on the 27th July 1953. No formal peace treaty has been signed.
Since then there has been an uneasy tension between the countries with no major power, not the United States, Russia or China able to officially end the conflict (or as some conspiracy theorists offer, unwilling to end the standoff).
There has been progress, although there is still much unease, not only between the two countries, but with the larger, silent players, such as the United States, Russia and China.
The Sunshine Policy, implemented in 1998 by then South Korean President Kim Dae Jung, was seen as the first major step towards peace and unification of the two countries. Jung was award the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts for the policy.
However, the process was criticised in some quarters as it ignored many aspects of the “negative and oppressive” nature of the Northern regime.
In August of 2000, the June 15th North South Joint Declaration moved ahead. It declared:
• "The North and the South agreed to solve the question of the country’s reunification independently by the concerted efforts of the Korean nation responsible for it.
• "The North and the South, recognizing that the low-level federation proposed by the North and the commonwealth system proposed by the South for the reunification of the country have similarity, agreed to work together for the reunification in this direction in the future.
• "The North and the South agreed to settle humanitarian issues as early as possible, including the exchange of visiting groups of separated families and relatives and the issue of unconverted long-term prisoners, to mark August 15 this year.
• "The North and the South agreed to promote the balanced development of the national economy through economic cooperation and build mutual confidence by activating cooperation and exchange in all fields, social, cultural, sports, public health, environmental and so on.
• "The North and the South agreed to hold an authority-to-authority negotiation as soon as possible to put the above-mentioned agreed points into speedy operation.
There are many hurdles, not withstanding that the countries have now been separated for 60 years.
South Korea, one of the Four Asian Tigers (or the Miracle on the Han) is a beacon of economic success. Ranked 15th in the GDP classifications of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank (just behind Australia), South Korea is a member of the G 20 and a high income OECD member.
Furthermore, South Korea is the world’s largest builder of ships (in 2008 the country made approximately half of the worlds ship in gross tonnage and ships built) the fourth largest carmaker, and arguably the dominant member of the “next eleven” – one of the countries said to be on the verge of becoming a world leading economic power.
North Korea is a communist country, just ranked in the top 100 in terms of GDP. They are one of only a handful of remaining socialist states in the world, and are one of only two countries to have a completely government planned and state owned economy.
This isolationist policy restricts international and free trade, hence severely handicapping economic growth. Their economy is slowly growing, but lags behind developed countries. Sanctions are often imposed on the country, and the regime often alienates itself with the international community.
The advantage for Korea as a unified country is that North Korea is in many respects an untapped resource, with cheap and young labour.
Still, the culture and sociology of the countries is vastly different, and as it was with Germany, the bridging of what are now two separate cultures will take a huge amount of work. But for the sake of all Koreans, one hopes that the slow progress towards integration can occur in our lifetimes.
The tension that still exists in divided Korea comes after reports earlier this month that a small fire fight erupted in the yellow sea, after a North Korean naval vessel crossed the disputed Northern Limit Line, the demarcation boundary (meaning essentially a temporary “geopolitical” border) in the yellow sea.
One of many disputed precincts between the two countries.
The up and down relationship between the nations had appeared to be cooling, after reaching an apex this year after North Korea tested nuclear devices despite United Nations sanctions.
The North Korean vessel had crossed the NLL at 11:27 am local time, had ignored five warnings, and then fired upon the South Korean vessel before they returned fire. This was from a statement from Seoul and the countries Chiefs of Staff.
Naturally the North offered a different story, and has asked for a formal apology for the “grave armed provocation”, stating that they were fired upon while north of the disputed border.
Now, reports have also emerged that South Korea executed at least 4,934 civilians (and some believe the numbers may actually be in the tens of thousands) between June and September 1950, when South Korean and US forces retreated before the onslaught of the invading Northern forces.
It was thought that the civilians were communist sympathisers.
These events bring into focus the single greatest divide between nations that still exists on the planet. One of the demarcation boundaries is mentioned above. The other border line is the Korean Demilitarized Zone, although to call it a wall as such is not technically correct.
But it remains the last “Berlin wall” on the planet.
This strip of land runs across the Korean Peninsula and effectively is the boundary proper between North and South Korea. The DMZ crosses the “38th Parallel” on an angle.
NOTE: The 38th Parallel is the circle of latitude that is 38 degrees north of the planets equatorial plane. It passes through Spain, Portugal, Greece, etc.
The DMZ is over 150 miles long and approximately 2.5 miles wide; this area of width effectively constitutes a killing zone, and the area is the most heavily militarized border on Earth.
It was formally created at the conclusion of the Korean War. This war, largely seen as a clash of greater powers other than the Koreans, was caused due to similar principles that affected Germany. Korea was effectively divided between the Soviets and the Americans.
While both North (USSR) and South (US) Korea were occupied, the Americans withdrew their military forces in 1949, while the Soviet Union reportedly sent large amounts of military resources to equip Kim Il-sung for an invasion of the South – although it is important to note that archival evidence does paint differing pictures, with some believing the North Korean prime minister/party chairman responsible, others saying it was Soviet design.
But most prudent is the fact that The Korean War technically has not ended.
After the invasion on the 25th June 1950, a cease fire armistice was declared on the 27th July 1953. No formal peace treaty has been signed.
Since then there has been an uneasy tension between the countries with no major power, not the United States, Russia or China able to officially end the conflict (or as some conspiracy theorists offer, unwilling to end the standoff).
There has been progress, although there is still much unease, not only between the two countries, but with the larger, silent players, such as the United States, Russia and China.
The Sunshine Policy, implemented in 1998 by then South Korean President Kim Dae Jung, was seen as the first major step towards peace and unification of the two countries. Jung was award the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts for the policy.
However, the process was criticised in some quarters as it ignored many aspects of the “negative and oppressive” nature of the Northern regime.
In August of 2000, the June 15th North South Joint Declaration moved ahead. It declared:
• "The North and the South agreed to solve the question of the country’s reunification independently by the concerted efforts of the Korean nation responsible for it.
• "The North and the South, recognizing that the low-level federation proposed by the North and the commonwealth system proposed by the South for the reunification of the country have similarity, agreed to work together for the reunification in this direction in the future.
• "The North and the South agreed to settle humanitarian issues as early as possible, including the exchange of visiting groups of separated families and relatives and the issue of unconverted long-term prisoners, to mark August 15 this year.
• "The North and the South agreed to promote the balanced development of the national economy through economic cooperation and build mutual confidence by activating cooperation and exchange in all fields, social, cultural, sports, public health, environmental and so on.
• "The North and the South agreed to hold an authority-to-authority negotiation as soon as possible to put the above-mentioned agreed points into speedy operation.
There are many hurdles, not withstanding that the countries have now been separated for 60 years.
South Korea, one of the Four Asian Tigers (or the Miracle on the Han) is a beacon of economic success. Ranked 15th in the GDP classifications of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank (just behind Australia), South Korea is a member of the G 20 and a high income OECD member.
Furthermore, South Korea is the world’s largest builder of ships (in 2008 the country made approximately half of the worlds ship in gross tonnage and ships built) the fourth largest carmaker, and arguably the dominant member of the “next eleven” – one of the countries said to be on the verge of becoming a world leading economic power.
North Korea is a communist country, just ranked in the top 100 in terms of GDP. They are one of only a handful of remaining socialist states in the world, and are one of only two countries to have a completely government planned and state owned economy.
This isolationist policy restricts international and free trade, hence severely handicapping economic growth. Their economy is slowly growing, but lags behind developed countries. Sanctions are often imposed on the country, and the regime often alienates itself with the international community.
The advantage for Korea as a unified country is that North Korea is in many respects an untapped resource, with cheap and young labour.
Still, the culture and sociology of the countries is vastly different, and as it was with Germany, the bridging of what are now two separate cultures will take a huge amount of work. But for the sake of all Koreans, one hopes that the slow progress towards integration can occur in our lifetimes.
Friday, November 6, 2009
2009 Four Nations: Kiwis and Kangaroos not so tough!
After an auspicious start that saw the World Champions and number one ranked team play out a classic match to draw 20 all in the first game, the second round didn’t exactly play to script.
England and France were expected to be poles apart in class after the intensity of the New Zealand and Australia match. Despite the English coming back against the French late in their first match, it was considered a fait accompli that the ANZAC powers would fight it out in the final.
The World Champions travelled to Toulouse in a match where even the flair of the Les Chanticleers was predicted to have little impact against the physicality of the New Zealanders.
As it was against England, the French - the fifth ranked nation in the world – provided ample fight in the first half again showing surprising mettle. They took the game to the Kiwis in the forwards and were only trailing 16-12 early in the second half.
However the World Champions ran riot in the last half hour, scoring a remarkable 46 points in the closing stages of the game (including three tries in the last seven minutes) to give them eleven tries for the match.
The World Champions would win 62-12.
Despite the 50 point winning margin, by and large New Zealand was unhappy with their performance. Stephen Kearney, their coach and assistant of current NRL premiers the Melbourne Storm, stated that maybe the Kiwis poor first half was his fault.
The players leapt to the defence of their boss, saying that their performance let both Kearney and their teammates down. This solidarity between the team, and the support for their brothers, is the main reason the World Champions are making their mark on this tournament.
Iosia Soliola, the Kiwi back row forward en-route to St Helens after this tournament, praised the squad’s team spirit and the concept of doing it for each other.
They will play England this weekend in a game that will decide who moves through to the final.
While Papua New Guinea will play in the 2010 Four Nations due to their Pacific Nations tournament win – replacing the French - key moving forward will be ensuring that France is not forgotten.
The French have shown, despite falling off in the second halves against England and New Zealand; that they have the ability to compete at the highest level. For the sake of international rugby league legitimacy, the Tri Colours need to keep receiving meaningful competition.
In the first half against England, the Kangaroos executed a half of rugby league that any coach would do well to record and show to his charges repeatedly.
It was as good a spell of attacking league that anyone could hope to watch.
On paper, the Australian test side is far beyond any team on the planet. As bold as it might sound, a collective world XV combining all the talents in the world against Australia would in theory struggle.
Surely if a team, or more to the point, backline was to be chosen by the almighty, it would feature most of the Kangaroo’s backs. Surely He would put Billy Slater, Greg Inglis, Darren Lockyer, Johnathan Thurston, Justin Hodges and Jarred Hayne in his XIII.
A five tries to nil opening half would see the Australians run riot, and many believed the score would surpass the 52-4 drubbing England suffered against the Kangaroos in the 2008 World Cup.
But the second half would see an improved England come out and score three tries, revitalising the Wigan crowd. They would also hold Australia scoreless, further enhancing their credibility, and promoting the Kangaroo’s.....shall we say vulnerability.
Since the World Cup final, Australia has now played three games. It is quite possibly that in eight halves of rugby league, the mighty Kangaroos have put together only one exceptional one.
New Zealand will play a strong team against England, although Steve Matai has been ruled out. Kieran Foran will be his replacement, the sixth debutant since the World Champions began their campaign with their Tonga warm up last month.
While the Kiwis have suffered a big injury toll, it has been the hunger and ferocity of their youth that has allowed them to make their impact in this tournament.
England has made three changes, bringing in Chris Bridge, Peter Fox and Kyle Eastmond.
If they pull off the upset, they will eliminate the World Champions from the competition.
In the other match, Australia has made a host of changes, but with their embarrassment of riches, they do not look any weaker.
A case in point is Cooper Cronk, who has been recalled after a two year test absence, despite being one of the linchpins of the all conquering Melbourne Storm.
The Kangaroos should account for France, despite the fact that they have beaten Australia before. While the result may be all but guaranteed, it will be interesting to see whether the French can stay competitive at least for periods, as they did against New Zealand and England.
Round Three matches
7th November 2009, France V Australia @ Stade Charlety, Paris France
7th November 2009, England V New Zealand @ Galpharm Stadium, Huddersfield England
England and France were expected to be poles apart in class after the intensity of the New Zealand and Australia match. Despite the English coming back against the French late in their first match, it was considered a fait accompli that the ANZAC powers would fight it out in the final.
The World Champions travelled to Toulouse in a match where even the flair of the Les Chanticleers was predicted to have little impact against the physicality of the New Zealanders.
As it was against England, the French - the fifth ranked nation in the world – provided ample fight in the first half again showing surprising mettle. They took the game to the Kiwis in the forwards and were only trailing 16-12 early in the second half.
However the World Champions ran riot in the last half hour, scoring a remarkable 46 points in the closing stages of the game (including three tries in the last seven minutes) to give them eleven tries for the match.
The World Champions would win 62-12.
Despite the 50 point winning margin, by and large New Zealand was unhappy with their performance. Stephen Kearney, their coach and assistant of current NRL premiers the Melbourne Storm, stated that maybe the Kiwis poor first half was his fault.
The players leapt to the defence of their boss, saying that their performance let both Kearney and their teammates down. This solidarity between the team, and the support for their brothers, is the main reason the World Champions are making their mark on this tournament.
Iosia Soliola, the Kiwi back row forward en-route to St Helens after this tournament, praised the squad’s team spirit and the concept of doing it for each other.
They will play England this weekend in a game that will decide who moves through to the final.
While Papua New Guinea will play in the 2010 Four Nations due to their Pacific Nations tournament win – replacing the French - key moving forward will be ensuring that France is not forgotten.
The French have shown, despite falling off in the second halves against England and New Zealand; that they have the ability to compete at the highest level. For the sake of international rugby league legitimacy, the Tri Colours need to keep receiving meaningful competition.
In the first half against England, the Kangaroos executed a half of rugby league that any coach would do well to record and show to his charges repeatedly.
It was as good a spell of attacking league that anyone could hope to watch.
On paper, the Australian test side is far beyond any team on the planet. As bold as it might sound, a collective world XV combining all the talents in the world against Australia would in theory struggle.
Surely if a team, or more to the point, backline was to be chosen by the almighty, it would feature most of the Kangaroo’s backs. Surely He would put Billy Slater, Greg Inglis, Darren Lockyer, Johnathan Thurston, Justin Hodges and Jarred Hayne in his XIII.
A five tries to nil opening half would see the Australians run riot, and many believed the score would surpass the 52-4 drubbing England suffered against the Kangaroos in the 2008 World Cup.
But the second half would see an improved England come out and score three tries, revitalising the Wigan crowd. They would also hold Australia scoreless, further enhancing their credibility, and promoting the Kangaroo’s.....shall we say vulnerability.
Since the World Cup final, Australia has now played three games. It is quite possibly that in eight halves of rugby league, the mighty Kangaroos have put together only one exceptional one.
New Zealand will play a strong team against England, although Steve Matai has been ruled out. Kieran Foran will be his replacement, the sixth debutant since the World Champions began their campaign with their Tonga warm up last month.
While the Kiwis have suffered a big injury toll, it has been the hunger and ferocity of their youth that has allowed them to make their impact in this tournament.
England has made three changes, bringing in Chris Bridge, Peter Fox and Kyle Eastmond.
If they pull off the upset, they will eliminate the World Champions from the competition.
In the other match, Australia has made a host of changes, but with their embarrassment of riches, they do not look any weaker.
A case in point is Cooper Cronk, who has been recalled after a two year test absence, despite being one of the linchpins of the all conquering Melbourne Storm.
The Kangaroos should account for France, despite the fact that they have beaten Australia before. While the result may be all but guaranteed, it will be interesting to see whether the French can stay competitive at least for periods, as they did against New Zealand and England.
Round Three matches
7th November 2009, France V Australia @ Stade Charlety, Paris France
7th November 2009, England V New Zealand @ Galpharm Stadium, Huddersfield England
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
2009 Four Nations Rugby League: Round One Review
New Zealand ups the ante and France nearly shock
Building on the momentum from an excellent Rugby League World Cup, the results in the first round of the Four Nations showed that test matches are anything but a one horse race.
Heading into the tournament, many believed that it was just a simple case of the Kangaroos turning up to win the title, looking to restore the balance of world league power by proving that the New Zealand 2008 World Cup win was just a fluke.
While Australia named three debutants in their first team of the Four Nations, and only eight survivors from their shock 20-34 loss to New Zealand, it was still a typically powerful side, littered with more match winners and game breakers than any other nation could hope to muster.
Most of their players would occupy a current World XIII, and after beating New Zealand 38-10 in the May Anzac test match to avenge their World Cup loss, they were almost un-backable favourites
New Zealand on the other hand were suffering numerous injuries, and were rank outsiders for the championship, with some in the English press predicting that they could struggle to make the final.
Some of the kiwi players were asked about their chances arriving in England, and their reactions were almost ominous, bristling with so many assuming not only that they would not be competitive, but that their World Cup win was a once in a lifetime sporting upset.
After eighty minutes were completed at the Twickenham stoop, many believed that New Zealand were in fact unlucky not to come away with the win.
Kangaroo’s captain Darren Lockyer and premiership winning captain Cameron Smith would later remark that they were indeed fortunate to come out of the clash with a draw.
New Zealand played to their strengths, bringing trademark physicality to the match and looking to overpower the Australians. This has often been the precursor to their clashes, but more often than not, the kiwis never quite bring the game to match their talk.
This time, they did and more.
But most importantly their defence, while physically imposing, was accurate and co-ordinated.
For all of the glamour and execution of the Australian’s vaunted backline attack, the reality is that few offenses can engineer their way past a committed and hungry defensive wall.
But in saying this, the kangaroos by and large kept playing to their patterns and for long periods dominated possession and territory due to their world class control and poise. Even despite the hammering that they received via the power game of New Zealand, they still were able to counter most of what the kiwis threw at them.
Two very different teams, in what was one of the greatest rugby league clashes in modern history.
Cut and thrust, from the kiwis opening mistake from the kick receive, through to their 14 point burst in the second half, to the Australians last minute try, it had everything that would have those still optimistic that league can be a legitimate global sport grinning from ear to ear (even if the global sport only has a handful of competitors).
It was a match that would have had England and France wide eyed in shock, although both sides may have been smiling to see their opposition teams smash each other up.
But on the form of the opening round, it will take a huge upset for either of the European hosts to stop either the World Champions or the number one ranked team in the world.
The opening clash between them looked to provide a surprise of its own, after the French came back from England’s opening try to lead 12-4 at halftime.
Les Chanteclairs were playing an up tempo and wide based game that England initially struggled with, before they came back and scored five second half tries to run out comfortable winners.
England coach Tony Smith and his side were dealt a timely reality check by the fifth ranked French (Fiji is ranked fourth in the world). England now knows that a victory over either New Zealand or Australia guarantees them a place in the final.
Coming into this tournament England had a point to prove, especially on their turf, and after watching the two current world leaders shake the foundations in their opening clash, it will not be any easier to foot it with either team.
England have already stated they intend to take a leaf out of New Zealand’s book and rattle the Australians, but it is likely the kangaroos will be far more prepared after being so thoroughly tested by the World Champions.
As for New Zealand, they will look to maintain the intensity against France.
Often international rugby league tournaments can be lost by the teams that do not have the luxury of tough matches, but by evidence of the opening round, it could be the team that emerges unscathed that hoists the trophy at Elland Road on the 14th November.
Building on the momentum from an excellent Rugby League World Cup, the results in the first round of the Four Nations showed that test matches are anything but a one horse race.
Heading into the tournament, many believed that it was just a simple case of the Kangaroos turning up to win the title, looking to restore the balance of world league power by proving that the New Zealand 2008 World Cup win was just a fluke.
While Australia named three debutants in their first team of the Four Nations, and only eight survivors from their shock 20-34 loss to New Zealand, it was still a typically powerful side, littered with more match winners and game breakers than any other nation could hope to muster.
Most of their players would occupy a current World XIII, and after beating New Zealand 38-10 in the May Anzac test match to avenge their World Cup loss, they were almost un-backable favourites
New Zealand on the other hand were suffering numerous injuries, and were rank outsiders for the championship, with some in the English press predicting that they could struggle to make the final.
Some of the kiwi players were asked about their chances arriving in England, and their reactions were almost ominous, bristling with so many assuming not only that they would not be competitive, but that their World Cup win was a once in a lifetime sporting upset.
After eighty minutes were completed at the Twickenham stoop, many believed that New Zealand were in fact unlucky not to come away with the win.
Kangaroo’s captain Darren Lockyer and premiership winning captain Cameron Smith would later remark that they were indeed fortunate to come out of the clash with a draw.
New Zealand played to their strengths, bringing trademark physicality to the match and looking to overpower the Australians. This has often been the precursor to their clashes, but more often than not, the kiwis never quite bring the game to match their talk.
This time, they did and more.
But most importantly their defence, while physically imposing, was accurate and co-ordinated.
For all of the glamour and execution of the Australian’s vaunted backline attack, the reality is that few offenses can engineer their way past a committed and hungry defensive wall.
But in saying this, the kangaroos by and large kept playing to their patterns and for long periods dominated possession and territory due to their world class control and poise. Even despite the hammering that they received via the power game of New Zealand, they still were able to counter most of what the kiwis threw at them.
Two very different teams, in what was one of the greatest rugby league clashes in modern history.
Cut and thrust, from the kiwis opening mistake from the kick receive, through to their 14 point burst in the second half, to the Australians last minute try, it had everything that would have those still optimistic that league can be a legitimate global sport grinning from ear to ear (even if the global sport only has a handful of competitors).
It was a match that would have had England and France wide eyed in shock, although both sides may have been smiling to see their opposition teams smash each other up.
But on the form of the opening round, it will take a huge upset for either of the European hosts to stop either the World Champions or the number one ranked team in the world.
The opening clash between them looked to provide a surprise of its own, after the French came back from England’s opening try to lead 12-4 at halftime.
Les Chanteclairs were playing an up tempo and wide based game that England initially struggled with, before they came back and scored five second half tries to run out comfortable winners.
England coach Tony Smith and his side were dealt a timely reality check by the fifth ranked French (Fiji is ranked fourth in the world). England now knows that a victory over either New Zealand or Australia guarantees them a place in the final.
Coming into this tournament England had a point to prove, especially on their turf, and after watching the two current world leaders shake the foundations in their opening clash, it will not be any easier to foot it with either team.
England have already stated they intend to take a leaf out of New Zealand’s book and rattle the Australians, but it is likely the kangaroos will be far more prepared after being so thoroughly tested by the World Champions.
As for New Zealand, they will look to maintain the intensity against France.
Often international rugby league tournaments can be lost by the teams that do not have the luxury of tough matches, but by evidence of the opening round, it could be the team that emerges unscathed that hoists the trophy at Elland Road on the 14th November.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Modern man is a weakling compared to our ancient ancestors
According to some recent studies, the theory of evolution may just be that, with findings that our male ancestors were actually our physical superiors.
The concept of evolution details that over time the world has changed and so have the species that inhabit the planet.
Humans as a species are an absolute baby in the grand timeline of history, with some records dating that the earth’s origins can be traced back an astonishing 4.5 billion years. Modern day geologists and geophysicists have determined this with radiometric age dating of numerous substances, including lunar samples and mineral deposits around the world.
In this time the world has seen some periods and ages that too many would seem an absolute fantasy.
Considering that the planet earth has seen five extinction based events (events that destroyed a huge number of species and most life on the planet) going back as far as approximately 550 million years ago, the world as we know it today is essentially just a period in a massive time line of history. Nearly 99 percent of all species that have ever lived on the earth are extinct!
For the record the last extinction event is classified as the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, which happened 65.5 million years ago and rendered the dinosaurs destroyed.
Our ancient ancestors, the genus (which classifies a living organism) of homo, can be traced back as far as 2.5 million years. This is in line with the early evidence of stone tools and classifies the beginning of what is referred to as the Lower Paleolithic age – the time when are most ancient ancestors lived.
All of these species of Homo are now extinct, except for Homo sapiens, which is what we all are. Our oldest relative is thought to be the Homo Neanderthalensis, which was thought to have died out between 20,000 and 24,000 years ago.
Some evidence suggests that another species (relative!) called the Homo Floresiensis; oddly nicknamed by some scientists as “Hobbit” because of their small size, may have lived as recently as 12,000 years ago.
But while we believe we are getting faster and stronger, thanks to modern science and the exploits of runners and swimmers breaking more and more records, and certain strongmen, such as bodybuilders, being bigger and stronger than ever before; it appears that we are at the ass end of evolution.
Research suggests that we would have stood no chance against our ancestors in a classic battle of physical power or speed.
While we do have more resources and science to enable us in theory to become a specimen unlike anything ever seen, we are a society that has become more dormant than any other in recent memory.
Peter McAllister, the author of Manthropology: the Science of Inadequate Modern Man, has come up with hard evidence of our ancestor’s superior physical attributes.
Analysing sets of foot prints preserved in a fossilised lake bed, conclusion has been reached that Australian aboriginals 20,000 years ago, which was a period shift for Homo, reached speeds of 23 mph.
To put this in perspective, Usain Bolt, who carries the illustrious tag of being the fastest man on the planet, reached a top speed of 26 mph during his Beijing Olympics gold medal winning performance.
He ran 100 metres in 9.69 seconds.
McAllister claims that with modern training and science, our ancestors could reach speeds of up to 28 or even 30mph.
The same conclusions are met in regards to muscle mass and strength.
The reality is that muscle conditioning is a by product of constant physical activity, something that most people lack to the point of it being a pandemic in some countries.
To really sum up his point, McAllister - a noted anthropologist - writes in the opening pages of his book a statement which really is a scathing attack on the modern man.
"If you're reading this then you – or the male you have bought it for – are the worst man in history. No ifs, no buts – the worst man, period.”
He says the reason is the level of inactivity, even when comparing us with people decades ago.
“At the start of the industrial revolution there are statistics about how much harder people worked then. The human body is very plastic, and it responds to stress.”
"We have lost 40 per cent of the shafts of our long bones, because we have much less of a muscular load placed upon them these days.”
Realistically these findings are probably not a great surprise despite modern athletes being stronger and faster, but beyond these hard training specimens, for the bulk of the population, it is a damning find.
Motivation to go for a run now perhaps cave people?
The concept of evolution details that over time the world has changed and so have the species that inhabit the planet.
Humans as a species are an absolute baby in the grand timeline of history, with some records dating that the earth’s origins can be traced back an astonishing 4.5 billion years. Modern day geologists and geophysicists have determined this with radiometric age dating of numerous substances, including lunar samples and mineral deposits around the world.
In this time the world has seen some periods and ages that too many would seem an absolute fantasy.
Considering that the planet earth has seen five extinction based events (events that destroyed a huge number of species and most life on the planet) going back as far as approximately 550 million years ago, the world as we know it today is essentially just a period in a massive time line of history. Nearly 99 percent of all species that have ever lived on the earth are extinct!
For the record the last extinction event is classified as the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, which happened 65.5 million years ago and rendered the dinosaurs destroyed.
Our ancient ancestors, the genus (which classifies a living organism) of homo, can be traced back as far as 2.5 million years. This is in line with the early evidence of stone tools and classifies the beginning of what is referred to as the Lower Paleolithic age – the time when are most ancient ancestors lived.
All of these species of Homo are now extinct, except for Homo sapiens, which is what we all are. Our oldest relative is thought to be the Homo Neanderthalensis, which was thought to have died out between 20,000 and 24,000 years ago.
Some evidence suggests that another species (relative!) called the Homo Floresiensis; oddly nicknamed by some scientists as “Hobbit” because of their small size, may have lived as recently as 12,000 years ago.
But while we believe we are getting faster and stronger, thanks to modern science and the exploits of runners and swimmers breaking more and more records, and certain strongmen, such as bodybuilders, being bigger and stronger than ever before; it appears that we are at the ass end of evolution.
Research suggests that we would have stood no chance against our ancestors in a classic battle of physical power or speed.
While we do have more resources and science to enable us in theory to become a specimen unlike anything ever seen, we are a society that has become more dormant than any other in recent memory.
Peter McAllister, the author of Manthropology: the Science of Inadequate Modern Man, has come up with hard evidence of our ancestor’s superior physical attributes.
Analysing sets of foot prints preserved in a fossilised lake bed, conclusion has been reached that Australian aboriginals 20,000 years ago, which was a period shift for Homo, reached speeds of 23 mph.
To put this in perspective, Usain Bolt, who carries the illustrious tag of being the fastest man on the planet, reached a top speed of 26 mph during his Beijing Olympics gold medal winning performance.
He ran 100 metres in 9.69 seconds.
McAllister claims that with modern training and science, our ancestors could reach speeds of up to 28 or even 30mph.
The same conclusions are met in regards to muscle mass and strength.
The reality is that muscle conditioning is a by product of constant physical activity, something that most people lack to the point of it being a pandemic in some countries.
To really sum up his point, McAllister - a noted anthropologist - writes in the opening pages of his book a statement which really is a scathing attack on the modern man.
"If you're reading this then you – or the male you have bought it for – are the worst man in history. No ifs, no buts – the worst man, period.”
He says the reason is the level of inactivity, even when comparing us with people decades ago.
“At the start of the industrial revolution there are statistics about how much harder people worked then. The human body is very plastic, and it responds to stress.”
"We have lost 40 per cent of the shafts of our long bones, because we have much less of a muscular load placed upon them these days.”
Realistically these findings are probably not a great surprise despite modern athletes being stronger and faster, but beyond these hard training specimens, for the bulk of the population, it is a damning find.
Motivation to go for a run now perhaps cave people?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
