Home | Community | Message Board


Mushrooms.com
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: North Spore Bulk Substrate   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Edibles   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Kratom Powder for Sale   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Amazon Scales, Terrence McKenna

Jump to first unread post. Pages: | Last >  [ show all ]
OfflineDroz
Love of Life
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/16/00
Posts: 2,746
Loc: Floorida
Last seen: 5 years, 8 months
evolution
    #407320 - 09/28/01 09:38 AM (19 years, 6 months ago)

Does it have a grand design?

I dont believe it has a complete design... i believe that we basically are creating it as we live life. One thing i do believe is that we should be evolving to our natural environment that means outdoors butt-naked. I see mankind as hiding in there caves. The thing that questions me most is what is the next step in evolution...??? That is the big question that seems to be the most important.

I believe yes, maybe the earth is coming to a catastrophy, because bad people have been digging out the insides of the earth for life times. I believe all that stuff like gold, and silver and the stuff inside of the earth is what makes it in equilibrium. So the pole shift is basically the creations way of destroying the insects that are destroying there whole bigger game. Hmm... but maybe these evil people know this and plan to once again cheat evolution and go off in there space ships just to return after they have wiped out most of the population... but we shouldn't let that happen. Somethings got to give. I believe even if we die we start over in a form of energy at the beginning of it all to come to the same place that we have been going. I believe that this whole game is eternal and keeps getting more complicated as you higher evolve. Its a game! =) We must play this game as a life situation. So how do we evolve to the next step that is the question. Maybe its the concept of time? I believe that there is no past present or future. We are all three at the same time. All at once.

I believe that everyone knows everything. So we just need to wake up and realize that.. and have fun! Terence Mckenna said all it would take was one big party.

Sound good or what?

Love.
Destroy the ego free the real self.


--------------------
Evolution of Time.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: evolution [Re: Droz]
    #407455 - 09/28/01 01:23 PM (19 years, 6 months ago)

Droz..you definetely know your shit.

As far as evolution goes..what I know is that all life forms exist in order to gain wisdom through experience. We live our lives, and gain wisdom on how to better ourselves and the rest of the world. After many hundreds or thousands of lifetimes, we return to creation and share all of the wisdom we have gained. Creation uses our knowledge in order to evolve. Creation is constantly striving to evolve.
As far as living with nature butt naked. I agree. We have become too distant to the Earth, and all of our technology is man vs. nature. We need a reality check because, the Earth provides life for us, we have to respect it.
Without going into any details, I think everyone knows what we have been doing to the Earth. It's called rape and desecration.
Gold and silver are precious metals. Not because they look pretty, not because people will pay a lot of money for them. It's because Gold is a universal element. Gold exists within our blood. Gold opens portals from the 4d. Saphires, Sugalites, and Diamonds open portals into the 5d.

You say life is a game... that couldn't be more true. We are all here for a reason, we chose to come here. We are here to learn. But learning is not supposed to be boring, learning is supposed to be a creative, spontaneous, intuitive process.
But we all have a choice, are we going to continue abusing the Earth until it has no choice but to destroy us? Or are we going to come together in harmony and recognize the Earth as an entity in itself, that we should care for and love just as we would anyone else. This is how we will evolve as humans. We must become in harmony with the Earth, the Sun, the Moon, and the rest of the Universe. Their is a natural order to things...and it doesn't involve internal combustion engines, oil drilling, seal clubbing, tower building, sea stripping.
The present is now, we create our future by what we do in the present. We can base our learning by mistakes we made in the past, but we are always in the now.
The moral of this story, is that in order to evolve, humans must take 100% responsibility for their actions. What you did is not a God's fault, or your sisters. You made a choice and it is your responsibility, good or bad. No one is going to chop your hand off if you make a mistake, but you just need to know you are accountable for what you do so that you don't make the same mistake in the future. Likewise, when you make a good decision and hold yourself accountable, you will feel very happy, and will be congratulated.
This is the next step.



Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleMokshaMan
enthusiast
Registered: 03/13/01
Posts: 280
Re: evolution [Re: Droz]
    #407702 - 09/28/01 06:32 PM (19 years, 6 months ago)

Clearly evolution's only design is to reassure the continuation of the species, through adaptation to the environment. Now this can take several shapes, there are permanent ones(such as the loss of a tail) and ones that can change based on the environment(such as adjusting to the "lack" of gravity and then readjusting to the level on earth on return). Since people are not "hiding in there caves" and have a greater degree of control over their environment, genetic mutations for the most part have no real advantage. I'm sure you can find exception to that, such as Einstien's brain and the such; however, this is the basic of evolution. Even if we were living in caves, we're still controling our environment to a certain degree(by not being out in the rain, which gives a better chance of survival). I've never been able to understand the back to nature with us line of thought, but that doesn't mean you're not entitled to your opinion. If there is a global destruction that will change life as we know it coming, why would we want to go back to nature to greet our possible destroyer with open arms? Of course some would say that if we don't how are we going to know how to survive if we make it through the destruction. If it weren't for us escaping from nature, we wouldn't be able to feed the current number of people on earth(not the we are feeding everyone, but technically we should be able to). Although I do agree that we don't know the full ramifications of our plundering the resources of the planet, I don't know how we can say it will with any certainty lead to a global disaster. If anything I think we need to move further away from nature or we'll simply end up like the dinosaurers, dead and gone. We know that nature has with little descrimination destroyed almost everything it has created, I for one don't want that to happen to my species. We also know for certain that this little solar system won't last forever. Not only do we need to figure out how to live free from nature, but free from the sun. At some point it will destroy everything that exists in the solar system. While it is in our interest to us it for now, I don't think we should become dependent on it. If the world does once again fall into a "dark age" I personally hold out little hope for mankind. As for evolution, clearly the next evolution can't be determined without knowing what sort of environmental change is coming.

As for everyone knowing everything, sorry I can't believe it because there are too many idiots and people that refuse to see any other point of view in the world.



--------------------
Men can only be happy when they do not assume that the object of life is happiness.
-- George Owell


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: evolution [Re: MokshaMan]
    #407881 - 09/28/01 10:49 PM (19 years, 6 months ago)

The idea is not to escape nature, it is to live in harmony with it, rather than against it.
As for the sun, it is the source of all the life that we know. We will never live free from the sun, else we would not exist. For within it contains our DNA codings and all life as we know it. Does the sun not provide warmth to our planet? Does the sun fail to rise and spread it's rays to our fields and trees?
We are taught to fear the sun, fear it's radiation, when radiation is the source of creativity. The first radioactive element discovered was coveted as a sacred gift. It was carried by Abraham in what the Bible called "The ark of the Covenant" This element was ur-anium, the place where the central control center for all of our creativity resides in the cr-anium. Radioactivity used in the proper way promotes creativity and expansion of consciousness... used in an improper way (such as underground nuclear testing) results in massive Earthquakes and erupting volcanoes.
The fact is we are totally dependant on our sun for evolution. What are you going to do? Block it out?



Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleMokshaMan
enthusiast
Registered: 03/13/01
Posts: 280
Re: evolution [Re: ]
    #407888 - 09/28/01 11:09 PM (19 years, 6 months ago)

I'm fully aware that without the sun this would be a desolute rock floating out in the middle of no where or simply wouldn't exist in the first place. I'm aware that it provided warmth, food for plants, and an infinite amount of energy. What I'm saying is that we need to utilize it while we can, because eventually(not for a really long time, possibly several million years) the sun will be no more and could take everything in this solar system with it. I don't know about you, but I want to reassure that my species isn't here when that happens. How do we do that? Well there's a whole heck of a lot of other "suns" out there, and I'm sure other planets that would be habitable. Thank you for making my case so much easier, we have something that can produce enough energy that we should be able to travel beyond the limits of our sun. Uranium and other radioactive materials which can be converted into energy. I personally have a problem with returning to the conditions that are currently plagueing much of the African continent. I like medicine and the medical advances that have been made. I can reasure you that I wouldn't be here without them and in fact most people wouldn't be. I'm not saying that we don't need to find a more healthy balance between nature and technology, I am saying that it is man against nature. Someday she'll come for us and I'd like to think that a new "Noah's Ark" could be made to reassure the continued existence of my species. Nature has little regard for what it destroys, why stand and wait for her to consume us all? Why not admit that nature doesn't care about any beast within her grasp? And of course since we have free will why not protect our species from her grasp when it comes for our throats? Nature is not kind or gentle, she is however constant and unrelenting. I know, I sound like I live indoors all the time, I actually do a lot of gardening and this summer that's all I did. I have a very strong love/hate relationship with nature, I love her but I know that she can destroy us all at any time and I'd hate to see all of humanity wiped out. I'm not telling you that you're opinion is wrong, I'm just stating what I believe and why.

Edited by MokshaMan on 10/03/01 02:54 AM.



--------------------
Men can only be happy when they do not assume that the object of life is happiness.
-- George Owell


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineDroz
Love of Life
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/16/00
Posts: 2,746
Loc: Floorida
Last seen: 5 years, 8 months
Re: evolution [Re: MokshaMan]
    #407920 - 09/29/01 12:18 AM (19 years, 6 months ago)

tools or not we do survive and that is a part of what is done to sustain life... survival of the fittest... adapted to nature or adapted to the tool that we created, either way we are a part of it and will always be with or without technology... technology is good it does have its advantages for living... but that is only for pro-longing life... which brings up the topic of death and what really happens in the afterlife technology cant figure out... and we can only imagine.

Love.
Destroy the ego free the real self.

Edited by Droz on 09/28/01 11:27 PM.



--------------------
Evolution of Time.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinemissulena
enthusiast
Registered: 05/26/01
Posts: 251
Last seen: 19 years, 1 month
Re: evolution [Re: Droz]
    #407943 - 09/29/01 01:41 AM (19 years, 6 months ago)

nature is all there is you cant escape nature anything that humans create or do is an act of nature.



Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleMokshaMan
enthusiast
Registered: 03/13/01
Posts: 280
Re: evolution [Re: missulena]
    #408205 - 09/29/01 12:52 PM (19 years, 6 months ago)

So outside of the earth's atmosphere is still controlled by nature? While there might be something that effects what happens outside our happy little sphere, I wouldn't be so bold as to say it's the same thing the effects the atmosphere. While I see the point that nature created us therefore we are nature, but if we're redesigning nature to fit our purposes(genetic engineering) then how is that "an act of nature." Doesn't that go against nature, isn't it in fact unnatural? I mean are we so bold to think that nature will be any more kind to us in the long run than it was to any other of its creations that's long dead? I for one am not.



--------------------
Men can only be happy when they do not assume that the object of life is happiness.
-- George Owell


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinemissulena
enthusiast
Registered: 05/26/01
Posts: 251
Last seen: 19 years, 1 month
Re: evolution [Re: MokshaMan]
    #408415 - 09/29/01 06:20 PM (19 years, 6 months ago)

For starters nature is not an entity you make it sound like one. So nature has no ego or anything like that andexists in many forms that are even new to us. If you look close enough its all connected all made of the same stuff and its antropocentric(sp) and grandiose to think humans and there creations are any different



Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineKeepAskingTime
addict
Registered: 05/14/01
Posts: 596
Loc: Central PA
Last seen: 16 years, 4 months
Re: evolution [Re: MokshaMan]
    #408447 - 09/29/01 07:23 PM (19 years, 6 months ago)

Nature as in the vegetation and growth, or Nature as in the planets, gravity, electricity, space, etc.?
Disasters are caused by gravity/magneticism, electrictity, temperatures, etc. Thus you're blaming dimensions I guess.
Or Nature as in vegetation and the sort, which doesnt hurt species in the least by itself.




--------------------
I'm praying for infinite lapdances in heaven and an infinite supply of cocaine to snort out of Angelina Jolie's ass crack.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleMokshaMan
enthusiast
Registered: 03/13/01
Posts: 280
Re: evolution [Re: missulena]
    #408467 - 09/29/01 07:47 PM (19 years, 6 months ago)

You're right, it's not a thing; however, this does make it easier to discuss. I'll agree that it has no human or animal characteristics. I do disagree with you on the point that it's all the same stuff. Admitedly it's all made from the same stuff on the most basic level, that doesn't mean it's all the same stuff. Everything on the most basic level is the same, yet there's a difference between animals and minerals. If you don't get what I'm talking about, here's a clue animals move(whether because they're aware that they can or it's purily instinctual). I mean I've never come across a plastic anything in nature. Do you know why the Lincoln monument is toped with a small aluminium pyramid? Because aluminium doesn't really occur in nature by itself(it has to be extracted) and was therefore a highly valued metal, yet now that pyramid is nearly worthless because it's everywhere(not by nature's choice, but man's inovation). For halloween this year, I bought a vinyl jacket, polyester shirt and pants; which are synthetic materials as in man-made or not natural. And if you really think about it, if I take it like you suggest that we're all made of the same stuff everything is equal then. Meaning I have as much value as the sun... we're just the same thing on the most basic level, although there's a lot more of the basic material in the sun... I've said it before(possibly not in this discussion) and I'll say it again: nature doesn't care about you, me, or any other creature on this planet, because as you pointed out it's not a thing. Since that's true why not be safe, rather than extinct?



--------------------
Men can only be happy when they do not assume that the object of life is happiness.
-- George Owell


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleMokshaMan
enthusiast
Registered: 03/13/01
Posts: 280
Re: evolution [Re: KeepAskingTime]
    #408487 - 09/29/01 08:09 PM (19 years, 6 months ago)

Nature as in both, since both are necessary for life on this planet. Without both the vegetatable matter and weather(which is created by temp, grav, magnetics, etc.) we wouldn't exist. I admit that nature is something that we needed to come into existance; however, we're using the vegetation to suit only our purposes and live in boxes to escape weather. I'm not blaming anything, it's simple change since nothing is constant. All I'm argueing for is that we shouldn't be so bold as to think that we'll continue to exist no matter what changes occur. And since we can't reassure that, we should try to do everything in our power to reassure the continuation of our species. I personally believe that if we're not trapped solely in one place we have a better chance of survival.

I mean looking around the solar system should tell you that nature is not constant. Just because something seems to be a rule here, doesn't mean it's a rule anywhere else in this system. I mean look at gravity, it's not the same on every planet. What about magneticism(which isn't the same as gravity), it's not the same on every planet. While there are things external from the sphere of the earth that effect nature(such as the sun, gravitational fields) this is the only planet that has developed an atmosphere which allows the existance of planets and animals. If a global destruction occurs, we could be pretty screwed. If we're smart and use our "free will" we'll do whatever we can to reassure that if this does happen our species has a safty net with enough genetic diversity to continue on earth once everything has returned to "normal." I don't understand why everyone is so against a "saftey net" for our species.



--------------------
Men can only be happy when they do not assume that the object of life is happiness.
-- George Owell


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinemissulena
enthusiast
Registered: 05/26/01
Posts: 251
Last seen: 19 years, 1 month
Re: evolution [Re: MokshaMan]
    #408509 - 09/29/01 08:45 PM (19 years, 6 months ago)

I see what your saying mokshaman but you are saying we should ecape nature for our own survival this idea is not escaping nature it is exactly the rules that all wild beasts down to single celled critters follow- do whatever it takes to survive, you cant escape it



Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineDroz
Love of Life
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/16/00
Posts: 2,746
Loc: Floorida
Last seen: 5 years, 8 months
Re: evolution [Re: missulena]
    #408526 - 09/29/01 09:07 PM (19 years, 6 months ago)

or can you?

Love.
Destroy the ego free the real self.


--------------------
Evolution of Time.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleIshmael
enthusiast

Registered: 10/29/99
Posts: 224
Re: evolution [Re: Droz]
    #409310 - 09/30/01 05:14 PM (19 years, 6 months ago)

The why of man and the inescapable attractor of evolution

We must first state our assumptions, or knowledge of this matter will likely be too watery and theoretical to actually amount to much. That said, the assumptions are (re) stated here:
1) Evolution is a process that promotes diversity.
2) Evolution is a process that promotes stability.
3) Evolution is a process within a larger grouping of processes known collectively as ?nature?.

Nature, it must be stated, is the collective process of life (which is still a process with yet another grouping of processes). Not life limited to only earth, but any life that would occur under similar circumstances in any location. And life as would be classically defined is Response to environmental change over relatively small time-scales. For that life model, a rock would not necessarily be alive because its response to environmental factors occurs relatively slowly. This is not to say that you cannot fit rocks, water, fire and air or other ?inanimate? material into the category of life (as animist religions have and continue to), you merely have to think about changing the scale of time to more relativistic terms. If you expand your perception of time, all things ?small and large? become irrelevant and all things react dynamically to change.

And if one can come to grips with including inanimate matter into the process of life by extenuating the time scales far enough, it begins to be clear that all interaction within the universe is really the collective buffering of energy (potential for change) over time. Evolution then is the process of coming up with greater and greater potentials for buffering change: promoting the diversity of dissipative structures*.

*Dissipative structures are self-organizing points of instability within systems far from equilibrium (uniform energy - cancellation of opposites to form composites). The most simplistic visualization of a dissipative structure is a spiral (think Tornado/Hurricane for a more real-world interpretation). What dissipative structures do is exactly what it sounds like - they /dissipate/ energy to force a system onto a new level of equilibrium. Life is a promotion of this idea; life takes in heat and light energy and then distributes it through itself - /dissipating/ the energy through absorption and producing stability through equilibrium. So in one sense, evolution is really just the process of putting a face on chaos. But because life as we know it is based off of this evolution, this diversification, we place the current system of life on this planet in jeopardy through our behaviors.

This is not an inherent human trait, and that cannot be stressed enough; it is a cultural affliction based largely upon our swollen population. Our way of life is not necessarily /bad/ or /evil/ - it merely becomes destructive when there are too many people trying to live through it. Too many people viaing for the same resources and thus over-exploiting them on global scales. We defy the law of diversity by placing ourselves at odds with evolution and stripping away all vestiges of it. And why would we do that? Because our culture believes that we?re at war with this collective of processes called ?Nature?. It?s an old story, an old myth, one we should really be getting over by now. But what we really end up fighting is /evolution/; not nature but a process of nature (it is impossible to be ?at war with nature?- it?s a nonsensical assertion but one integral to our culture - a thing fighting itself. Insanity, revolution, coup...all manifestations of the non-sensical statement within our mythology that asserts that we are at war and must subdue nature and thusly ourselves - born into sin). A process of nature-life that produced us (though some will argue that point yet).

So civilization isn?t inherently evil, it just doesn?t work well for its practitioners and destroys a huge continuity of evolution (It hasn?t been this bad since the Permian Extinction) when it becomes the cultural dynamic for six billion individuals. That?s the first step, realizing that the /unification/ effect of our singular culture is contrary to evolution - to doesn?t work well from a biological point of view (though, from a cultural point of view, it works exceptionally well at doing exactly what it was produced to do: subdue ?nature?). The second step is looking /outside/ of our culture for something else. ?Living in Caves? I think it was called here, though I may be assuming too much when I translate that to mean tribalism. I?ll go on anyway for t he sake of discussion.

The difference between our civilization and tribalism is largely one of inter-relationships. Tribalism is inherently non-hierarchical while Civilization is inherently hierarchical. A social hierarchy is a pretty ordinary concept to us - an elite affluent few [tended to by / tending] the hordes of the peasantry who have very little in comparison. Why this doesn?t /work/ for people is that it offers no real security and is the most physically demanding of all human social conventions (strict agriculturists spend more calories getting their food than limited agrarian or non-agrarian societies do).

All that you can really count on in civilization is that you?re probably stuck on the lower end doing the hard work with very little to show for it. This breeds discontent which in turn breeds war which in turn breeds more insecurity. You constantly have uppity peasants with the damned notion that they are smart enough to govern themselves, and perhaps more importantly, capable of governing themselves. So if you?re not worrying about the crops failing and your family starving, you?re worried about the starving farmers rising up in revolt because of the heavy handed tyranny they perceive themselves as living under. Not the best basis for stability. In fact, I wouldn?t have too much trouble believing that in all of civilized history that there hasn?t been a single year where this hasn?t been the case (though current civilized convention has bred the sociological focus of insulating its members from the real world through the precious art of Media and through the talented hands of the Spin Doctor. (Thusly, it is not impossible for the constituency to fully believe that the world is nice and wonderful when in fact it is very far from it, that is what is wanted, that is the whole point. Lulled to sleep the American Dream).

What places civilization on the fringe of evolution (for it can?t really ever escape it or conquer it, only just resist it?s pull) is its tendency towards assimilation. We have the notion that /our/ wonderful culture with its grand towering edifices and vast marvels is the epitome of the human endeavor - that the way we live is the way all human beings are supposed to live. And because we have to conquer the world (evolution and life) in order to live this way, everything that we do /must necessarily be for the best/. We absolutely /must/ continue to fight the spectra of this concept called ?nature? because not doing so would mean that we?re living in some inferior manner. In a /profane/ manner that is not only an affront to human sensibilities, but an affront to God, Jesus, Buddha, Zoroaster, Muhammad, Socrates and all the rest.

But none of that can possibly be true. Human beings have lived in a non-civilized manner for more than 99 percent of their existence upon this planet - literally millions of years up until this day and were only as harmful as the typical lion, bear or sea otter. The notion that our culture has the one right way to exist is just a fallacy, an inferior edifice built on bad principle, like those laughable attempts at flight you see in old black & white reels (the guy with boards strapped to his arms flapping madly) before the laws of aerodynamics were conceived. And I say it again, because it begs saying, that it is this false pretense that puts us directly at odds with evolution, life and that inferior edifice we call ?nature?. It is not something inherently human.

The point I?m trying to make is that human beings are Nature themselves, that they are Evolution, and that only in mentally separating ourselves from either or both do we place ourselves into the position we are in.

But even with what I?ve said as clear as I can make it, I want to disabuse anyone with the notion that it is possible for human beings to ?Go back? to ?living in caves?. First, very few human beings ever lived in caves; most human settlements were just exposed to the elements and decayed back into the ground never to be seen again. Our ancestors were no-more cavemen than we are today Condo-men. Second, civilization has made it impossible to go back. We can?t just abandon our monster as the Mayans did, we have razed the world as we?ve marched across it and have destroyed that possibility. We have to go forward, not necessarily with civilization (indeed if we do, I expect the human race to have been all but wiped out in my lifetime), but with a new social endeavor that reveals civilization as futile, tedious and unhealthy. Some call it the Third Way. I have no term to replace it, so I let it stand; neither one way nor the other, but a completely different way. A new way to live, and soon because we don?t have a lot of time left to try.

Ish




Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleMokshaMan
enthusiast
Registered: 03/13/01
Posts: 280
Re: evolution [Re: missulena]
    #409322 - 09/30/01 05:30 PM (19 years, 6 months ago)

Perhaps escape is too strong of a word, retreat might be better... And yes, I am basicly stating the most basic rule of existenece, survival.



--------------------
Men can only be happy when they do not assume that the object of life is happiness.
-- George Owell


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleMokshaMan
enthusiast
Registered: 03/13/01
Posts: 280
Re: evolution [Re: Ishmael]
    #409335 - 09/30/01 05:55 PM (19 years, 6 months ago)

Very interesting and good reading. A very well thought out logic, except for one thing that's bugging me. I have a problem with your idea that humans are still evolving. We may still be diversifying, but since we essentially control our own environment(living in house, medical surgery, antibotics, etc). Those people that would normally die from being either unable to adapt or unsuited to exist(of course this sort of struggle for survival still takes place in some places around the globe, Africa), generally do still exist(which might explain why the birth rates are going down in "civilized" countries). And for a long time people would marry others not because they were the fittest, but because they had the most wealth or belonged to the same social class. I don't mean any offence, but there are people with down syndrome having children. While I have no objection to this, in the wild this would have never happened because these people would most likely not have survived long enough to breed. We've essentially changed evolution to the point were it no longer matters if you're fit for survival, look at Stephen Hawking.

A third way huh? Any suggestions for how this would be accomplished in a different way than most other changes have come, ie violently? Would the idea/concept of money not have to be abandoned for this to take place? If so, I'd hold little hope for it coming.



--------------------
Men can only be happy when they do not assume that the object of life is happiness.
-- George Owell


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: evolution [Re: MokshaMan]
    #409382 - 09/30/01 06:58 PM (19 years, 6 months ago)

Humans follow a specific path of evolution. There are seven evolutionary steps, with each step having seven levels. Right now, the majority of humans are on the 5th level, of the 2nd evolutionary step. Which is belief in higher forces, Superstition, Fear of evil, Veneration of good. Here we see the development of religions, superstition, and gods. Our lack of real knowledge of Creation and fear makes us vulnerable to powers that we don't understand. A good portion of the current mass of humanity is on this level.
Level 6 is the first awareness of the meaning of our lives and the real spiritual life, development of the first spiritual cognition and their use. Spiritual healing, telepathy. This is man's first awareness of the spiritual world. He is no longer looking for answers but has no real understanding. It is the beginning of spirit and its uses. The average earthman is at this level.
Level 7- Development of knowledge and wisdom. The mind is developing and our accumulated wisdom from millions of years of lifetimes is creating intellect. Man is becoming aware there is more to life than his brief material existence.

And then we reach step 3 - Life with intelligence

1- It is the age of the mind. We can be considered intelligent life forms now. We have broken through the age of ignorance and have advanced well in the sciences. Our awareness of spirit and our connection to creation is stronger, for we are learning to create new foods, crossbreed animals, and are searching for understanding of how life works.

2- We are leaving behind the false thinking of the past. We no longer accept old myths, idols, and false gods. Real intellect and reasoning are providing us with enlightenment.

3- High technology is becoming a part of our world. Genetic engineering has led to the creation of the first life forms. The secrets of the universe are beginning to unfold to us, and man is learning about his place in the scheme of things. This is the present position of the educated Earth human.

4 - Awereness and Utilization of nature's laws. Man is leaving behind the old belief structures and is gaining in wisdom about the universe around him. Here we see develepmont in the sciencesas man learns to understand the forces of nature. There is high technology in the field of genetics as we learn to clone our cells and experiment with different life forms.

5- The use of spiritual forces in life. The development of the spirit is now playing a bigger part in the role of man. We have learned more about the ability of spirit to help us in life and are beginning to solve fewer problems by material means.

6- Understanding life through wisdom, truth, and logic. Man is on the verge of real understanding of Creation and the material universe around him. Contact with higher life forms begins. The spiritual world is now more understood, and the true meaning of life is unfolding. Our existence as part of Creation is becoming clearer, and peace among men is starting as the need for material things slips away.

7- Awareness of the real meaning of life- Man has a real knowledge of the laws of Creation and how to use them in society. Belief systems and religions are fading away as man develops true understanding of his role in Creation. It is understood that gods are actually human life forms with greater knowledge than most, and we now know that gods are also subject to Creation.

Then we reach Step FOUR - Life with spiritual understanding

1st level- Clear understanding of the spirit. We are now living in harmony with nature and Creationbecause we have real knowledge about life and spirit. Our thinking is clear, but we have little experience dealing with life using spiritual power.

2nd level- The truth of spiritual knowledge and Wisdom. We have real knowledge of the spiritual forces as we begin to use telepathy, telekenesis, time travel, and control over nature.

3rd level- We now have real knowledge of the spiritual forces as we begin to use telepathy and the other spiritual powers in our day to day lives. Many of our problems are solved with spiritual consciousness rather than material means. Our spiritual self is now understood, and we work with energies of all life forms.

4th level- Cognition of Creation and its laws. We have come to a personal knwoledge and of our connection with Creation and have a better understanding of the meaning of life and our role within it. The material world is becoming less important to us as we are learning more with our spiritual senses.

5th level- Living with Creational Laws. The end of the concept of belief. There is a major breakthrough in our development, for now we are living from the Creational Laws and have moved into a time of higher consciousness. We are perceiving life with the higher abilities of spirit instead of the simple material senses of sight, touch, smell, hearing and taste. Our accumulated wisdom from previous lives is being very helpful. Our previous lives and experiences are very clear to us.

6th level- Controlled utilization of spiritual forces. The power of our spirit is causing us to live longer. Health problems are vanishing because we control our bodies through spiritual balance. We are beginning to develop a society of integrity wherein we can sense each other's emotions and thinking.

7th level- First ability to Create living creatures. We have developed very high technology and can roam the universe. The knowledge of the material life is ours, and we can create our own life forms to work for us. Our genetic scientists can preserve extinct species by recreating them in the laborotory.

Then we reach step 5. Which I wont go into detail now. Unless you want me to. But the point is we are still evolving, and will continue to do so, until we become one with Creation and continue evolving wherby we become an entirely new Creation capable of Creating other universes ourselves. It's a great cycle.



Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineKeepAskingTime
addict
Registered: 05/14/01
Posts: 596
Loc: Central PA
Last seen: 16 years, 4 months
Re: evolution [Re: ]
    #409593 - 09/30/01 10:48 PM (19 years, 6 months ago)

yes Shroomism, please go into the next ones, and possibly the previous ones before...only if you're up to it.
you call it a cycle....what about reaching the most evolved point there? - 7th step, 7th level? what after that? submit ourselves to 1st step, 1st level? travel throughout consciousnesses in history, thus jumping around from step, level to step, level? totally becoming ONE with all and everything, thus beyond all steps, levels...totally uncomprehensible..................?



--------------------
I'm praying for infinite lapdances in heaven and an infinite supply of cocaine to snort out of Angelina Jolie's ass crack.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: evolution [Re: KeepAskingTime]
    #409651 - 09/30/01 11:49 PM (19 years, 6 months ago)

Ok man you got it. I will start a new post and include every step of Creation.



Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineTraveller
enthusiast
Registered: 04/13/01
Posts: 309
Last seen: 13 years, 6 months
Re: evolution [Re: MokshaMan]
    #409676 - 10/01/01 12:19 AM (19 years, 6 months ago)

evolution never stops, don't think that "evolution" means developing into a stronger or somehow "better" species/organism or whatever.

in my 1st year archaeology course a while back we did the standard study of the primate-hominid fossil record so far. from the oldest and most ape-like fossils ever found to the skull of the modern human. all sorts in between, many of which are thought not to be direct ancestors of our species. one interesting thing was that several ancient "human" skulls, from i forget how many thousand years ago, had a brain case that was one third bigger than our skulls today, but the imprint of the brain inside showed it to have been less convoluted.

damnit i caught a cold in the mountains and now i can't think straight...maybe i'll write some more later.



Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleMokshaMan
enthusiast
Registered: 03/13/01
Posts: 280
Re: evolution [Re: Traveller]
    #409785 - 10/01/01 02:40 AM (19 years, 6 months ago)

Just because we're "evolving" societally doesn't mean it's true evolution in the sense that Darwin(defended by Huxley(who created the idea of social Darwinism)) defined it. Although I'll accept that we're diversifying, if that's what we're defining evolution to be(this is not what I believe to be the true definition, but I'll accept it as yours).

I personally have lots of problems with the current concepts of man's evolution based on fosil records. The reason for this is that every 3 or 4 years, there seems to be a total regrouping. My favorite has to be the "earliest" human remains when all that they have is a jaw bone, a pinky bone, a couple of ribs and two leg bones. Our picture of human's rise is incomplete at best in my opinion. I also have to wonder about the giant leaps in brain capacity that are said to have taken place twice, nearly doubling the size of our brain(four times bigger, doubled twice). If you could tell me more, I'd love to listen and hear you out.

Edited by MokshaMan on 10/01/01 01:41 AM.



--------------------
Men can only be happy when they do not assume that the object of life is happiness.
-- George Owell


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinemissulena
enthusiast
Registered: 05/26/01
Posts: 251
Last seen: 19 years, 1 month
Re: evolution [Re: Traveller]
    #409817 - 10/01/01 03:48 AM (19 years, 6 months ago)

Is there any correlation between brain size and intelligence?
because stephen hawkings has actually got a small head.

Edited by missulena on 10/01/01 02:57 AM.



Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineTraveller
enthusiast
Registered: 04/13/01
Posts: 309
Last seen: 13 years, 6 months
Re: evolution [Re: MokshaMan]
    #409819 - 10/01/01 03:51 AM (19 years, 6 months ago)

ok I agree, and any anthropologist or archaeologist or person who has actually studied the fossil record will agree that it is incomplete and that it gives us only a very vague outline to create theories from. i don't know anything about giant leaps in brain capacity...

ok i'll just write some stuff as i think of it, some of you will know all of this but it will be new to others.

it seems now that a while back in africa (damn i wish i had my notes, or that i knew of a good website with this stuff so i could give you some approximate dates) there were lots of primates of varying sizes and shapes. in the older skulls (the complete ones anyway) the hole at the base of the skull where the spinal chord enters is at the BACK, which suggests very strongly that they walked on all fours (this hole is at the bottom of our skulls today, so we can look forward when we are standing or sitting upright, otherwise we would be walking around staring up at the sky). in later skulls this hole gets gradually lower, eventually reaching the bottom of the skull behind the jawbone.

from the discovery of a jawbone we can estimate the size and shape of the skull, by examining the teeth we can see what kinds of food they ate or whether they still used their teeth as weapons.

leg bones, when compared with the bones of modern humans, apes and other fossil bones, give us an idea of how tall the creature was, how it moved...etc

the dates we read in books are worked out using one of two methods. the first is based on depth, the kind of rock things are buried in and knowledge of that areas geological past. the second is commonly called carbon dating, where the amount of acertain radioactive isotope of carbon is measured. radioactive things have a "half-life", meaning half will decompose...eg an element with a halflife of 1 year will go from 1 kg to 500g in one year, 250g the next, 125g...etc, until eventually it becomes too small to measure. neither of these methods is very accurate, again i forget the numbers but with one it's + or - several thousand years and with the other it's + or - several tens of thousands of years.

so there were lots of different species of primates evolving in africa millions of years ago, some evolved into chimps, gorillas, humans, etc, but most went extinct. so for hundreds of thousands of years there were many (we have no idea how many) of species of "humans" living in africa, walking around hunting and gathering probably fighting and possibly interbreeding. the best known of these species, and the one that managed to survive the longest (besides our own) was "homo neanderthalus", named after the place where the first bones were found. neanderthals were coexisting with homosapiens for more than twenty thousand years in northern europe, both species had very similar cultures, using the same stone chipped tools (cutters, hammers, scrapers, spears, needles...all mass produced) and making the same paintings on cave walls (hand prints, animals, patterns etc). neanderthals had bigger brains than homosapiens, were shorter and bigger boned with bigger hands and feet, and they had much bigger noses, certainly a much better sense of smell but the shape of their face and necks (apparently) restricted the range of sounds they could produce with their mouths and vocal chords. i saw on discovery channel a while back a thing about the relationship between humans and dogs, some professors saying that homosapiens were living with dogs and neanderthals were not, so over time the homosapiens allowed dogs to do their smelling for them, allowing their noses to shrink and their vocal chords to develope enough for complex language...

anyway neanderthals eventually died out in europe, and everyone was content to argue or philosophise about whether they went completely extinct or interbred with homosapiens, thus adding to our current gene pool? so when the complete skeleton of a child showing roughly fifty-fifty neanderthal/homosapien traits was discovered a while back in europe this debate was rekindled. first people said aha!! they DID interbreed so there ARE neanderthal genes in our pool today. but wait! if a horse gets a donkey pregnant we get a mule, and a mule is a perfectly functional living creature but it is completely infertile and can never procreate. so until we find a second or later generation skeleton (one that was the child of a halfie, or later) we cannot answer this question.

ouch this is really long. post away



Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineTraveller
enthusiast
Registered: 04/13/01
Posts: 309
Last seen: 13 years, 6 months
Re: evolution [Re: MokshaMan]
    #409822 - 10/01/01 04:03 AM (19 years, 6 months ago)

ok so we're definately evolving societally right? so that means we're thinking about different things in different ways, which means our brains are developing differently, so even if that was all that was different it seems safe enough to me to say that our brains must be evolving.

besides that, things evolve to adapt to their environments yes? and you say that we are now adapting our environment to us, so therefore we are no longer evolving (perhaps).

so if the australian aboriginals living in harsh outback, deserts with bright bright sunlight, evolved to have dark skin and prominent eyebrows, and the folks living in the mountains of finland evolved to have white skin, blue eyes and blonde hair...we have changed our environment, i'm now sitting on a crap chair staring at a screen almost still with my fingers rapidly moving over a keyboard, the light in here is electrical rather than solar, every day we wear little couches on our feet walking over almost completely flat surfaces while before we climbed trees and mountains barefoot...the food we eat is changing...everything is changing so surely our bodies are changing too? no? isn't this evolution?

i agree that "survival of the fittest" is no longer appropriate. i also believe the the average human of 100,000 years ago would have been a far stronger, far more capable, far more alert and aware creature than the average human in an "advanced" culture today.

am I making any sense?



Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: evolution [Re: missulena]
    #409894 - 10/01/01 08:12 AM (19 years, 6 months ago)

>>Is there any correlation between brain size and intelligence?
because stephen hawkings has actually got a small head.

When the brain is developed, it has more wrinkles. Generally..the larger the brain, the more developed is that person's spiritual knowledge.



Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleIshmael
enthusiast

Registered: 10/29/99
Posts: 224
Re: evolution [Re: Traveller]
    #410052 - 10/01/01 01:31 PM (19 years, 6 months ago)

This may or may not still be relevant considering the divergence in the topic, but I'll post it anyway and perhaps add an addendum at the ass-end.

From the perspective that life is an extenuation of energetic dissipation - that life stores energy and dissipates it in order to promote equilibrium within the larger environment (and that the environment itself thusly acts as a unified /thing/ promoting its own equilibrium), then places that have the highest concentrations of /life/ are really repositories of stored energetic potential. I mentioned dissipative structures and how they occur in systems far from equilibrium, producing spontaneous order (a higher version of equilibrium). Well, an ecosystem that is highly abundant in life forms, let us say a forest just to make the example more visual; a forest that has an abundance of life has a lot of potential energy. A forest that is functioning with all of its niches filled with animals, vegetables and minerals is called a ?Peak Ecosystem?. For the terrain, climate and native populations of species, a peak ecosystem is what ?nature? strives for ? the maximum amount of diversity within a minimum of space. Think of the rainforests of Central America, in-keeping with my original example. In the peak ecosystem for the typical Costa Rican rain forest, the soil is very poor but the abundance of life is incredible. Why? Because all of the energy /in/ the system is tied up in the living constituency. The potential energy is constantly moving; growing, dying and being transmuted to a new form. The energy is always moving, always cycling and the ?waste? factor is negligible.

Like all things, when energy is high, change occurs. The higher the energy, the faster the rate of change. Ice melts to water and evaporates to air when enough heat energy is imparted to cause the phase changes. In a peak ecosystem, energy is high. Evolution, the process of diversifying dissipative structures, has an abundance of resources to work with. The creatures and life forms within the forest are more likely to change (a high energy dynamic promotes change). And each change breeds a new wave of changes and so on until the system produces a higher order of equilibrium and thus a higher level of energy containment).

This association of evolution not as a disconnected process, but as being limited or accelerated based upon the energy contained within each ecosystem, has some ramifications. First, it means that a peak ecosystem is much more likely to promote evolution. In our example of a rain forest as a peak ecosystem, we see exactly that ? evolution constantly occurring. Secondly, we see that an ecosystem that is very /far/ from being peak will be less capable of promoting evolution ? a relatively un-energetic ecosystem will tend to evolve in much slower time scales (evolution still occurs, but the process itself is dissipated).

On this secondary note, I think I have some basis to answer the question posed: Are human beings still evolving. Human beings are a product of their environment, not just in the mental-health sense. The cities, towns, and homes we build are ecosystems that have a lot of /static/ energetic potential (the potential energy of a building for example doesn?t get easily transferred, not in the sense that the potential energy in a bunch of plantains, bananas or monkeys can be). There is less for evolution to work with, less energy within the system itself in the form of growth, competition and change. For all intents and purposes, a city is really a limitedly energetic ecosystem. That is not to say that evolution and adaptation are not occurring, because they are. But the species that do adapt to our cities and colonize them are those that we usually associate with being first-colonizers (they often said when I was a child that if we did end up blowing up the world with nuclear devices that rats and cockroaches would likely survive and re-colonize the waste lands we created ? I doubt I was the only one who realized that rats and cockroaches are the first creatures to re-colonize the cities. Puts a new spin on the term ?wasteland?.)

This low-energy evolution occurs very slowly. And because we live in these low energy ecosystems, we are exposed to the influences of evolution on smaller scales (it is never defeated, only slowed down). It?s lack of exposure to the influence of evolution that is the reason behind the seeming lack of evolutionary change (And perhaps even degradation) within the human genetic pool. It?s not that humans are special, it?s just that evolution occurs very slowly in deserts, and that?s really what cities are: evolutionary deserts. Sure things live in deserts and some deserts thrive in a relative sense, but things occur slowly. But then cities do exactly what we should expect them to ? they act as buffers to evolution. When our cultural focus has for the past ten millennia been a war with the processes of evolution in an attempt to war against ?nature? we have to expect that our cities will forward that goal themselves. We /could/ theoretically have cities that are arboreal and thriving with animals and life, but it would not be convenient to our /way of life/ ? picking zebra hide out of the grill of the taxi or being mobbed on the subway by a militant band of gibbons. Our dwellings reflect our way of life, so barren desert-like cities are only natural. And as long as we hide within our domesticated (the process of taming or subduing) existences we?re hiding from the potential of evolution.

So, when people say that we can do no /real/ harm to the world, even if we destroy it, the preceding is what I try to explain to them. No, we can?t really harm the general condition of /life/ but we can set back evolution by a few million years. Then the whole cycle has to get started all over again. Peak ecosystems have to start over from scratch, rising up out of the wastelands like rats and cockroaches. Is that really bad, they inevitably ask? And that question is really something you have to answer yourself. Is it bad to cause the cycle of evolution on the planet to start over simply because you don?t care and are too lazy to change? Probably not, as it is often pointed out, life on this planet will not go on perpetually. Once the sun begins to expand, life will just be burned away. By resetting evolution you?re really resetting life?s attempts to buffer energy on this planet and establish equilibrium. Who knows, perhaps when the sun begins to heat up, if life was given a chance to continue on evolving and reaching towards that ever-loftier summit of equilibrium, perhaps it could dissipate even /that/ energy and perhaps continue on. The chance is slight, but then, so are the chances for life in the first place. And who is to say what the next level of equilibrium would be like? What the next manifestation of life would be limited by. We?ve been caught up in the role of the Divine Conqueror for so long that we?ve been blinded to the potential that rests in nature and thusly in ourselves. But that?s a choice, and its about time we realized it was.

Now that the conversation has turned more in regards to homonid evolution it may be helpful to point out briefly that species seem to exist in three states in 'nature'. The first state is characterized by not having enough food - this state forces adaptation and evolution in the realm of expansion of tastes, traits and territories. The second is having a subsistance-level amount of food - this state doesn't promote adaptation or evolution, the species is equalized with the environment (a shark is a good example of this equalized state - some species havn't evolved for millions of years. Also species that exist within this subsistance state tend to live longer for whatever reason). The third state is having an over-abundance of food - this state causes a species to refine its tastes, adaptations, skills and territories (in short, the process of specialization). The human animal in its civilized state of reduced evolution is only negligibly effected by any of these three energetic states. Though perhaps not entirely. It is possible that certain biological phenomenon like cancer could be attributed to mutations caused by existance in an over-consumptive state - cancer is just a non-beneficial biological mutation or a non-beneficial evolutionary step. That's a big theroy, don't try to swallow it too quickly or you might choke.

Ish



Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleMokshaMan
enthusiast
Registered: 03/13/01
Posts: 280
Re: evolution [Re: Traveller]
    #410231 - 10/01/01 05:33 PM (19 years, 6 months ago)

Thank you for the information, for the most part I was aware of all of this. Well ok, not that they used the jaw bone to determine in teeth were used as wepons, but the rest of it I knew. I still see a problem with it though, I mean they're basically guessing. I own an encyclopedia, a high school biology book, a college biology book, and another college biology book that my wife brought from Canada when she came to marry me and each one has a different picture of the evolution of man based on fossils. I seriously doubt that we'll with any certainty in the next 100 or so years be able to say this is our first ancestor. I mean there are some people that claim Lucy should be included and others that don't. There's not one set theory that holds up for any length of time and until there is I don't see how it's not a joke.

As for Neanderthals, I hadn't heard the theory of the dog as to why our senese of smell became less important, but this would indicate that we "domesticated" the animal very early in our history. Of course, I've also read theories that the Neanderthals were the first to develop the chimney and this lead to fires not being at the front of caves and therefore they were easier prey. I've also heard that there is no genetic evidence that Neanderthals and humans ever cross bread. In fact the only people that have a distinctly different genetic pattern is a group in South America. Or at least that was the tour guides claim when I was there. This group claims to have been the first group in the area and says that the level of difference between them and any other group is proof of their claim. Not sure this is important, but just an interesting aside.



--------------------
Men can only be happy when they do not assume that the object of life is happiness.
-- George Owell


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleMokshaMan
enthusiast
Registered: 03/13/01
Posts: 280
Re: evolution [Re: Traveller]
    #410262 - 10/01/01 06:00 PM (19 years, 6 months ago)

Your example of race is flawed, we have not been able to adapt our environments for as long as it takes to diversify enough to create different races. Besides as long as we can still breed with any other human and that new human can breed as well we're not really that different. I don't see changing sociologically as an evolutionary change, but that's me. Of course with a mother who has a degree in this and brings it up all the time(wish she'd stop doing this), what do I know. Society changes because of innovation by man that further attempts to allow him to control everything surrounding him. Yes our bodies are changing, I firmly believe that we are devolving as in we're going backwards. In the past we based who we would breed with on who was the strongest(or "most fit) and now you can be extremely ill and still look fine(look at JFK). Of course this has allowed us in some was to go forward with societial progress. I will agree that you make sense and your arguments are fairly sound. But you can make the case for anything, look at Hitler and the Nazis. In some ways it would have been a tremendous step forward(creation of supermen through specific breeding), but in many others it would not have been(the destruction of many groups of people, the homogenous nature that would have taken over, I'm sure there are a million more things). Societal change in groups isn't evolution, which is why social darwinism has been completely dismissed by the majority of the scientific community. While I think Thomas Henry Huxley was brilliant, he gave more fodder to the Nazis with this idea than proving anything else.



--------------------
Men can only be happy when they do not assume that the object of life is happiness.
-- George Owell


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinedimethoxy
Stranger
Registered: 10/02/01
Posts: 10
Loc: uk
Last seen: 19 years, 6 months
Re: evolution [Re: MokshaMan]
    #411226 - 10/02/01 02:29 PM (19 years, 6 months ago)

I love the theory of evolution, not just for life on earth, but on a universal scale. Do you think that perhaps the next stage of human evolution is already encoded in our genes? what if our genes effected the way we made choices, and therefore its geneticaly encoded who we will mate with. Following this logic, if we could map entire population of earth at all times and knew exactly what everyone was up to (GPS, surveillance) and combined this with the knowledge of everybodies genetic code and pumped into into a massivly powerfull computer (perhaps the entire internet running as a giant virtual supercomputer). Then we could work out who is gonna have kids with who and what the kids will be like, we could predict exactly how we will evolve??? I know its a little far fetched but the basic technology is already in place, but we would need to take into acount cultral and ecological evolution. This would indeed be a very interesting computer game.

It's better to be hated for who you are than to be loved for someone you are not.


--------------------
It's better to be hated for who you are than to be loved for someone you are not.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: | Last >  [ show all ]

Shop: North Spore Bulk Substrate   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Edibles   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Kratom Powder for Sale   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Amazon Scales, Terrence McKenna

General Interest >> Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Evolution
( 1 2 3 4 all )
SkorpivoMusterion 8,111 61 12/08/03 05:34 PM
by Anonymous
* The Seven Steps of Human Evolution
( 1 2 3 all )
ShroomismM
5,632 42 05/23/09 01:39 PM
by OrgoneConclusion
* The Seven Steps of Human Evolution
( 1 2 all )
Anonymous 4,717 20 01/22/03 10:54 AM
by Shroomism
* Psychedelics and the Evolution of the Human Brain DoctorJ 3,558 19 10/29/03 11:57 PM
by Mushmonkey
* change and the rapid evolution of humaninty...
( 1 2 3 all )
Smack31 5,091 57 09/25/02 06:27 PM
by shii-tan
* The Idea of Evolution is BS
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )
World Spirit 17,263 165 07/21/02 11:44 AM
by whiterastahippie
* Proof That God Does Not Exist
( 1 2 all )
yewhew 3,893 37 02/21/04 05:34 AM
by raytrace
* The future of human existance JuR 793 2 02/15/02 01:10 PM
by skaMariaPastora

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, Jokeshopbeard, DividedQuantum
4,415 topic views. 0 members, 0 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic ]
Search this thread:
Magic-Mushrooms-Shop.com
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2021 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.051 seconds spending 0.01 seconds on 16 queries.