Religon & twisting words

[????????]

yes. rather survival of the better adapted.

question: since things evolve by natural selection, every generation is not necessarily "better" than the last. so organisms today are not "more evolved", they are just different. i'm curious, restin, how do you fit the technologic piece in the puzzle? since technology does get better and better. and it does not die. it's like life's evil twin!

(see this video

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/kevi ... olves.html

if you raised an eyebrow when you read the not die bit. it's 20 minutes but it's worth it)

 

[magickmumu]

yes. rather survival of the better adapted.

question: since things evolve by natural selection, every generation is not necessarily "better" than the last. so organisms today are not "more evolved", they are just different. i'm curious, restin, how do you fit the technologic piece in the puzzle? since technology does get better and better. and it does not die. it's like life's evil twin!

(see this video

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/kevi ... olves.html

if you raised an eyebrow when you read the not die bit. it's 20 minutes but it's worth it)

Technology is knowledge. Knowledge can be lost. I seeTechnological innovations as extensions of the human body, mind and senses.

 

[st.bot.32]

If only the strongest would survive evolution, mankind would have evolved completely differently. It would evolved, as Adolf Hitler dreamed it to be: strong, powerful and everyone the same.

??But, that basically IS human history. Hitler wasn't a "new thing". He was basically just a continuation of pretty much all of human history. nations conquering nations, widening their influence, homogenizing the people that live under them and killing off dissenters. a perfect example is the roman empire dominating europe, the chinese empire that gradually homogenized all of china after killing off other warring ethnicities.. or the british empire conquering large portions of this planet alongside france and spain, the fallout of which we are still feeling today. it's only in the past 80 or so years of human history that conquering other nations has become something that is looked on with distaste, before then it was a rite of passage. If hitler had lived 100 years earlier he would probably have been considered a hero like the conqueror Napoleon

Why are there still herbivores if their only reason to exist is to supply carnivores wit energy?

i think you are fundamentally misinterpreting natural selection with the assumption that natural selection necessarily leads to carnivores. it simply leads to species that are better suited to the environment in which they live. natural selection also leads to symbiosis. as the earth is a gigantic place with plenty of isolated islands, separate continents and many different climates it would be only natural to expect there to be a wide variety of species

too many carnivores==nothing to eat, they go extinct. too many herbivorous likewise can lead to food shortages. both are part of a complex interrelated cycle

anyway if we can learn anything from human history it is that we have the ability to choose, to move away from our violent primitive past and seek peace. hopefully. rather than look at violence in human history and violence in nature in a feeble attempt to justify our own behavior (ala hitler)

 

[Brugmansia]

The women take only the rich? Wrong! This is simply not so. If you only made experience with women who loved your money- then I am sorry for you.

It's not about love, it's about re-production. It's what genes do, they force us to re-product, it's not a choice of the Self. The Self wants love. Everyone can overcome this through transcending and become truly the Self instead of being his genes with a covered indentity. Not letting the genes dominate the Self that is.

Spread love and softness for humanity, working on our connection with no boundries first, before giving new life. An individual who hasn't trandscended yet, instinctively believes that the only possible way to achieve enlightment, is to working for his own genes by putting them through, which is wrong. We stay within our own tight identity as long as we are not aware of this. Genes hold us into bondage.

That's the problem humanity faces, we rather focus on putting our genes through rather than firstly working on a balanced environment for all. Realising that there's only one connected life with no boundries, and then let arrive new life through re-production in a world of love is the highest possible destination.

If only the strongest would survive evolution, mankind would have evolved completely differently. It would evolved, as Adolf Hitler dreamed it to be: strong, powerful and everyone the same.

Hitler had his period, just like the strong men in the woods once had, and nowadays multinationals. They are all the same in fact. Our Self's should be connected, not trying to eliminate every other chain so that only one kind of identity remains to exist, or build a rank system in where it's all about climbing.

As long as any rank system continues to exist, we humans will never wake up, and remain living in a narrow area. Trying to change every Self so that's matching with the one at the top of the pyramid, is being asleep. We should connect instead. Every new re-producted individual, arrives within such a narrow cocoon as long as we ain't waking up together.

That's why war and the change of controllers never fades away. It's a constant situation of system ranking rather than to connecting all Self's

If survival of the fittest exists, how do you explain the circle of life? Why are there still herbivores if their only reason to exist is to supply carnivores wit energy? Why are there producers that are eaten? Why isn't every plant poisonous? Why is there still diversity in nature?

We're still in the middle of becoming enlighted. Knowing the theory of genes, and witnessing the horror of it yourself, are two different things. Only by seeing it yourself you'll realise that mankind can only wake up if it decides to make investments in life as it's first priority, instead of just giving new life and let it arrive.

Nature does not follow simple rules as survival of the fittest. Survival of the fittest is a human rule, not a natural one.

This is a rule that was invented by capitalists that say that people are naturally greedy and we therefore need all to be greedy and do the best to gain most money.

Indeed, they are certainly aware of it, and they can only survive if a majority of the people is ignorant of the other direction. It's just dominance through controlling, it doesn't matter whether it's a capitalist, dictator, or another certain one who's trying to become powerful through distinguishing. It has been always someone so far who doesn't want to invest in life but using life for his own profit and creating an 'ideal model' through bending instead of connecting. Investing in life means giving and honesty. Which in the end, leads to love for each other, and connection with our Self's, instead of interactions with our ego's.

It's up to us to create that cradle. Because when our seeds are coming, they believe what they see.

 

[druglessdouglas]

primate behavour, only we have learned to throw megaton stones alll the way round the planet

 

[????????]

the main drive of humans and animals is to survive. And this is wrong.

hey i was thinking about that last week. i think posing survival as the ultimate goal of existence is misleading. then you get such fallacies as "I have to survive." i guess the idea arises because people need to have something that makes their existence dignified in some way, totally missing that just by realizing they exist they are well ahead.

 

[????????]

Technology is knowledge. Knowledge can be lost.

but what if we go extinct and aliens came and found our machines and reverse-engineered them and used them?

 

[restin]

First of all, I like the whole talk here.

yes. rather survival of the better adapted.

question: since things evolve by natural selection, every generation is not necessarily "better" than the last. so organisms today are not "more evolved", they are just different. i'm curious, restin, how do you fit the technologic piece in the puzzle? since technology does get better and better. and it does not die. it's like life's evil twin!

Technology is indeed extremely interesting. First of all, where do you set the beginning of technology?

Say, fire. Then the origin of technology was a means of survival, as our ancestors didn't want to eat raw meat, bacteria die, less pathogens in general, better taste etc.

Further technology e.g. the wheel and scythe are a means of increasing..hm, how shall we say, the comfort of work and therefore increase efficiency. This is more or less technology as it is today.

We see, that technology has a dispersed role in human history. Nonetheless, obsession of technology was born less than 100 years ago and is now blossoming to perfection - modern humanity has changed the word "God" to "technology" (I am sorry, GOD).

What is now its meaning towards nature? I guess it is an obsession of getting out of the circle of life...People want to prolong life, make coffins so their bodies are not returned to nature. Of course this finally fails. Nonetheless we really see a fear of death and nature in humans and their obsession to flee from it. The dream of immortality is not new. Humans want to break out of a cicle, desperately but they fail. Maybe this is one of the many tragedies of humankind.

And finally, does technology get better? Where will it end? What is the perfect computer, mobile phone etc. I personally believe that it is a downward spiral. Do we live better? We, the technocratic manicas, we cannot be happy!! look at all doctors, psychiatrists, schizophrenics, madmen we all need and compare it to the happy and (unfortunately no more) humble asians....

 

[restin]

??But, that basically IS human history. Hitler wasn't a "new thing". He was basically just a continuation of pretty much all of human history. nations conquering nations, widening their influence, homogenizing the people that live under them and killing off dissenters. a perfect example is the roman empire dominating europe, the chinese empire that gradually homogenized all of china after killing off other warring ethnicities.. or the british empire conquering large portions of this planet alongside france and spain, the fallout of which we are still feeling today. it's only in the past 80 or so years of human history that conquering other nations has become something that is looked on with distaste, before then it was a rite of passage. If hitler had lived 100 years earlier he would probably have been considered a hero like the conqueror Napoleon

You are right, social darwinism is quite old (especially with the british during colonialization) but Hitler really perfectionized (if I can say so) the whole. He was the first to create the perfect fascistic system. But you cannot say that it is exactly the same....

too many carnivores==nothing to eat, they go extinct. too many herbivorous likewise can lead to food shortages. both are part of a complex interrelated cycle

That's the whole story. What drive makes animals not evolve in herbi- resp carnivores? Why don't they do it? The animal itself doesn't know anything about the circle of nature and only wants to survive (in the theory of survivalism)

It's not about love, it's about re-production. It's what genes do, they force us to re-product, it's not a choice of the Self. The Self wants love. Everyone can overcome this through transcending and become truly the Self instead of being his genes with a covered indentity. Not letting the genes dominate the Self that is.

If this is the genes, why are there still gays, in humans and animals? Impotents? I do not say that it is completely not about reproduction - but also not only about it. It is a drive, but IMHO not the drive. And I agree with what you further write, I guess. Transendency is a bit vague. How do you want to acquire it, when you are a peasant in the 30-years war? We are probably one of the first generations in Europe that really can afford it. I personally wouldn't say that it is the ultimate ultimate aim of whole humanity - but is surely is a very important one.

love.

Hitler had his period, just like the strong men in the woods once had, and nowadays multinationals. They are all the same in fact. Our Self's should be connected, not trying to eliminate every other chain so that only one kind of identity remains to exist, or build a rank system in where it's all about climbing.

It is risky to reduce whole human history into one paragraph, one thought, don't you think? :wink: Climbing the rank is a quite modern idea, earlier on, when you were a peasant, you stayed one, you knew your place. I still believe that Hitler was a very interesting person. Of course he was extremely cruel, but interesting...Is hierarchy bad? is it? How do you want to make society? The only solution I see is self substantial farming but I guess that it is globally to late for it....

We're still in the middle of becoming enlighted.

Interesting statement, to say that whole humanity is on the way to something. Do you really believe that there will somewhen be only enlightened buddhas walking the streets? Dunno.

hey i was thinking about that last week. i think posing survival as the ultimate goal of existence is misleading. then you get such fallacies as "I have to survive." i guess the idea arises because people need to have something that makes their existence dignified in some way, totally missing that just by realizing they exist they are well ahead.

I strongly agree.

 

[Brugmansia]

Interesting statement, to say that whole humanity is on the way to something. Do you really believe that there will somewhen be only enlightened buddhas walking the streets? Dunno.

No, just the Europe after WWII worldwide. From there on we'll have to be be aware that capitalism can proceed it's current function without growing out of hand.

 

[paint]

It's not about survival of the fittest, its about survival of those who fit. Life itself has defied the second law of thermodynamics and survived for millions of years because of its diversity and complexity of connections. Each thing in an ecosystem plays several roles that support other forms of life. One tree may shelter birds and smaller plants from weather and harsh sun, give food to said birds and other animals, create a humid area under its foliage as it pumps water from the ground in to the air, exchange CO2 with O2 as the inverse of animals and fungi, provide a home for insects, and upon death be devoured by fungi and microorganisms, creating soil for the next generation.

Just like countless other things, business, social relationships, mind power, the more complex your network, the more success and more stability you create. The more people you have good interactions with, the more opportunities you have. How much one organism can give to others determines its future.