Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

They stopped evolution!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • They stopped evolution!

    Scroll down and look at Learyfan's post:

    Yes we are. But the government has shut down the movement to spread higher consciousness throughout the world by making consciousness expanding drugs illegal.

    Halting human evolution is probably the worst thing the US government has ever done.

    http://www.shroomery.org/forums/show...0/fpart/3/vc/1


    This seems to be this moron's main reason for opposing Bush.

  • #2
    LOL human evolution is finished anyways. For evolution to take place there must be natural selection. Since we control our environment and don't let the vulnerable die in huge numbers anymore, evolution can no longer take place. Don't get me wrong, I'm not lamenting the loss of mass death, just stating scientific fact here.

    Comment


    • #3
      Okay?

      That's a pretty bad reason to not vote for Bush. Although any reason is good enough for me! ;)

      However...and I'm prepared to be attacked...I happen to think that mind-expanding drugs are just that. (pot not included)

      Our consciousness is limitted by barriers which filter reality down to a comprehendable level. We are ill-equipt to deal with reality if we percieved as it really is. Psychotropic drugs can and often do eliminate these barriers. There is some fantastic philosophy writen by persons on these drugs - Carlos Casteneda, Terrence McKenna etc. Their experinentation with shrums, Payote, and most importantly, Iawaska, have revealed some very interesting theories. Even contemporary philosophers acknowledge their contributions.

      Here is a lay example of what I mean.

      Let's say you took acid or shrums and you start halucinating. You look up at a tree limb and it appears to be waving around. Now, we can all agree that matter is in motion. That's basic physics. So, if you SEE a solid object in motion aren't you seeing it more realistically, albeit an exagerated version of it's motion?

      These drugs are dangerous, no doubt. But if you desire to "expand" your mind and perceptions and you have access to an experienced guide, you will no doubt never look at reality the same way again. Particularly Iowaska. Wow!!!

      These are not new idea. Cultures dating as far back as history has documented have used these drugs for exactly the same reasons. Spiritual connectedness and means to tap into the great unknown in search for the illusive answer to "Why?" Douglas Adam's answer to that question not withstanding.

      Comment


      • #4
        Evolution in action:

        http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...=Google+Search

        Comment


        • #5
          lol-

          Comment


          • #6
            LOL human evolution is finished anyways. For evolution to take place there must be natural selection. Since we control our environment and don't let the vulnerable die in huge numbers anymore, evolution can no longer take place. Don't get me wrong, I'm not lamenting the loss of mass death, just stating scientific fact here.
            Sorry to burst your bubble here....but evolution doesn't necessarily require mass human death to proceed. Our human ancestors succeeded precisely because they were able to cooperate -- to hunt, raise children, raise crops, and so on. Realizing cooperation is good, taking advantage of it, and detecting cheaters is thought by folks who study human evolution to be largely responsible for our "machiavellian" intelligence and politics. Over time, societies that best mix the drive to compete with the gains to be had from cooperation generally succeed.

            Comment


            • #7
              But that has little to do with biological evolution. Different socieities are not biologically different. They are simply run differently. A society that is victorious over another one does not have a different biology so they do not have an evolutionary effect even if they were to massacre the entire defeated civilization, which doesn't usually happen.

              Comment


              • #8
                I would argue that humans are a classic example of evolutionary avoidance, if anything. Evolution is a means of survival. Change is necessary to suit the environment, whether that be weather systems, lack of food types or abundance of others, and environmental necessity of survival. Human intellegence has made it so that we alter our environment to suit us. Rather than develope fur to keep warm we blanked ourselves. Rather than develope muscle mass, speed and agility, and natural weapons for hunting and survival, we develop tools and weapons. You can argue that this is specialized evolution if you'd like, but I tend to think of it as a natural mutation because unlike the other creatures on the planet we don't contribute to the natural systems of the earth. We simply take without giving. We have removed ourselves and watch from an objective standpoint, as if we are not a part of it; ignoring the fact that the issues facing the environment are not our fault. Or at least not doing anything about them.

                Ask yourself how odd it is that when we pull of something like repopulating the California Condors we all give ourselves a collective pat on the back and an "atta-boy!" when the truth is they would not have needed saving had we not destroyed their natural habitat with our industrial expansionism in the first place.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Fonnicker
                  Rather than develope muscle mass, speed and agility, and natural weapons for hunting and survival, we develop tools and weapons.
                  And the inducement of steroids as an alternative.


                  The world definitely gives more than it takes from the environment, the question is can the environment be replenished at the same rapid rate it is being looted?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    And the inducement of steroids as an alternative.
                    Too funny, too sad, too true.

                    The world definitely gives more than it takes from the environment, the question is can the environment be replenished at the same rapid rate it is being looted?
                    I hate to be pessemistic, but I don't think it can be. It requires selflessness which I don't believe humanity posseses. There are obviously selfless people and organizations that are doing their best, but not nearly enough is being done. Truthfully, IMO, the only way to salvage the earth at this point is complete de-industrialization. And that simply will never happen intentionally. Although I defer to our dear friend Albert -

                    (not exact quote) I don't know how the next world war will be fought, but I am certain the one following will be fought with sticks and stones.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Sad, but true.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Julie
                        Sad, but true.

                        Knowing this, what as individuals can we do? We've all heard the phrase, "Think Globally, Act Locally!" Will this work? The thing about recycling is that it requires new industry to battle the by-products of existing industry. What point is there in addressing one problem by adding to another, i.e. the polutants released into the atmosphere by recycling plants?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          LOL. No offense, but, you go for the jugular on so many issues on this board, it's hard to keep up with you. You aren't one of the Presidential candidates cramming for feedback are you?

                          What can we do about the environment? Flow more money to the EPA for more stringent programs and enforce them, especially in the industrial areas. That will be a good start. Secondly, pull more civilian interest groups in and appoint committees (or watchdogs) in these industrial areas to highlight the breaking of the rules and regulations in these areas and publicize them to the greatest extent possible. Increase the fines and penalties for these offenses. Industrial companies hate publicity....it hurts their pocketbooks.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I would argue that humans are a classic example of evolutionary avoidance, if anything.
                            That's just ridiculous on the face of it. Trying to survive and pass on one's genes lies at the very heart of evolution. Sharks have survived for millions of years as they are -- are they "avoiding" evolution or are they an example of a successful species?

                            Besides, you're making the assumption evolution as a "point" or an end goal -- thus the desire to "avoid" evolution. Evolution has no point, no direction, no goal. It is merely the summed history of change.

                            Evolution is a means of survival.
                            No, you've got it backwards. "Evolution" is the result OF survival, it is a recorded history of it, not the mechanism for it.

                            Change is necessary to suit the environment, whether that be weather systems, lack of food types or abundance of others, and environmental necessity of survival. Human intellegence has made it so that we alter our environment to suit us. Rather than develope fur to keep warm we blanked ourselves. Rather than develope muscle mass, speed and agility, and natural weapons for hunting and survival, we develop tools and weapons. You can argue that this is specialized evolution if you'd like, but I tend to think of it as a natural mutation because unlike the other creatures on the planet we don't contribute to the natural systems of the earth.
                            Ridiculous. These are merely different suvival strategies and are on the face of it equally valid. You only believe they are invalid because of some belief that human behavior is bad for the environment. A species effect on its environment is irrelevant -- all that matters is survival.

                            Besides, you are assuming evolution is "darwinian" evolution as opposed to "punctuated -equilibrium" evolution a la Gould. If the latter typifies evolution species literally stay the same for the history of their life on Earth.

                            We simply take without giving. We have removed ourselves and watch from an objective standpoint, as if we are not a part of it; ignoring the fact that the issues facing the environment are not our fault. Or at least not doing anything about them.

                            Ask yourself how odd it is that when we pull of something like repopulating the California Condors we all give ourselves a collective pat on the back and an "atta-boy!" when the truth is they would not have needed saving had we not destroyed their natural habitat with our industrial expansionism in the first place.
                            No...it doesn't say anything at all besides that we have an evolved sense of duty towards our fellow creatures.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Julie
                              LOL. No offense, but, you go for the jugular on so many issues on this board, it's hard to keep up with you. You aren't one of the Presidential candidates cramming for feedback are you?

                              What can we do about the environment? Flow more money to the EPA for more stringent programs and enforce them, especially in the industrial areas. That will be a good start. Secondly, pull more civilian interest groups in and appoint committees (or watchdogs) in these industrial areas to highlight the breaking of the rules of regulations in these areas and publicize them to the greatest extent possible. Industrial companies hate publicity....it hurts their pocketbooks.
                              I know I do. I assure you I am not running for office.

                              Some of the biggest issues of our day require us to look at the unpopular viewpoints. Sometimes it's hard to point the finger at ourselves. Truthfully, we are all to blame for these problems.

                              I agree that your EPA ideas are what we should do. However, the industrial base can barely afford to operate in this country as it is. The stock-holders put entirely too much pressure on the companies to increase growth and profit. (rich get richer) Their competetors are already operating overseas for the cheap labor and lose environmental regulations and our domestic companies are losing their market share to a cheaper product. Add new EPA standards that require them to alter the systems to the point where it becomes even more difficult to operate profitably, and they will collapse. The only solution is government subsidation. We can't make it work by placing the environmental burdon directly upon the business owners.

                              Take the Japanese. For decades, the Japanese government paid automotive and electronics companies to operate at a loss so that they could offer a superior product at a cheaper price. It worked beautifully. It didn't take long before Sony loomed over RCA or Panasonic. Toyota and Honda dominated GM. Their economy flourished and eventually those same companies met the supply and demand balance and no longer needed government subsidation.

                              People know what is right, but aren't always willing to imlement it because it will cost them money. People go to wal-mart because it is cheap. Even though they believe it to be an evil corporation that kills small businesses everywhere it turns up, they still go there.

                              A simpler example. Everyone I know. Everyone I have ever spoken to agrees that teachers are severely underpaid. They also agree that it is one of the most important jobs a person can have. Yet, in order to pay the teachers more it means more taxes need to come out of your check. In Washington State, the measure has failed miserable every time. People want it. They agree it needs to happen, but do nothing to make it happen. Instead, they allow the state to tax them so their favorite sports team can have a new stadium.

                              Why are presciption drugs so expensive? Because rather than have it as a governmentally subsidized industry, it is a publically traded commodity. Rich get richer. Healthcare should never be publically traded because it changes the motivation for the research. Do I need liver damage, increased risk of heart attack, uncontrollable bowel movements, and severe rash as a side-effect because I don't like the fact that my toenails have a yellowish tint? There a drug for that! With research aimed at silly stuff like that, no wonder the costs are so high.

                              I all goes back to self sacrifice. What are we willing to do individually to benefit the whole? In most cases, nothing.

                              I hope I didn't go overboard there.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X