The Feminization of Man

For Satyr:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00h6sbt/What_Darwin_Didnt_Know/


An excellent summary. I particularly liked the sections about the evolution of altruism and that 'looking' at the eye through the evolution of fruitflies.

It is still possible to find quality TV. Thank Brits for the BBC.

BBC is awesome. Unfortunately I cannot watch the piece you linked me to.

I'm guessing it has to do with the evolution of cooperation and compassion.
And?

Did I claim that compassion was not necessary?
I just claimed that it was selfish at heart.

It's called 'What Darwin Didn't Know' and it is about evolution then (theory) and now (fact). What Darwin couldn't have known but summised (eg fossil record would back up his theory), what he got wrong (sexual selection as the only factor acting upon gene replication) and what he avoided saying (fully linking human ancestors to those of apes). It summarised what is known about evolution today and outlined the missing pieces that, when finally uncovered, will explain the emergence of life on earth. The tree of life as metaphor is grounded in fact.

Altruism is mentioned, using termites as an example, and appears to serve the purpose of furthering the chances of genetic survival within a family or a larger community. Individuals exhibiting altruistic behaviour, although they do not gain personally (eg the non reproductive worker termite) contribute to the survival of the genes in their 'families'. Hence Dawkins and his 'selfish gene' which so many people have misinterpreted. I thought this section might interest you.

The most fascinating point, amongst many, was the discovery of an 'eye' gene that can be traced as far back to the beginnings life on earth we can currently go that all things with eyes share. That is, the eye did not evolve from scratch in every species with eyes but from a single 'gene'. We can thank the humble fruit fly for that discovery.

Shame you can't watch it. Maybe it will be on youtube or DVD soon.

The presenter, Armand Leroi has written a book 'Mutants' which might appeal.

maryshelley wrote:

It's called 'What Darwin Didn't Know' and it is about evolution then (theory) and now (fact). What Darwin couldn't have known but summised (eg fossil record would back up his theory), what he got wrong (sexual selection as the only factor acting upon gene replication) and what he avoided saying (fully linking human ancestors to those of apes). It summarised what is known about evolution today and outlined the missing pieces that, when finally uncovered, will explain the emergence of life on earth. The tree of life as metaphor is grounded in fact.

Okay.

Quote :

Altruism is mentioned, using termites as an example, and appears to serve the purpose of furthering the chances of genetic survival within a family or a larger community. Individuals exhibiting altruistic behaviour, although they do not gain personally (eg the non reproductive worker termite) contribute to the survival of the genes in their 'families'. Hence Dawkins and his 'selfish gene' which so many people have misinterpreted. I thought this section might interest you.

This is well known and I've incorporated it in my thinking.

Wolves are another example.
The dominant pair reproduce, while the rest serve as supporting members.

By protecting the puppies of the dominant pair they ensure the passing on of their own genes, indirectly.

Here the sense of self is redirected into an association. It is this that makes social behavior possible.

Quote :

The most fascinating point, amongst many, was the discovery of an 'eye' gene that can be traced as far back to the beginnings life on earth we can currently go that all things with eyes share. That is, the eye did not evolve from scratch in every species with eyes but from a single 'gene'. We can thank the humble fruit fly for that discovery.

Shame you can't watch it. Maybe it will be on youtube or DVD soon.

Yes, because I download and burn interesting documentaries or disc. My son's inheritance.

A month ago I discovered on YouTube an interesting BBC documentary called Century of Self.
It's all about how Freud's insights influenced his nephews Bernays who then used them to invent the modern marketing mechanisms and the methods of modern mass control.

It's a 4 part series, one hour each piece.

I love the BBC.

Quote :

The presenter, Armand Leroi has written a book 'Mutants' which might appeal.

I'll look it up.

Recently I heard about how some scientists believe that mutations in our species are increasing.
Due to increasing reproduction for one.

It may explain cancer.

Funny how nature rebels against human environments that produce uniformity, by fragmenting the species further.

Satyr wrote:

This is well known and I've incorporated it in my thinking.

Not as well known as it should be. Or maybe it is known but ignored.

Quote :

Wolves are another example.
The dominant pair reproduce, while the rest serve as supporting members.

By protecting the puppies of the dominant pair they ensure the passing on of their own genes, indirectly.

Presumably then the omega's are related to one of the alpha's? Otherwise no point playing a supporting role. Might as well splinter and form a pack of one's own.

Quote :

A month ago I discovered on YouTube an interesting BBC documentary called Century of Self.
It's all about how Freud's insights influenced his nephews Bernays who then used them to invent the modern marketing mechanisms and the methods of modern mass control.

It's a 4 part series, one hour each piece.

I love the BBC.

I'd have to see it to comment but I'm not surprised. The origins of NLP?

Quote :

Recently I heard about how some scientists believe that mutations in our species are increasing.
Due to increasing reproduction for one.

It may explain cancer.

Funny how nature rebels against human environments that produce uniformity, by fragmenting the species further.

All living things are mutations! A limb is a mutation. A wing is a mutation of a limb.

As genes replicate they can just as easily replicate a 'bad' mutation as a 'good' one. But of course a 'bad' mutation in one situation might be a good one in another! As there is no such thing as an 'exact' copy, when copying the risks are, well, inherent. So no matter how hard controlling parties try to achieve uniformity or something else; nature just mixes things up.

Life is but a mutation brought about by mixing!

maryshelley wrote:

Presumably then the omega's are related to one of the alpha's? Otherwise no point playing a supporting role. Might as well splinter and form a pack of one's own.

No necessarily.
If they could form a pack of their own they would not submit to the dominance of another.

So, one can submit to a pack he has no relation to just to survive. He serves and receives as recompense protection and support.

Quote :

I'd have to see it to comment but I'm not surprised. The origins of NLP?

The origins of the post-modern world.
How psychology, even Freud's which is supposedly debunked, is being used to cotnrol the masses.

Quote :

Life is but a mutation brought about by mixing!

Yes, but in this case mutations that serve no purpose or are detrimental to survival are replicated through human intervention.
human intervention that protects weakness or these unfit mutations on the grounds of some human ideal.

Quote :

No necessarily.
If they could form a pack of their own they would not submit to the dominance of another.

So, one can submit to a pack he has no relation to just to survive. He serves and receives as recompense protection and support.

And what does the dominent pair receive from the pack? Come on now..... That which does not require a pack to hold it up, hunts alone. Bears, tigers, leopards, cheetah; which animals are most at risk of extinction? Herds, packs or lone hunters? Herbivores, carnivores or omnivores?

Quote :

The origins of the post-modern world.
How psychology, even Freud's which is supposedly debunked, is being used to cotnrol the masses.

Don't the masses require controlling then? What would happen if they weren't? Would they try to steal your books or your tinned soup?

Quote :

Quote :

Life is but a mutation brought about by mixing!

Yes, but in this case mutations that serve no purpose or are detrimental to survival are replicated through human intervention.
human intervention that protects weakness or these unfit mutations on the grounds of some human ideal.

Such as.....and so what....? What consequences will there be do you imagine? Intersting that only humans can intervene. Or is it only humans that think they can intervene. The consequences are unimaginable, most of the time.

Humans do not have a full picture of which mutations are responsible for what purpose. We are learning little by little but acting on a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. One might, for instance, find a 'mutated' gene responsible for a particular kind of cancer and 'knock' or 'screen' it out. But then a few years later on the geneticists discover that particular gene also served another rather more important function for instance it switched on another gene lying dormant the purpose of which only becomes apparent when external conditions change. To use a building analagy; a building will stand firm if you knock out a few individual bricks here and there. Knock out the cornerstones, however, and your whole building is in trouble. Unfortunately you are utterly ignorant of which bricks are actually the cornerstones because the building you live in is a roundhouse!

So a mutation that contributes to weakness today may prove to be a strength tomorrow but we don't know what tomorrow has in store. Upredictability is another thing that is built into life. What a bitch life is.

So get our friendly geneticists to knock out all this weakness that you see as being replicated by human intervention and where will it get us? What needs to be done perhaps is some work with the brains that have come up with all these tools for intervention because without our magnificent brains humans would be scrabbling around in the dirt with the rest of the dumb animals.

Time to call in the psychologists, perhaps?

Have you got it yet? The rub.

maryshelley wrote:

And what does the dominent pair receive from the pack? Come on now..... That which does not require a pack to hold it up, hunts alone. Bears, tigers, leopards, cheetah; which animals are most at risk of extinction? Herds, packs or lone hunters? Herbivores, carnivores or omnivores?

Is this so difficult for you to figure out on your own?

Social behavior is, on its own, a result of an inadequacy.
Cooperation and association is a compromise when all organisms are the product of discrimination and distancing and rejection.

That an individual dominates within the pack or in reference to its own kind does not mean it dominates universally.

I said and I say again: power is a relationship, a comparison.
This is why the concept of an omnipotent God is absurd.

Quote :

Don't the masses require controlling then? What would happen if they weren't? Would they try to steal your books or your tinned soup?

Yes, and?

Quote :

Such as.....and so what....? What consequences will there be do you imagine? Intersting that only humans can intervene. Or is it only humans that think they can intervene. The consequences are unimaginable, most of the time.

Global warming and pollution, in general, is the side-effect of this intervening.
Obesity and many other diseases and mental issues are the result of this meddling.

Quote :

So a mutation that contributes to weakness today may prove to be a strength tomorrow but we don't know what tomorrow has in store. Upredictability is another thing that is built into life. What a bitch life is.

There is no conservation in nature.
A mutation in an organism that does not also posses other attributes to survive, does not survive in nature on the basis that it might, one day, serve a purpose.
Nature is frugal. What does not help immediately perishes.

Only intelligence with its ability to project can foresee and prepare, using the imagination.

Quote :

So get our friendly geneticists to knock out all this weakness that you see as being replicated by human intervention and where will it get us?

The "friendly geneticist" is another intervention trying to correct the consequences of an earlier intervention.

What we call progress is often mankind trying to keep up with the snowballing effect, the Butterfly Effect, of his own earlier activities.

Quote :

What needs to be done perhaps is some work with the brains that have come up with all these tools for intervention because without our magnificent brains humans would be scrabbling around in the dirt with the rest of the dumb animals.

Time to call in the psychologists, perhaps?

What most psychologists do today is diagnose an undesirable trait in an individual, or a product of unrestricted reproduction, and then trying to rehabilitate the individual back into the fold.

Quote :

Have you got it yet? The rub.

Still in the dark, aren't you?

Satyr wrote:

maryshelley wrote:

And what does the dominent pair receive from the pack? Come on now..... That which does not require a pack to hold it up, hunts alone. Bears, tigers, leopards, cheetah; which animals are most at risk of extinction? Herds, packs or lone hunters? Herbivores, carnivores or omnivores?

Is this so difficult for you to figure out on your own?

Nope. I went and figured all by myself. Adapt and survive. It is what 'species' development depends upon.

Quote :

Social behavior is, on its own, a result of an inadequacy.
Cooperation and association is a compromise when all organisms are the product of discrimination and distancing and rejection.

All organisms are the result of adaptability which is a strength not weakness or inadequacy. All species must adapt to exploit the resources around them. If they can't adapt quickly enough, quite simply, they become extinct. And if they over exploit and fail to adapt to the consequences they become extinct...as a species.

Quote :

That an individual dominates within the pack or in reference to its own kind does not mean it dominates universally.

It might get to think that it does, though.

Quote :

I said and I say again: power is a relationship, a comparison.
This is why the concept of an omnipotent God is absurd.

Power is mutable and temporary. Relationships to it are subject to change.

BTW. Why bring god into this? The concept of god may be absurd but it doesn't explain why people still need to believe even when they know it's absurd. God serves a purpose.

Quote :

Don't the masses require controlling then? What would happen if they weren't? Would they try to steal your books or your tinned soup?

Quote :

Yes, and?

So why do you worry about it so much if you are immune? Don't tell me you care how easily the masses are controlled....?

Quote :

Global warming and pollution, in general, is the side-effect of this intervening.
Obesity and many other diseases and mental issues are the result of this meddling.

These are outcomes of man's thinking; 'I think therefore I am superior'. Of course there are consequences to this superiority complex. Man intervenes, why, because he can! Ah the power! And so we have obese people but they tend to die young. And pollution which kills us and our food sources. Mental illness; incapacitates. Isn't all this just nature's way of culling? If things are not renewed they run out. And only now do we realise that our supposed superiority; our ability to think and do, has many unpredictable consequences some of which are dire.

Quote :

There is no conservation in nature.
A mutation in an organism that does not also posses other attributes to survive, does not survive in nature on the basis that it might, one day, serve a purpose.

No? You assume that all mutation is internally generated; already existing within an organism? Achoo!

That mutation will be present in some other organism. I guarantee it. Don't go breeding with your long lost cousin now will you? Or anyone else for that matter. Don't breathe, or eat, or get bitten by a random mosquito. You won't be able to predict the consequences.

Quote :

Nature is frugal. What does not help immediately perishes.

Nature is. What is expendable might perish. What is helpless might not.
What about the helpless baby, then? Hasn't you invested something in the hapless little thing? Ah well if you are hungry you can always eat it and have another one, hopefully.

Abundance leads to feeding frenzies; scarcity leads to frugality. Pendulum swings. No equilibrium.

There is only change. What dies feeds the earth; what feeds the earth feeds every living thing upon it (so much for those dangerous mutations you just ate one of them!). Your ageing, arthritic granny serves a purpose. Maybe not quite as nature intended but you, she and her Doctors must bear the consequences. Even the dead serve a purpose. Ask a worm but don't go eating one.

Quote :

Only intelligence with its ability to project can foresee and prepare, using the imagination.

See the consequences of intervention above.

And how are we intelligent humans doing with our projections? Our 'preparations' may well be seen by future generations as interventionist. In predicting do we have enough imagination to account for all variables? All unpredictability? Or can we just make educated guesses at best?

Quote :

The "friendly geneticist" is another intervention trying to correct the consequences of an earlier intervention.

What we call progress is often mankind trying to keep up with the snowballing effect, the Butterfly Effect, of his own earlier activities.

Yes it is, isn't it? For every action and all that. Shame we can't travel back in time and undo afew things. That which yields great power may vent great destruction if only we had known at the time. If I gave you a seed that could feed all the creatures on earth would you plant it? Course you wouldn't, would you? Imagine the consequences? But most decisions are not so black and white or easily reasoned away.

Quote :

What most psychologists do today is diagnose an undesirable trait in an individual, or a product of unrestricted reproduction, and then trying to rehabilitate the individual back into the fold.

I meant to control the masses..... we don't want them trampling all over our carefully erected fences and depleting our superior resources now do we?

Unrestricted reproduction? That you will have to put into context. At no time in human history has reproduction (in certain quarters) been so restricted.

Quote :

Still in the dark, aren't you?

Maybe, but I do have infra-red vision. Useful mutation that.

I ask again. Have you got it yet? The rub. It's there for most to see.

[quote="maryshelley"]

Satyr wrote:

All organisms are the result of adaptability which is a strength not weakness or inadequacy. All species must adapt to exploit the resources around them. If they can't adapt quickly enough, quite simply, they become extinct. And if they over exploit and fail to adapt to the consequences they become extinct...as a species.

We adapt because he have to, because we are dependent. Dependence is a weakness.

We cooperate with others because we cannot survive on our own.
Wake, the fuck, up!!!

Strength is a measurment of weakness, just as independence is a measurment of dependence.

Quote :

BTW. Why bring god into this? The concept of god may be absurd but it doesn't explain why people still need to believe even when they know it's absurd. God serves a purpose.

And?
Santa Clause also serves a purpose.

Quote :

So why do you worry about it so much if you are immune? Don't tell me you care how easily the masses are controlled....?

Because I am dependent on the masses and their stupidity affects my life.

Quote :

No? You assume that all mutation is internally generated; already existing within an organism? Achoo!

Is that what I assume?
A mutation is caused when replication is affected by an environmental condition.

Quote :

Nature is. What is expendable might perish. What is helpless might not.
What about the helpless baby, then? Hasn't you invested something in the hapless little thing? Ah well if you are hungry you can always eat it and have another one, hopefully.

Yes, and babies often die when conditions threaten the herd or the mother. They are secondary because they are not contributing but only benefiting.

Infants are always a product of excess energy.
A compromise to decay.

Quote :

And how are we intelligent humans doing with our projections? Our 'preparations' may well be seen by future generations as interventionist. In predicting do we have enough imagination to account for all variables? All unpredictability? Or can we just make educated guesses at best?

The human mind is fallible. Intelligence is a result of how accurate these projections are and how far ahead they can project accurately.

This is why animals are said to be living more in the present. Their event horizon is shorter.

This is also why telling people to live in the now, or Buddhism teaching this as a way to avoid suffering, is really a self-induced retardation - nihilism.

"Don't think too much, because thinknig opens you up to too many possibilities to worry over and to feel afraid of."

Intelligence is also a burden few can endure.
This is why you will find many intelligent people making stupid, emotional, errors.

This is, also, why some minds are considered timeless and some ancient thinkers still relevant.
Their projections were so far ahead that they could not be contained or understood by their contemporaries.

They thought beyond the boundaries of their geography and culture.
So, an imbecile repeating the cultural ideal that all are equal or women are no different than men, is really exposing his short-sighted retardation.

Quote :

I meant to control the masses..... we don't want them trampling all over our carefully erected fences and depleting our superior resources now do we?

It's a compromise to our need for large populations.

Quote :

Unrestricted reproduction? That you will have to put into context. At no time in human history has reproduction (in certain quarters) been so restricted.

Really?
Then the "right" to bear children is not one this culture promotes?

Are not retards and ill individuals, paraplegics and all kinds of mutants not given the right to have children?
In some quarters getting an abortion is considered a sin. They defend the sanctity of life only until it is born...then it's on its own - a dog eat dog world.
Hypocrisy at its best.

Is not the prevention of disease an intervention upon natural culling mechanisms?

Satyr wrote:

We cooperate with others because we cannot survive on our own.
Wake, the fuck, up!!!

It is impossible to sleep with all your shouting!

Humans can and have survived even in the most dire of circumstances as any adventurer who has gotten into a 'scrape' but kept their wits about them will tell you - because they survived. But lone survival does take up a hell of a lot of energy and there are many inherent risks in going it alone. A lone creature cannot watch it's own back, for instance. Two creatures can watch each other's backs. Three can watch backwards, forwards and sideways and so on. In the reproductive and infant rearing stakes a lone parent has to leave its offspring to fend for itself whilst it gathers food. Two parents can look after offspring and hunt for food. Two parents and an older sibling, etc, etc. Once an offspring has something to look after it; it doesn't need to 'hit the ground running'.

It takes less energy to survive (long enough to reproduce) when there are others to share the burden so that's what humans evolved to do. That's why our babies are now so helpless because there have been others to share in the child rearing for so many generations. And it is why as a species we are not 'threatened with extinction' as other large predatory carnivores are. In that sense and in the current environment; they are weak and humans are strong. Things on that score are subject to change, however.

Quote :

BTW. Why bring god into this? The concept of god may be absurd but it doesn't explain why people still need to believe even when they know it's absurd. God serves a purpose.

Quote :

And?
Santa Clause also serves a purpose.

And?
Have you read 'Breaking the Spell - Religion as a natural phenomenon' Daniel Dennett? I just started it yesterday. It is comforting to know that others are interested in the why's and wherefore's. I thought I was the only one trying to understand just how religion has managed to survive this long. It perplexes me and I think about it. Funny that.

Quote :

Because I am dependent on the masses and their stupidity affects my life.

But domesticated masses tend to be less intelligent than their wild counterparts don't they? The herd doesn't NEED to be overly intelligent.....it is part of a collective.

Quote :

A mutation is caused when replication is affected by an environmental condition.

And replication itself is 'risky' isn't it. Chinese whispers anyone?
If you don't like to wear wrinkled clothes you can always iron them, but then you risk ironing 'in' more permanent creases.

Quote :

Infants are always a product of excess energy.
A compromise to decay.

Infants are a product of successful reproduction.

Quote :

The human mind is fallible. Intelligence is a result of how accurate these projections are and how far ahead they can project accurately.

Indeed it is, fallible.

Quote :

This is why animals are said to be living more in the present.

There is no other moment to physically be in but let's make some plans for the future shall we?

Quote :

This is also why telling people to live in the now, or Buddhism teaching this as a way to avoid suffering, is really a self-induced retardation - nihilism.

I'm suffering now but maybe tomorrow will be better? Well it will certainly be different.

Quote :

Intelligence is also a burden few can endure.
This is why you will find many intelligent people making stupid, emotional, errors.

Rather than 'go mad' perhaps.... emotion sometimes tempers reason.

Quote :

This is, also, why some minds are considered timeless and some ancient thinkers still relevant.
Their projections were so far ahead that they could not be contained or understood by their contemporaries.

Or they had time and space to think unburdened by the day-to-day burden of survival. Just imagine....

Quote :

They thought beyond the boundaries of their geography and culture.
So, an imbecile repeating the cultural ideal that all are equal or women are no different than men, is really exposing his short-sighted retardation.

So a woman shouldn't stick to the boundaries of her culture then? Nor a man to his? Yes they are different but that doesn't make them equal or otherwise; just different.

Quote :

Unrestricted reproduction? That you will have to put into context. At no time in human history has reproduction (in certain quarters) been so restricted.

Quote :

Really?
Then the "right" to bear children is not one this culture promotes?

If I give you the pill. Will you swallow it? If you won't will you bear the consequences?

Quote :

Are not retards and ill individuals, paraplegics and all kinds of mutants not given the right to have children?
In some quarters getting an abortion is considered a sin. They defend the sanctity of life only until it is born...then it's on its own - a dog eat dog world.
Hypocrisy at its best.

Can all those that have the 'right' to bear children; actually bear children? Do those who bear children that nature 'decreed' could not have children of their own really have children in the genetic sense? Or are they simply surrogates for someone else's genes?

Quote :

Is not the prevention of disease an intervention upon natural culling mechanisms?

It is an attempt to 'put right' a perceived wrong and it is not without consequences, some of which will be unpredicted.

maryshelley wrote:

Satyr wrote:

We cooperate with others because we cannot survive on our own.
Wake, the fuck, up!!!

It is impossible to sleep with all your shouting!

I`m trying to wake you up. You are already half-asleep.

Who`s shouting? I`m only using this a lot: !!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote :

Humans can and have survived even in the most dire of circumstances as any adventurer who has gotten into a 'scrape' but kept their wits about them will tell you - because they survived. But lone survival does take up a hell of a lot of energy and there are many inherent risks in going it alone. A lone creature cannot watch it's own back, for instance. Two creatures can watch each other's backs. Three can watch backwards, forwards and sideways and so on. In the reproductive and infant rearing stakes a lone parent has to leave its offspring to fend for itself whilst it gathers food. Two parents can look after offspring and hunt for food. Two parents and an older sibling, etc, etc. Once an offspring has something to look after it; it doesn't need to 'hit the ground running'.

What you are describing is a weak creature.

Quote :

Can all those that have the 'right' to bear children; actually bear children? Do those who bear children that nature 'decreed' could not have children of their own really have children in the genetic sense? Or are they simply surrogates for someone else's genes?

I`m also talking about artificial insemination and hormone therapies and test-tube babies.

Satyr wrote:

I`m trying to wake you up. You are already half-asleep.

Who`s shouting? I`m only using this a lot: !!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't need the !!!! thanks anyway. Just the ! will do.

Quote :

What you are describing is a weak creature.

What I am describing is a creature that has evolved in a particular way. An awesomely successful creature (in survival terms) as its continued (mass) presence on the earth indicates. Not a creature that is 'better' than any other but one that has evolved to respond FLEXIBLY to a changing environment. If that is a weak creature then I'm a monkey's uncle. :0

Now if we home in on one overweight armchair sports' fan who lives on a diet of TV, burgers and cola then that is someone who'se days on this planet may well be numbered. Unless when the symptoms of the heart attack start to bite there's a hotline to the local paramedics within reach. Prior to this if said armchair sports' fan managed to reproduce, it doesn't matter whether the heart attack is fatal or not. Job done; end of story. Chances are somewhere down the line the environment will change and be unable to support overweight armchair sports fans and their progeny.

A diet of TV, coke and burgers is not sustainable and people will either find that out the easy way or the hard way.

What, if anything, can be done about the current situation and if anything can be done; should it? Or should things just be left to evolution? You're against human intervention, you say?

Quote :

Can all those that have the 'right' to bear children; actually bear children? Do those who bear children that nature 'decreed' could not have children of their own really have children in the genetic sense? Or are they simply surrogates for someone else's genes?

Satyr wrote:

I`m also talking about artificial insemination and hormone therapies and test-tube babies.

All of which involve other people's (or animal's) genes, cell manipulation (with as yet unknown consequences) and very limited success rates. Oh and a hell of a lot of cash!

All of the phenomenon that you describe are the result of our curious, imaginative, reflective, solutioin seeking minds. What is to be done about it?

I am intelligent. I am powerful. I have resources. I can do it; but should I? Well, who out there will stop me?

There's the rub.

Another BBC gem broadcasting tonight. 9 pm GMT BBC 1

Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life

By the way. I am not an idealist so please remove said subsignature.

maryshelley wrote:

By the way. I am not an idealist so please remove said subsignature.

Prove to me that you are not an idealist either in public or private, and I will gladly change your sub-signature to whatever you please...

maryshelley wrote:

What I am describing is a creature that has evolved in a particular way. An awesomely successful creature (in survival terms) as its continued (mass) presence on the earth indicates. Not a creature that is 'better' than any other but one that has evolved to respond FLEXIBLY to a changing environment. If that is a weak creature then I'm a monkey's uncle. :0

You have no idea what you are talking about. What a self-flattering perspective.

Change, dear fool, is forced. Nobody willingly changes if they do not have to.
In and of itself this is a symptom of weakness.

Nobody eats if they do not have to.
Nobody creates if they do not have to.

Action is rooted in imperfection.
We reproduce not because we are perfect but because we are imperfect, weak, and so mortal.


One does not cooperate with others, compromising his own will, because he wants to, but because he has to.
He does so to survive and because he cannot on his own.

Indifference is the only sign of power. This is why chicks love the indifferent guy who treats them with callousness, but then comprise, for practical reasons, and settle for the less sexy nice guy.
They, of course, deny this, trying to maintain the illusion of happiness ...but that's another psychological story.

Suffice it to say that discomfort is what existence is, since comfort would lead to inertia and stagnation.
We all act, to whatever degree we do so, not because we are content but because we are not.

Social behavior, imbecile, is a compromise. We tolerate each other because we have to and because, in time, we have evolved to be dependent on others to survive.

This compromise does lead to increased power - power through association - , it would perish if it didn't, and so evolution goes on, you pathetic twit, as weakness adapts, becomes strong, in relation to the environment, and then weak again...and on and on and on.

Why does strength become weak?
Because, you imbecile, environments change, like everything else, and power is a product of challenge/stress.

If I stress my muscles, stupid fuck, they grow strong. Then this gives me the advantage which I sought when I began stressing my muscles.
If I grow too content or the original need subsides, idiot, then my muscles atrophy.
If I am too dominant, the absence of challenges would result in my stagnation and my ensuing comfroty would result in weakness.
Decadence, you stupid fuck!
Rome fell because of this process.

Atrophying is the result of an absence of need and/or a challenge.
In other words, progress/change is all a result of weakness, in all its varying forms and degrees.

Quote :

Now if we home in on one overweight armchair sports' fan who lives on a diet of TV, burgers and cola then that is someone who'se days on this planet may well be numbered. Unless when the symptoms of the heart attack start to bite there's a hotline to the local paramedics within reach. Prior to this if said armchair sports' fan managed to reproduce, it doesn't matter whether the heart attack is fatal or not. Job done; end of story. Chances are somewhere down the line the environment will change and be unable to support overweight armchair sports fans and their progeny.

This sports fan only reproduced because, either he was fit in the past or the culture placed a limit on female promiscuity which then forced some female to compromise with him....and he with her.

Quote :

A diet of TV, coke and burgers is not sustainable and people will either find that out the easy way or the hard way.

This type is only possible, idiot, if there's a system there providing him with easy access to food and safety.
You are taking things for granted, as usual.

Quote :

What, if anything, can be done about the current situation and if anything can be done; should it? Or should things just be left to evolution? You're against human intervention, you say?

Where did I say that?
I only attack certain kinds of interventions because, I believe, they result in more problems than they try to solve, in relation to my principles which I consider superior to your simplistic ideals.

Quote :

All of which involve other people's (or animal's) genes, cell manipulation (with as yet unknown consequences) and very limited success rates. Oh and a hell of a lot of cash!

All of the phenomenon that you describe are the result of our curious, imaginative, reflective, solutioin seeking minds. What is to be done about it?

Minds that rejected the idea that certain things were unchallengeable and that we should just accept our fate or that certain things were holy and we should not intervene.

But intervention, has goals, motives and consequences.
Not all intervention are the same or produce the same results.

If we wish to create a fake uniformity where race, sex, beauty doesn't matter, and all posses the same rights, under human idealistic laws and morals, then we should also own up to the repercussions.

If women want to be the same as men, then this has a cost, with many collateral effects.

Avoiding the responsibility of our own actions and ideals, is what children and women are good at.

Be careful what you wish for. It's not all milk and honey...honey.
With every benefit there is a sacrifice and with every sacrifice there is a benefit.

Quote :

I am intelligent. I am powerful. I have resources. I can do it; but should I? Well, who out there will stop me?

There's the rub.

The rub is that if you were all these things you wouldn't even have to ask.

You do know, just by reading my tone, that you are beginning to bore me.

Boredom makes me lose interest.

No challenge...see?
Nothing in it for me.

I'm beginning to see the advantages of ignoring what offers me nothing in return.

If I'm going to waste my time, then I hope I am, at the very least, entertained in the process.



Side note

I decided to dedicate more time and thought to this essay, after all the interest it has gotten over the years.

My additions and refinements, to the original text, are presently being worked on and will be posted, in a month or so, on my Blog.
The Feminization of Mankind has proven to have a longer shelf-life than I anticipated and many more parameters than I had dared to explore.


Whomever is interested can read it there.

Quote :

[quote="Satyr"]
You have no idea what you are talking about. What a self-flattering perspective.

On the contrary, I know exactly what I'm talking about because I have observed, studied and understood it. Not with an interest in self flattery or finding comfort or for internet philosophy site brownie points but in an effort to find the truth about how the world works (given my lack of access to resources) as far as that is possible. You appear to have no understanding of even the very basics of evolutionary biology and that is a great shame because you are missing out on a lot in your effort to be 'philosophy king' or whatever your motives are. Your mind is closed and that, makes you not a philosopher but just another infant with an uninformed opinion.

Quote :

Change, dear fool, is forced. Nobody willingly changes if they do not have to.
In and of itself this is a symptom of weakness.

Change just happens. Nothing stays the same. Ageing is changing. Some people by getting to know themselves change what is within their realm to change; some are changed simply by association. The rest, as they say, is history.

Quote :

Nobody eats if they do not have to.
Nobody creates if they do not have to.

Plenty of people eat when they don't have to. THAT's WHY THERE IS OBESITY IN THE WORLD! Those who don't have to eat are generally DEAD.

Quote :

Action is rooted in imperfection.
We reproduce not because we are perfect but because we are imperfect, weak, and so mortal.

Who said anything about perfection? NOTHING IN NATURE IS PERFECT NOR WILL IT EVER BE. OPEN YOUR IMPERFECT EYES AND LOOK AROUND.

Quote :

One does not cooperate with others, compromising his own will, because he wants to, but because he has to.
He does so to survive and because he cannot on his own.

One co-operates because it recognises that resources are scarce and by co-operating it saves on resources! That is intelligence in action.

Quote :

Indifference is the only sign of power. This is why chicks love the indifferent guy who treats them with callousness, but then comprise, for practical reasons, and settle for the less sexy nice guy.
They, of course, deny this, trying to maintain the illusion of happiness ...but that's another psychological story.

Oh FFS. Some chicks want the callous guy because they think that's all they 'deserve/can get' (maybe it is!). Some chicks know they can do 'better'. Some know there isn't any better; so go it alone rather than be treated like a shit by a shit. Newsflash: the same goes for guys.

Quote :

Suffice it to say that discomfort is what existence is, since comfort would lead to inertia and stagnation.
We all act, to whatever degree we do so, not because we are content but because we are not.

There is only momentary comfort; there is no stagnation; there is no inertia in biological terms. Only life and death and that in-between. Comfort and discomfort all are bound to end.

Quote :

Social behavior, imbecile, is a compromise. We tolerate each other because we have to and because, in time, we have evolved to be dependent on others to survive.

Social behaviour is a result of evolution. It is a 'positive' evolutionary trait which has contributed to our reproductive success (and the reproductive success of other many other animals take note) Hey maybe there is something in this co-operation business AS NATURE HAS ENDORSED IT SO OFTEN). An outcome of that success may or may not be total dependency. It is an accident, nay, a requirement of nature. Mixing. If you co-operate with the next group, clan or village you get easy access to their gene pool. If you kill half the village you only have access to limited genes. Anyway, if you're sick to death of the village you can move out to the hills and live your life as a hermit until another loner (hopefully of the opposite sex) stumbles past! Then before you know it you've got a family to look after. And so it goes on and on until something changes. You're species, probably.

Quote :

This compromise does lead to increased power - power through association - , it would perish if it didn't, and so evolution goes on, you pathetic twit, as weakness adapts, becomes strong, in relation to the environment, and then weak again...and on and on and on.

Holy Cow! Evolution is a process of adaptation that acts on an organism over successive generations in relation to changes in the environment. As the environment is subject to constant change so is said organism. Some organisms (such as elephants and humans) may change their environments - such changes will in turn exact changes in said organism.

Quote :

Why does strength become weak?
Because, you imbecile, environments change, like everything else, and power is a product of challenge/stress.

Anything that isn't flexible enough (an important distinction from 'powerful enough') to adapt to the current environment will not survive until the next.

Quote :

If I stress my muscles, stupid fuck, they grow strong. Then this gives me the advantage which I sought when I began stressing my muscles.
If I grow too content or the original need subsides, idiot, then my muscles atrophy.
If I am too dominant, the absence of challenges would result in my stagnation and my ensuing comfroty would result in weakness.
Decadence, you stupid fuck!
Rome fell because of this process.

So did the city states of Greece. History teaches the same lesson over and over again. There is no stasis. There is only change.

Quote :

Atrophying is the result of an absence of need and/or a challenge.
In other words, progress/change is all a result of weakness, in all its varying forms and degrees.

Change brings about change by association. It is as simple as that. What isn't fit (enough) will change.

Quote :

This sports fan only reproduced because, either he was fit in the past or the culture placed a limit on female promiscuity which then forced some female to compromise with him....and he with her.

Like seeks out like in the general scheme of things. Fat boy ends up with fat girl; if he manages to get a girl at all and vice versa.

Quote :

A diet of TV, coke and burgers is not sustainable and people will either find that out the easy way or the hard way.

Quote :

This type is only possible, idiot, if there's a system there providing him with easy access to food and safety.
You are taking things for granted, as usual.

What is taking for granted about saying that something isn't sustainable? The 'lifestyle' I described is not sustainable. What happens to things that aren't sustainable? Change.

Quote :

What, if anything, can be done about the current situation and if anything can be done; should it? Or should things just be left to evolution? You're against human intervention, you say?

Quote :

Where did I say that?
I only attack certain kinds of interventions because, I believe, they result in more problems than they try to solve, in relation to my principles which I consider superior to your simplistic ideals.

You say it over and over and over and over again. Man's meddling; human intervention; blah, blah blah. I point out that any intervention can and will lead to unitended and unpredicted consequences so how will you with your 'superior priciples' prove to be any better than any other intervention by any other mind that has gone before you. Minds I might add that are far, far superior to yours? Even the greatest minds, with the most superior principles (or not) get it wrong or fail to predict all outcomes. Some as I hinted do things just because they can without considering the consequences, just because they can.

You have no idea what my ideals are as I haven't shared them with you. I don't trust you; you see. I find you very superficial indeed sometimes. Lots of bluster. Most of the time. A few gems in amongst the shit; to borrow your eloquent phrase. Anyone with a brain even marginally better than the average man's can spot something here.

Quote :

All of which involve other people's (or animal's) genes, cell manipulation (with as yet unknown consequences) and very limited success rates. Oh and a hell of a lot of cash!

All of the phenomenon that you describe are the result of our curious, imaginative, reflective, solutioin seeking minds. What is to be done about it?

Minds that rejected the idea that certain things were unchallengeable and that we should just accept our fate or that certain things were holy and we should not intervene.

Quote :

But intervention, has goals, motives and consequences.
Not all intervention are the same or produce the same results.

No, really?

Quote :

If we wish to create a fake uniformity where race, sex, beauty doesn't matter, and all posses the same rights, under human idealistic laws and morals, then we should also own up to the repercussions.

If women want to be the same as men, then this has a cost, with many collateral effects.

Avoiding the responsibility of our own actions and ideals, is what children and women are good at.

And so are men. Humans all of us.
Can you, ever, get beyond these platitudes?
An intelligent woman does not want to be the same as a man. An intelligent woman recognises that there are differences. An intelligent woman exploits the differences and uses them to her best advantage. Doesn't she? She does not simply imitate a man. Or worse imitate a 'bad boy'. Pathetic. Say it. Why don't you? An adult of any gender takes responsibility for what it is responsible for no more; no less.

Quote :

Be careful what you wish for. It's not all milk and honey...honey.
With every benefit there is a sacrifice and with every sacrifice there is a benefit.

Oh christ and you accuse me of being an idealistic simpleton. Keep spouting the same old shit. Black is white. Up is down. Left is right. Look everyone I sound clever. I must be a King of some sort by now. Or a jester involved in some simplistic tripe masquerading as philosophy. No different than the creationists or buddhists. Or idealists.

And for an exercise in futility as you seem to enjoy those. Have a look around and see which individuals and groups have made the most 'sacrifices' in the world and get back to me with your observations. Or don't.

Quote :

I am intelligent. I am powerful. I have resources. I can do it; but should I? Well, who out there will stop me?

There's the rub.

Quote :

The rub is that if you were all these things you wouldn't even have to ask.

Well I'll just have to settle for the first then. But that's a rhetorical question for you. I have the intelligence to recognise one, don't I?

Quote :

You do know, just by reading my tone, that you are beginning to bore me.

And you will know from mine that I couldn't care less. I was hoping for an intelligent conversation as you so often scream that you want one. But all you really seem to want is a showcase for your dubious talent for rhetoric. Same shit. Same cover.

Quote :

Boredom makes me lose interest.

Me also.

Quote :

If I'm going to waste my time, then I hope I am, at the very least, entertained in the process.

Turn on the TV. It seems it is all you're fit for. These days.

Just to be clear, woman, I am the one who gave Satyr his title here, because I thought it fitting.

It was not of his volition.

Well that makes you a mighty fine creep then don't it?

Have fun licking her boots.

When-and-if you get past mere-declarations maryshelley, idealist, call me up for a conversation sometime...

Until then, enjoy your moment in the sunlight with Satyr.

I posted a reply but then i remembered my New Year's Resolution and I've deleted it.

I take my New Year's Resolutions seriously.
Twelve years ago I quit smoking on New Years.

So, farewell and good luck.

I do believe you've won.

maryshelley wrote:

If that is a weak creature then I'm a monkey's uncle. :0

Well, let's say distant cousin for the sake of accuracy :0

For Satyr.

The missing link:

'How clever of wild sheep to have acquired that most versatile adaptation, the shepherd! By forming a symbiotic alliance with homo sapiens, sheep could outsource their chief survival tasks: food finding and predator avoidance. They even got shelter and emergency medical care thrown in as a bonus. The price they paid - losing the freedom of mate selection and being slaughtered instead of being killed by predators (if that is a cost) - was a pittance compared with the gain in offspring survival it purchased. But it wasn't their cleverness that explains the good bargain. It was the blind, foresightless cleverness of Mother Nature, evolution, which ratified the free-floating rationale of this arrangement. Sheep and other domesticated animals are, in fact, significantly more stupid than their wild relatives - because they can be. The brains are smaller (relative to body size and weight), and this is not just due to their having been bred for muscles mass (meat). since both the domesticated animals and their domesticators have enjoyed huge population explosions (going from less than 1% of the terrestrial vertebrate biomass ten thousand years ago to over 98% today) - there can be no doubt that this symbiosis was mutualistic - fitness-enhancing to both parties.'

Daniel Dennett 'Breaking the Spell - Religion as a Natural Phenomenon'


Mother Nature - ain't she a bitch? 98% domestication in only a 1000 years. Man's going to have to do some mighty intervening to stop something wild from happening so let's have your predictions.

Idealist moi? You decide.

Quote :

[quote="Unreasonable"]When-and-if you get past mere-declarations maryshelley, idealist, call me up for a conversation sometime...

Don't worry, I won't.

Quote :

Until then, enjoy your moment in the sunlight with Satyr.

Perception of an
Object costs
Precise the Object's loss.
Perception in itself a gain
Replying to its price;
The Object Absolute is nought,
Perception sets it fair,
And then upbraids a Perfectness
That situates so far.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Glory is that bright tragic thing,
That for an instant
Means Dominion,
Warms some poor name
That never felt the sun,
Gently replacing
In oblivion.

ED
Who enjoyed a life after death, of sorts; poor, frail creature.

How beautifully you make slavery into a virtue and twist being dominated to dominating.

From your perspective, I guess, females had it pretty good in the past.
I would agree, given their performance since their emancipation from paternalism.
They were protected, exchanged and valued as precious goods, controlled and, some feminists would say, exploited, like those sheep you so envy.
Maybe they were in control, all along.

So why all the bitching and whining?

All they had to do is keep their mouths shut - they have little of interest to say anyways - obey orders and satisfy a male's needs, while they manipulate him behind the scenes.

Your "missing link", which is nothing more than naively twisting your perspective to make a weakness into a strength, implies that it is the shepherd that is really being exploited.

Well, the master/slave dynamic apart, how beautifully you argue on your own kind's behalf.
Because we all know how smart sheep are...or are they?

Hell, why stop there?
Let's say that short people are more advantageous genetically because they have a lower center of gravity and so are more difficult to tip over, and obesity is preferable in the wild because it is the storage of energy.
It isn't that gazelles are eaten by lions but that they allow the lions to eat them - that's how powerful they really are - because they are fed up with just munching and regurgitating and munching and crapping and, sometimes, fucking, on the savanna.

Stupidity, is also an advantage in today's information-overload, confusing, systematic world.
I saw a documentary on it, the other day.
Of course the producer talked more about "self-induced" stupidity, just as a way to hide the fact that it rarely is so.


Unfortunately, and here's another male/female difference, some of us place certain values above survival itself, and there are certain things we just cannot compromise on....or, at least, I cannot compromise on.

Dignity, freedom, awareness, intelligence, reality, for instance, whereas you, like those clever little sheep who gain so much by being exploited and slaughtered, at will, by the shepherd, place survival, I assume, at the peak of your interests.

There is nothing you wouldn't do or submit to to survive....whereas I can think of many things I wouldn't do or submit to to survive.

I would not kill my son.
I would not wrong someone who has done nothing but be good to me.
I would not break trust or betray a loyalty.
I would not lie to someone I love or like.
I would not grovel.
I would not eat shit or drink urine.
I would not give up my self-esteem.
I would not risk the well-being of my family.
I would not tolerate verbal or physical assaults upon me or my family and friends.
I would not close my eyes to reality.
I would not willingly, make my self retarded.
I would not inebriate my self to cope with the world.


All that, and more, I just would not accept just to keep on living, like a dog at my master's feet, and then twist my submission into a ruse to hide its nature from my self.

You, from the looks of things, would.
I commend you on sticking to your principles.

I just don't share in them.

I guess that's another distinction between what I call human and animal.

But you are entitled to your sheepish envy.