Affluence and Evolution + Pandora's Box

Excuse the long rant, I felt compelled to express my many thoughts.

Affluence and Evolution

According to evolutionists, genetic mutations occur randomly. Some mutations happen to be beneficial (promote survival), others detrimental. The ones that are beneficial have a better chance of being passed down to the next generation. The ones that aren’t have a worse chance. It’s a truism, a tautology. So, what if we find ways of getting around bad mutations, with state of the art healthcare for the mentally and physically inferior. Does that mean diseases of the mind will multiply at an accelerated rate, until our species is but a shadow of it’s former self? A degenerate, vile beast, hopelessly mentally, emotionally and physically warped beyond recognition? Does that explain why our culture is becomming more and more degenerate, stupid and sociopathic? Or is that the fault of non european jews, spics and other foreigners immigrating to our lands? Are traits that are more conducive to death rather than life, becoming more prevalent, more dominant in our society, and if so, is this more to do with our biology than it is our culture? Traits like rape, stupidity, bi polar disorder, manic depression, phobias (irrational or unproductive fears, some innate and learned fears can be useful, if they’re legitimate), suicide, schizophrenia, cancers and the like?

Pandora’s Box

No doubt our culture is not what it once was, not to my chagrin however, I hate our pre sixties culture, I’m happier with the way things are now, although I still hate them. Another explanation is, apathy, discontent. All the things we once thought were good, have turned out to be the opposite. We’ve become more jaded, more cynical, haven’t we? It seems as soon as science cures one disease, another rears it’s ungly head. All the junk food, transportation vehicles and elevators have made us quite obese. A lot of people are dying because of obesity, heart disease, diabetes, ect. Now, we spend most of our time in front of the TV, computer and videogames, but is that good? Many suspect that cell phones and computers are incrementally, gradually damaging our brains via the free radicals and electro magnetic waves they emit. Is science and technology really all they’re cracked up to be? Atom bombs, global warming, genetically modified foods, environmental neglect, destruction, deforestation, oil spills, obesity, drugs, drugs, drugs.

it seems arbitrary how we make this one legal, even though it can cause heart failure or people to committ suicide, but outlaw marijuana. I know I’m by no means the first person to make that observation. So many drugs now, I took an allergy pill the other day on an empty stomache, the nausea was so bad i had lay down and take a day off work, but boy did I get the best sleep of my life, It felt like I had just injected myself with heroin. So many anti depressants, and other terrible drugs out there, they probably do more harm than good. Better off just smoking a joint, or boozing it up the old fashioned way.

Yeah, maybe we’ve just become so disillusioned we’ve give up on this modern world. I hear scientists talk all the time about how they’re on the brink of discovering the fountain of youth, a panacea, and I laugh. Let’s face it, science kills. Perhaps Zeus was right to chain Prometheus to a tree. Philosophy, for that matter, kills too. What good has philosophy brought us. Perhaps we were better off with faith. Sure, we’re more “reasonable” now, but to what end, what end. We’re always back at the drawing board. Since cogito ergo sum, or whatever, no philosophical progress has been made, and now philosophers have given up even looking for. Is philosophy itself a kind of excess, a disease? Superfulous, perhaps we could do better without. Philosophy is, after all, depressing, isn’t it? And science, well science continues to march on, but to what end? Now their smashing atoms for fun. How long before tear the fabric of space time and unleash something terrible and irrevocable catastrophe upon us?

Are we as a culture doomed? Are we headed towards a new dark age? Perhpas civilization is to blame. We may have opened up to many of pandora’s boxes, too soon. Maybe it’s time we cut out some of the fat. Most of these technologies we’ve discovered may be doing more harm than good. Maybe faith, emotion, mentalism, spiritualism and rationalism are ok. I, for one am looking forward to the dark ages, if they’re indeed comming, and I think the numerous problems I listed above are a sure sign. Perhaps we won’t plummit as far back as the middle ages, we may retain a percentage of our technologies, some of the more useful ones, then again, maybe not.

Scientists are always telling us that what we need is more science, more knowledge, more more more, they forget that knowledge is what got us into this mess in the first. Maybe ignorance is better. I think it’s time we start reevaluating many of the basic assumptions we made in the previous few centuries. I suppose we already are. That’s what some of the so called anarcho primitivists and others are discussing. They’re views are not practical though. Unless there’s a global catastrophe, it will take generations for us to lead a more primitive, sustainable and harmonious existence. I think each individual will have to decide for themselves, how much civilization is really good, or necessary. I for one don’t drive, I find I can get by just fine without a car. I don’t take drugs, natural, recreational or otherwise, although I drink on occasion. I rarely watch TV, but I’m on the internet quite often. I find you can get by without many of the things society deems essential, just fine. I’m thinking of moving to a smaller town as well. Maybe start some sort of back to nature cult. Civilization, both social and technological seems a bit overdone to me. Is it necessary to wash your hands twenty times a day, put on clean underwear every day, cook your meat even. I find that I can eat a certain amount of raw meat without becoming ill. Is shaving really necessary, I guess it depends on what sort of job you have. If you don’t work with the public like me, than the answer is probably no. Is it wrong to beleive that mind can shape reality and not just the other way around. Is it wrong shit in public? Is it wrong to fuck your dog. See, I’ve been asking these kinds of questions lately. Why must we inhibit ourselves, our nature so? Well, there are times when we should, but I think we’re overdoing. We can’t live like dogs, instantly satisfying our every whim, urge and impulse. The key is to find the right balance. How much regulation of ourselves and our environment is really necessary? That’s the question we should be asking. We shouldn’t just assume that more regulation, more technology, more knowledge, more analysis, more tinkering and toying with both internal and external nature will always be beneficial. I think we’ve gone in one direction for long enough, it’s time for the pendulum to swing the other way. Humans beings aren’t the same as animals, well, with the exception of crows and parrots perhaps (they’re smart), a certain amount of social and natural technology is advantageous. But too much becomes harmful both to ourselves and our environment.

So there you have it. I’d like to see a return to a more primitive, magical, pagan, mystical, impulsive, barbaric society. This is happening already to an extent, probably by a combination of biological, cultural and environmental factors. I do believe civilization is cyclical, it has it’s seasons, like any other epiphenomenon. I think we are approaching a sort of mid life crisis right now, where we are questioning all the industrious activity of the previous three or four centuries. Philosophy is in decline, man is in decline, but perhaps that will give nature time to recover. Endless growth is insane. Biological devolution, degeneration may be natures way of balancing things out. Soon we’ll be heading towards our senior years. Eventually we’ll be overtook by a more primitive, ambitious people than ourselves, maybe the Mexicans, Chinese or Hindus, but their civilization will never rise to the heights we flew, for there won’t be enough resources left to build out of. Yes, I don’t believe in linear time anymore, I beleive in cycles. I beleive we may have been here before, not just as in Greece and Rome, Egypt and Babylon, but maybe before that even… Atlantis? The Yoniguni Monument comes to mind. I suggest you investigate it for yourself.

It looks like you are disease-mongering by presenting western psychological “facts” as eternal truths. Unpleasant.

I think it just goes to show, that even when we think we are adopting an expansive posture by talking about supposedly all-embracing ideas like “evolution” we can still bollocks it up with a fausty, platitudinous morality.

No.

Firstly, it would only affect genetically-transmissible ‘diseases of the mind’, and these diseases would have to be such that they positively affect reproduction rates relative to the average population - which very few do. In addition, they’d have to be the sort of diseases that would reduce or prevent reproduction without healthcare.

What increased survivability will do, whether through resources or change in predators or whatever, is increase the spread of abilities - you’ll get a larger population, and generally speaking the mean of the distribution in a selected trait will drop. That doesn’t pull down the numbers of top-enders, but it does mean that the ‘average person’ has less strong traits. That doesn’t spell doom for humanity, though, because if there’s a terrible catastrophe that would wipe out 90% of the old population, it might wipe out 99% of a ten-times higher new population. Net effect: the same. In fact, the increased numbers may well more than counter that and lead to a higher population at the top end. And if it’s a disease that wipes out the 90% of the population without genetic immunity, in a well-mixed population that will scale up to… 90%. So you still have much better survivability.

Of course, one of the advantages of a larger population in human terms is more technological increase. As a society the west became consistently taller and more intelligent because of improvements in nourishment, education and so on.

And don’t go getting ideas about a ‘golden age’ of the species. There’s no archetype, there’s only a result.

“Our lands”? You’re on the internet now, this ain’t Kansas any more.

I presume you’re writing this as a symptom of your culture’s degeneration into stupid sociopathy? That’s art, man.

Are you saying that mental illness is another name for reproduction rate?
Or are you saying that mental illness is the diagnosis if there is a low reproduction rate?

Do you know if there is a meaning to the term “mental illness”? There might not be a meaning.
I don’t think you, or anyone, could provide one, for that matter.

Mental illness is when aspects of a persons psyche (thoughts, feelings, behaviours) are continually and significantly causing themselves and/or society more grief than they’re worth. Grief as in sorrow, pain, danger, worth as in joy, pleasure, safety.

Are you saying that feeling nasty is an illness? Nasty illness?

Clearly not.

That would be stupid.

Judging by your other posts, I think you’d be predisposed to ignore them to the point of irrationality if they did; I certainly don’t intend to waste my time.

if you constantly felt disgusted, yes, that would be a mental illness. and a fucked up one.

To op
Philosophy is depressing and doesn’t seam to be going anywhere, every time one comes up with an interesting idea it gets snubbed because we cant know anything and are subjective entities. It seams impossible to make arguments against that or even if we do no one will listen because they can stick to the negative argument and be just as right.

Philosophy itself can be interesting, fascinating even but it is being strangled by its own ineptitude.

Thank you for posting.

I’m inclined to agree with you. We are subjective beings indeed. To expect flawed, finite being such as ourselves, to ever arrive at absolute truth or anything remotely similar to it is vainglorious, absurd, an excersize in futility.

With this in mind, I think the solution is; we should spend more time answering questions than questioning answers. We’ll never arrive at certainty, so we should settle for less. The best we can hope for is an estimation, an approximation of the truth. If we spend our whole lives debating our principles, we’ll never a chance apply them. Let’s face it, philosophy can become a kind of unhealthy obsession, a mental illness. There is no such thing as a perfect belief system, so what’s the point in searching for it?

Belief systems are transitory. We’ll never arrive at a set of irrefutable, unchanging, eternal truths. Just pick an ism, whether it be rationalism, egoistic hedonism, panpsychicism, and stick with it. Don’t expect everyone else to believe in it, don’t expect to be able to apply it to every situation. Maybe incorporating a little faith and emotion into philosophy might be healthy as well. That or, abandoning isms altogether, like the Taoist sage, like a block of uncarved wood.

I don’t know, well, those are some solutions i’ve come up with lately. I’ve been suffering as well. My mind is always busy, questioning everything, trying to find a set of principles that will satisfy my intellect and my feelings forever, absurd.

In this world, we possess many things, but we own nothing. At some point, we must give everything back. Our loves, our money, even our beliefs. Only faith can overcome the passage of time. Only through faith can we arrive at imperishable, albeit false assertions. If we seek after reason, we can only hope for fleeting glimpses of the truth. Small percentages of the objective universe. Everything has it’s pros and cons. If we choose reason, logic and experience, we forgo that feeling of certainty and comfort only the religious man can feel.

I would go even further and state that reality itself is not that exacting, there are no perfect objects, no pure things no absolutes. It is thence right and proper to answer in category, like in a recent debate we went into asking what is heat and that there is no such thing just that particles move slow or fast and temperature reflects only that. Then to us human a ‘hot’ or ‘cold’ temperature is important, so the scale of how hot water is, is most relevant, yet to the universe there is no specific scale.

Personally I am an anti ism-ist :stuck_out_tongue: the uncarved block.

If there is a manner of perfection in the world it is surely that there isn’t, what could be more anarchic, more philosophical!

We may give everything back but this entitles everyone to everything, if we are reborn or if the eternal spirit continues and we are absorbed into that, then we want that freedom.

Perhaps reason can be emancipated from itself by itself? It just needs a way more fluid kind of reason.

:slight_smile:

You’re probably right.

Lately, I’ve been trying to walk a middle course between dogma and skepticism. Between a rigid set of principles and none at all.

Perfectly imperfect. If just one thing in the universe is perfect, then the universe isn’t perfectly imperfect. Are you worried about that one thing fucking up your assertion? :astonished: :laughing:

Then maybe our shared essence is the one thing in this universe that is perfect. I wish it were true. Do you have faith it be so? I think I do.

Agreed.

@OnlyHumean

It sounds like you’re agreeing with me here. You said “the average person has less strong traits”. However, you’re saying that if there’s a global catastrophe, that because we’re more genetically diverse and more numerous (due to advanced health care), there’s more chance that some of us will outlive it. So a con ends up being a pro, in an apocolyptic scenario, but what if the apocolypse never occurs? Will the average man and woman continue to decline, because those with recessive traits aren’t being filtered out by our environment? Eventually, our race would decline so, that advances in healthcare couldn’t keep up with the bad mutations (unless we start genetically engineering our species). Thus, our environment would become hostile again, and a natural culling of the species would occur (we’d turn into monsters and start killing each other off). Only a few with good mutations would survive, the vast majority of us would be annihilated. Thus, those that remained would be so genetically different from me and you, they’d practically constitute a new species.

In the long run, nature does have a way of balancing things out.

I’m sorry I gave that impression.

If the apocalypse never occurs, you have no pruning process to measure ‘fitness’ against; it’s nonsense to talk of decline. Is a reduction in average height a ‘decline’? You need context - if less height is overall beneficial, it’s evolutionary progress, if it’s overall harmful it’s evolutionary decline.

Or you need to state what value system you’re using apart from evolutionary fitness. If you value being tall and muscular, or having green eyes or freckles, just state that up front.

Recessive traits? You really need to read up more on biology before you worry about these things. Quite a lot more. It’ll help.

That’s how evolution works, healthcare or no, annihilation or no. Species change to suit their environment. Cultures grow and shrink, are born and die. I fail to see why this is a bad thing.

‘Every landscape has its own vocabulary’ we can have a bucket of principles but they will never all be right and each are to the situation as it unfolds. Then to the next situation and the same ones will now be wrong, generally we may as well clasp a handful and be a true as anything.

Hahaha, I do hope so! :stuck_out_tongue:

I wouldn’t call it perfect as I don’t think anything is perfect, or more that everything is indeed a perfect version of what it is ~ which makes the idea of perfection non applicable given the fluidity of this transient realm. I have faith - if you will, in what we are and nothing more, that all the ingredients cannot be destroyed any more than energy can.

Not necessarily true. The only thing keeping these cancerous mutants alive, is our advanced health care and welfare system. Take that away, and they’re toast.

No, no values here.

Ok, recessive isn’t the right word, how 'bout inconducive, inconducive to survival.

NO, we must preserve our species the way it is! :laughing:

Yes and no, yes and no. That which does not exterminate our species, makes us stronger. Stronger is both relative and absolute. Having a brain toomer (caused by a genetic mutation) is a con in virtually any environment i can imagine. Intelligence, height, weight, etc, are all relative, but brain toomers are absolutely detrimental, even if the mutant manages to procreate (because of an advanced health care and welfare system). Thus, without danger, if you follow Darwinian Evolution to it’s logical conclusion, a species begins to decay.

We can’t apply one thing to everything.

And some of those ingredients can’t be reduced to matter.

Indeed, as described in my latest thread…
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=174166

Cancerous mutants dependent on the healthcare system aren’t churning out kids, in general. You’d have to have a case where a significant portion of the population was both hooked up to drips and outbreeding the healthy population, and then work out some way to fund the healthcare.

They’re not inconducive if they’re surviving. Certainly not if they’re outbreeding.

Brain tumours are not detrimental in environments where they can be cured. What if the mutation causes curable brain tumours at puberty, but increases fertility and health after that? Then it’s a positive trait for the environment. When the health care system collapses, it becomes a negative trait.

So an experience that we constantly have, like the joy of life, is an illness?