What if we are to blame?

[existentialist]

For the past few months, a new line of thought has been growing in my mind. What if, as a result of our genetic lineage, we are collectively to blame for what's happening to our world?<br><br>We all have to face the uncomfortable truth that were it not for our forebearers, and their inate abilty to survive the vile past, we would not be here. Are we not the children of the people most adapted to survive in a world that promotes cheating, lying, subterfuge and petty jealousies? How like our Fathers and Mothers are we? Our Grandfathers and Grandmothers? Beyond that? I doubt that few of us know.<br><br>Yes, there are a few of us that see things differently.<br><br>But ultimately, nature promotes survival of the fittest. And the 'fittest' (i.e. in the current world - those who can make the most money, rise to the highest positions of power) have the upper hand, as nature dictates they should. A surprising number of sheeple have the mind-set like those that achieve power and money, even though their circumstances are very different, and they fall into line behind the 'leaders'.<br><br>All of us, every single one of us, without exception, has lasted the 4 billion years or so since the first single-celled creature wriggled in the ooze. We are the product of an eternity beyond imagination.<br><br>It seems to me that we have reached a point within our generation where we really have to make a decision. Do we continue on the course that billions of years have dictated, or do we awaken a new set of ideaolgies that can lead mankind to a new, unchartered terriotory? <p></p><i></i>

[anothershamus]

that is the question!!! are we a virus on the planet and should we vaccinate ourselves out of existance because we have destroyed the original "garden of eden"? A good arguement could be made for that! We have the hope that nature can take care of herself and bring things to balance. Are we prepared to take the consequences of our actions and be eliminated? easy come easy go? or go out kicking and screaming? seem like we will see in the near future. <p></p><i></i>

[blanc]

the human species survived because of its abilities at adaptation and co-operation, not because of abilities to kill each other. The gene pool which gives rise to varied qualities, heightening adaptability, requires survival and reproduction not just of the 'fittest' . Fit for what? Imagine a post climate change devastation world, with diminished population struggling to survive - who do we need - the cheats, the men of violence, the beautiful people and the super rich? <p></p><i></i>

[existentialist]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>"the human species survived because of its abilities at adaptation and co-operation, not because of abilities to kill each other"<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>?<br><br>blanc, you are denying your ancestors. You miss my point completely. YOU may feel you are different, but by your very confrontational stance you are not. Win by any means possible. Belittle the opponent. Grind their argument into the dust. Show they are wrong. That's one thing I have noticed on this board since I joined - 'healthy debate' - it's just a euphemism for slagging one another off. I am guilty of it too, by my very reply to you. <p></p><i></i>

[trachys]

existentialist, your skin is rather thin.<br><br>please delimit this "vile past" of ours ... is it 2,000 years? 12,000 years? longer? <p></p><i></i>

[existentialist]

it's 4 billion years. <p></p><i></i>

[trachys]

a more apt handle, I think, is fatalist <p></p><i></i>

[existentialist]

OK - fatalist it is. A counterbalance to all the happy souls. How else can one rage against the machine? <p></p><i></i>

[blanc]

I didn't miss your point existentialist, I just don't agree with it. I think our most distant ancestors, those on the route to becoming human, developed their superior survival strategies (superior over other apes and in fact other species in general) by an increased aptitude for co-operation and communication. To leap a few million years, i think that those whom we see as successful, as ace survivalists, are anything but. I think they are (huge generalisations accepted) fouling their own, and everyone elses' nest. In doing so they are unwittingly demonstrating the errors of over reliance on competitive consumerism as a survival strategy for mankind.<br><br>If you reply to this in any other way than accusing me of wanting to belittle you, I suppose iit would support my thesis that we are creatures of communication, rather than yours that we are ceatures of one-upmanship. <br><br><!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :D --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/happy.gif ALT=":D"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>

[havanagilla]

I also feel (there is no proof, because this is all speculation) that the cut throat survival of the present is a deviance/mutation which is fouling the entire nest, including the resources of those who engage in it. I had a vivid dream once, of watching all of this from a distance and seeing people killing their next of kin, their own, and it is very sad, and I am kind of saying to myself, "they just can't stop, it started in some war, and they just can't stop". Basically, its the prisoners' dillema and cooperation. we are in a boat, those who push their own people into the water, to take more space on the boat are sinking it to the ground. <p></p><i></i>

[starroute]

Game theory, behavioral studies, and evolution all suggest there's a balance. Lying and cheating a little can be an evolutionary advantage. But lying and cheating a lot will undermine the system and get the individual who does it slapped down. And in hard times, there's less toleration for those who hoard or cheat for personal advantage.<br><br>There's a delicate balance involved. This can be seen in human sexual behavior, which seems to have evolved to promote a moderate level of spousal fidelity (because it makes for more secure child-raising) combined with a certain amount of cheating on the side. Or copyright, where the optimal system seems to be a leaky one, where protection of intellectual property rights combined with toleration for low-level violations seems to be most effective at fostering creativity.<br><br>However, the one thing that's essential to maintaining these balances is feedback. The behavioral studies of prisoners' dilemma-type situations show that people have to find out who's screwed them and be able to take that into account on the next round. If every round starts with a completely level playing-field, the cheaters will never get a reputation and will be able to keep on cheating indefinitely.<br><br>I suspect that our attempts to create a modern, rational, "objective" society may be what's mucked things up. For example, trial by jury -- originally meant to be a jury of your "peers," the people who know you and can evaluation your behavior -- has devolved into a system where jurors are selected for their ignorance of the case, those involved in it, any similar cases, or any relevant context. <br><br>Corporate economies, which take the personalities out of play and reduce corporate operations to impersonal financial manipulations -- where no one can be blamed because no one is responsible -- have a similar result.<br><br>The Internet seems to be our best hope of putting knowledge and personalities back into modern society, even when dealing with strangers. But those who thrive on unrestrained cheating will do their best to squash it. That's our greatest hope and our worst danger.<br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[Joe Hillshoist]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>What if, as a result of our genetic lineage, we are collectively to blame for what's happening to our world?<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>We are destroying the world because we have betrayed our genetic heritage/lineage.<br><br>Every indigenous people (including indigenous europeans) once knew their job was to sing and dance to nature and to celebrate life and make it as gentle as possible in a brutal universe.<br><br>But a long time ago something went wrong.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[wintler]

Existentialist said: "it's 4 billion years."<br><br>There has, most noncreationist scientists agree, only been life on earth for 1-1.5bil years. So are you saying molten rock evolves via natural selection, or is your nihilism making you giddy? <p></p><i></i>

[Joe Hillshoist]

Richard dawkins proposed something similar in the Blind Watchmaker.<br><br>He suggested that clays could have 'evolved' from natural selection. He was talking about stickiness, which gets interesting (potentially) if you consider DNAs polymer like structure. <p></p><i></i>

[4911]

"Are we not the children of the people most adapted to survive in a world that promotes cheating, lying, subterfuge and petty jealousies?"<br><br><br>Sure, but thats only one side of the coin. Theres alot more than that to this all, dontcha think? Like compassion, love, helping, understanding and .. hm.. art, excellent food, warm places to make love, music, freinds, laughing....awesome concerts, long summer nights, bikerides in the mountains... nature isnt that horrible... its actually pretty damn amazing! Also how bout that whole subatomic slant? WTF? Nuts! Theres coincidences, synchronicities, beautiful women... <br><br>I think we tend to overestimate what sucks <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=4911>4911</A> at: 7/3/06 5:49 pm<br></i>