I want ot talk about evolution and human potential

[stilltrucking]

"Natural selection, as it has operated in human history, favors not only the clever but the murderous." Barbara Ehrenreich

One in every 200 men alive today is a relative of Genghis Khan. An international team of geneticists has made the astonishing discovery that more than 16 million men in central Asia have the same male Y chromosome as the great Mongol leader.
It is a striking finding: a huge chunk of modern humanity can trace its origins to Khan's vigorous policy of claiming the most beautiful women captured during his merciless conquest.

We owe it all to superstud Genghis

[mtmynd]

I think Barbara's quote shows that nature does not care about the split we hu'mans define as 'clever' and 'murderous.' Even tho there certainly has been clever murderers right along with those who murder the clever for being so... it has little to do with the forces of nature as much as the subservience to mind 'we' are so prone to do. Violence along with it's polar opposite, calm, and all emotions in between are subject to the mind for their expression.

Re: Genghis Khan - has there been any evidence so far as to how many men, including Genghis, were relatives of someone much more peaceful or funny or even clever that history could name?

It seems isolating one historical figure and making the claim as it is written somehow disregards where this figure, Genghis, came from in his family tree. It's all connected in the long run, isn't it?

[still.trucking]

Good Points. Some Cro Magnon artist who when he was not busy painting pictures on the wall was killing off the Neandrathals

I am still trying to explain myself to mnaz. Thinking about your Sunday stream and faith and accepting someone elses belief.

This idea that evolution/nature has some purpose, that we are evolving towards some higher beings. In some future post homo sapien earth will our prgeny look back on us as an extinct species who were just a little too got dam clever.


I was searching through the studio eight archives looking for more stuff about dada by mnaz when I found this. Don't know how I missed it.
I remember lashing out at you once Cecil. In my anger and pain.

please! please! i heard myself screaming out ... please!
but nobody gave a shit. most of all I didn't give a shit.
I can't believe it.. I mean why in the name of Clutch Cargo
would anyone want to live like we do? I'm not talking about
living here in that so-called favorite chair you like to park your ass in...
no I'm talking about living the day-to-day existence looking
out for the next fucking moron to piss you off.

deep breath, asshole

[Artguy]

Seems to me far too much unnatural selection going on lately....As far as natural selection goes...we may very well be using some very unnatural methods to insure our extinction....

[mtmynd]

artguy: "we may very well be using some very unnatural methods to insure our extinction..."

good point... if we can all agree what's natural vs unnatural. but whatever it is, we seem hellbent on our extinction, like we've had enough now so let the apocalypse happen, dammit.

[Barry]

I had a brainstorm reading this...The Ghengis Khan thing...What if...what if... ... ...Maybe the problem is that the peaceful ones, the monks and mystics, highly evolved souls, generally throughout history have been solitary figures, unlikely to procreate and pass on those genes.

Can that be reversed somehow? A new religion/belief-structure that espouses peaceful community and responsible living which holds that procreating and passing on ones genes is the highest form of expression of faith? This would be using unnatural selection to increase peacefulness overall in the gene pool.

I don't know if the Buddha had children. I think Ghandi did. Did Mother Theresa? It seems Jesus did not. Yet men like Ghengis Khan had hundreds.

It seems like faith combined with celibacy might be the problem here. The idea that to be highly evolved as a person means to lose the drive to procreate keeps the numbers of the highly evolved people in the gene pool down.

Just a thought.

Peace,
Barry

[mtmynd]

Barry -

It seems like faith combined with celibacy might be the problem here.

Problem? I don't think those you've mentioned had any problem with their life, do you?

Barry -

The idea that to be highly evolved as a person means to lose the drive to procreate keeps the numbers of the highly evolved people in the gene pool down.

I see no problem with losing the drive to procreate. There already is an abundance of people fighting for their piece of the pie. Would we want to accelerate hu'man evolution so everyone could (theoretically) catch up and be on the same level? Would that artificiality (unnaturalness) be worth it? And if so, to whom would it be worth it if everyone was equally evolved? I see that as hu'manity drowning in their gene pool.

[Doreen Peri]

Well, since the topic is examining the quote by Barbara Ehrenreich regarding natural selection favoring neither the clever nor the murderous...seems to me talking about why some human beings have decided not to procreate follows suit.

But I wouldn't necessarily think of Jesus or Buddha or Mother Theresa as "clever".

How were they clever? Wise, yes.

If it can be proven that murderers procreate more than clever people, then that would be something to explore in regards to natural selection.

For instance... did Jeffrey Dahmer have more children than Groucho Marx? Or fewer? And why?

LOL heh

......

I think what Barbara Ehrenreich is saying is that if the theory of natural selection is a fact (survival of the fittest), than murderers seem to be just as fit as clever people because they're all surviving.

Sort of an odd quote.

Let's email her and ask her what she meant by it.

[mnaz]

Not sure how this fits, but I've kicked around the idea of "flash evolution" in my head-- the species adapting, or "evolving" quickly to negotiate massive changes in circumstance of existence-- such as the doubling of world population in the last 40-41 years, the bomb, the technology explosion. One of "Red's" books at the old gold mine I watched was titled "Science and Survival-- How Science might avoid its biggest blunder-- Annihilation of its Pursuers." The fact that we got through the Cold War without nuking ourselves-- "flash evolution." We had to undo centuries of customary, or ingrained impulse to wage fairly regular war with the best weapons available, and do so in a relative "flash" compared to the overall human timeline.

I tend to think of WW1 & WW2 as perhaps the prime accelerators of an "age of flash evolution," and many of the old platforms, paradigms and power structures will become increasingly destructive and/or useless. The "war on terrorism," or so-called "asymmetric" warfare in general might be thought of as examples of entrenched "paradigms" increasingly breaking down. Maybe not.

Evolve, people! Evolve! Quick.

[mtmynd]

Doreen: "Well, since the topic is examining the quote by Barbara Ehrenreich regarding natural selection favoring neither the clever nor the murderous...seems to me talking about why some human beings have decided not to procreate follows suit. "

Hmmmm... the title of this thread is "I want to talk about evolution and human potential" which encompasses Barbara's quote but I don't think her quote was all we are discussing, is it? Jack wants to talk about evolution and human potential in general it seems to me. I could be wrong tho... it wouldn't be the first time.

However, mnaz brings up 'flash evolution' in his reply... keeping on topic with an interesting idea. Is this connecting our rapid advancements in technology to our necessity to live with the changes this technology brings? If so, isn't man still the initial impetus behind the tech changes due to man's ability to not only discover, but to put into action those discoveries of technology?

This is a path mankind has been on for quite a long time, but perhaps this 'flash' is the extraordinary moments when the technology know-how comes to fruition (hu'man potential)... the discovery of the wheel, the discovery of the plow, of gunpowder, the gun, steam power, etc, etc., the way I see it. What say ye?

[Doreen Peri]

I was replying to your reply to Barry. And then I was replying to Barry's reply directly. I guess I need to do more quoting around here.

Barry said something about procreating. He suggested that wise people don't have as many babies as the normal everyday unwise people (that's how I understood it anyway). He used Jesus and Buddha as examples. He suggested wise people should procreate more to alter the wiseness off the population. Haha.. I'm laughing at myself because I'm just paraphrasing and maybe I didn't understand it exactly.

You then replied to Barry about his reply. Then I replied to you about your reply.

Then I replied to Barry about his reply and how it didn't really fit with the quote by Barbara Ehrnreich because she didn't mention wise people. She only mentioned murderers and clever people.

Then I said something funny about Jeffrey Dahmer and Groucho Marx.

I think that's what happened. LOL

And now you're going back to the title of the topic. Something I haven't even addressed yet.

Whew.



Anyway... I honestly don't see how the Barbara Ehrenreich quote has anything to do with the title of the topic. But if you say it is encompassed in the title of the topic, I believe you.

Sounds like it will be an interesting discussion. I'll watch from the sidelines unless I have something to say about the topic itself.

Oh I DO have something to say about the topic itself. Summed up like this. Humans have vast potential and we are evolving all the time. That's my only thought about it really. (for now anyway)

Doreen: "Well, since the topic is examining the quote by Barbara Ehrenreich regarding natural selection favoring neither the clever nor the murderous...seems to me talking about why some human beings have decided not to procreate follows suit. "

Hmmmm... the title of this thread is "I want to talk about evolution and human potential" which encompasses Barbara's quote but I don't think her quote was all we are discussing, is it? Jack wants to talk about evolution and human potential in general it seems to me. I could be wrong tho... it wouldn't be the first time.

However, mnaz brings up 'flash evolution' in his reply... keeping on topic with an interesting idea. Is this connecting our rapid advancements in technology to our necessity to live with the changes this technology brings? If so, isn't man still the initial impetus behind the tech changes due to man's ability to not only discover, but to put into action those discoveries of technology?

This is a path mankind has been on for quite a long time, but perhaps this 'flash' is the extraordinary moments when the technology know-how comes to fruition (hu'man potential)... the discovery of the wheel, the discovery of the plow, of gunpowder, the gun, steam power, etc, etc., the way I see it. What say ye?

[Arcadia]

(wow.... I´m already lost!! )

s-t quotations made me smile... I´ve never bothered to have or not to have Genghis Khan cromosomes... that reminded me an old family quasi -joke!! By the way, who´s Barbara Ehrenreich??

though, interesting the multiple use the word "natural" could have... darwinist sense?, taoist sense?, etc?.
Is nature oppose to culture? what´s the place of technology in this? Is language the place of problems?

& about procreating: Buddha and Jesus have no prole? mmmm... no idea exactly!. Under judge-damental mood I´ve found extremely stupid and also wise people with or without biologic sons and daughters, I personally didn´t find a pattern yet!

well, that´s my contribution to the thread at the moment!

[Barry]

Doreen, you got it perfectly. Cecil did too, but I think he just wants to show himself wiser than me. Personally, I don't care who's wiser. Maybe he is. Maybe procreation ain't all that important. Could be that the truly wise understand something I never will. Maybe it's more metaphysical than physical. I think that's what Cecil is saying, that wisdom can't be increased in a population through more wise people procreating, that it's more about the soul than the genes. I don't see it that way. Sounds kinda religious to me. I'm all about religion, but I like science for the factual back-up it provides. Wisdom I see the same as intelligence: a genetic trait that can be passed on. Or the potential for each, at least. Seems to me we oughta get more and more of these wise, intelligent people to pass on their genes, rather than the simply clever or murdeous. Doesn't seem like it could hurt.

I was just saying I had a brainstorm that maybe the notion of celibacy or sexual continence or whatever you want to call it as the mark of a highly evolved individual for the last 9000 years or so might be what keeps us from becoming more highly evolved as a species: because the highly evolved don't pass on their genes. Cecil takes that to mean I'm saying Jesus, Mother Theresa, the Buddha and Ghandi had a problem with their lives. But I don't believe him anyway. I think he was just being argumentative. But I could even be wrong about that, too.

One thing that sounds reasonable, though, is this...If in the distant past a particular group in power wanted to ensure they stayed in power in the future, one way would be to promote the idea that "wise" people have grown beyond the need for sex, that sexual practice is base and the mark of the "unwise," to promote guilt for "giving in" to the desire to have sex. That way there'd be fewer and fewer wise people in the future to challenge the status quo.

Peace,
Barry

[stilltrucking]

I used to believe in the bell curve
it is lonely out on the tail ends
that is why one percenters are always forming motorcycle clubs I suppose.

I wanted to be warm and comfy
in the big hump in the middle
I was born to follow
I never thought I would wind up like this.
The prisions are full of freaks like me
I used to think maybe I had two y chromosomes.



The bell jar was like a mystical symbol of a a new religion for me.
one standard deviation over the line. I thought it you plot any human variable it would always fall on the bell curve. Now some creationist friends of mine tell me that is not true. Another scientific myth they say.

Who is Barbara Ehrenreich??

Just some writer, I picked up a book by her for a quater at a used book store. Zlatko used to quote her a lot. She is a pretty astute observer of the human condition. in my opinion.

Blood Rites Origins and History of The Passions of War
by Barbara Ehrenreich.

Well what has this got to do with evolution and human potential you might ask?

[mtmynd]

Barry -

"Cecil did too, but I think he just wants to show himself wiser than me."

"Cecil takes that to mean I'm saying Jesus, Mother Theresa, the Buddha and Ghandi had a problem with their lives. But I don't believe him anyway. I think he was just being argumentative."

"I think that's what Cecil is saying, that wisdom can't be increased in a population through more wise people procreating, that it's more about the soul than the genes. I don't see it that way. Sounds kinda religious to me."

There you go again, Barry. You are absolutely clueless how to have a discussion. Tossing these little innuendos about because you somehow feel threatened makes you all the more impossible to ever take seriously.

When you put out your little brainstorm, I gave it quite a bit of thought. The reply I gave was my answer and questions regarding what you had put out here on this public board, I'm assuming, for the sake of discussion. But it's quite obvious that is not what you had in mind.

Three times in this latest reply of yours my name comes up and not favorably in any of the three times. Barry, I don't give a fuck whether you believe me or not. That is not why I offer my thoughts... not to be blindly believed but simply to give some thought... something I have become to realize you are damn near incapable of doing to any degree without insult to anyone who offers something other than what you believe.

Not only has my name come up (3) times in this reply of yours, but you seem to enjoy writing my name even more. I've seen you use my name in more than this reply... I have become a target of your insults or derogatory remarks for your amusement, apparently. It's either that or you have a crush on me that is pissing you off.

I'd appreciate it if you would no longer make any comments to anything I write on this board using my name since you are completely unable to say anything positive about anything that I have to say. I will do likewise by not replying to anything you write about. You are simply not worth the aggravation that I experience each and every time I see you use my name in some reply or another of yours.

Thank you.