' Wrote:Survival of the fittest must be the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Religion is a close second. I could rant for hours, but I will just stop here.
Survival of the fittest is misinterpreted. There is no competition among the same species. Darwin was afraid of publishing his works so people would consider that there is such a thing as Social Darwinism. And we did.
' Wrote:Survival of the fittest is misinterpreted. There is no competition among the same species. Darwin was afraid of publishing his works so people would consider that there is such a thing as Social Darwinism. And we did.
Actually, survival of the fittest -does- exist between the same species. It's one of the main mechanisms of evolution. Cell mutations occur at random and if said mutation is beneficial to the animal's survival, that animal has a higher chance of surviving than one lacking said mutation. Thus, that particular animal has a higher chance of going on to reproduce, so the gene has a higher chance of being passed on. Sooner or later, that gene will become common amongst the entire species and become a trait associated with them.
An example of this can be found in plants. If one plant is eaten by an insect, should a mutation arise that allows the plant to secrete a poison that kills off that insect, it will be more likely to survive to flower and pass on it's genes in seeds. These flowers will in turn be more likely to survive, and ad infinitum until the gene becomes a common trait.
If you want another example, the aforementioned insects, if a mutation should arise which makes them immune to the plant's poison, they will have access to more food, and thus more chance of surviving to give birth and pass on their genes.
But in basis, species compete because they will always breed until their environment can no longer sustain the growing population, and this then causes the species to have to compete with each other for their food.
' Wrote:Actually, survival of the fittest -does- exist between the same species. It's one of the main mechanisms of evolution. Cell mutations occur at random and if said mutation is beneficial to the animal's survival, that animal has a higher chance of surviving than one lacking said mutation. Thus, that particular animal has a higher chance of going on to reproduce, so the gene has a higher chance of being passed on. Sooner or later, that gene will become common amongst the entire species and become a trait associated with them.
An example of this can be found in plants. If one plant is eaten by an insect, should a mutation arise that allows the plant to secrete a poison that kills off that insect, it will be more likely to survive to flower and pass on it's genes in seeds. These flowers will in turn be more likely to survive, and ad infinitum until the gene becomes a common trait.
If you want another example, the aforementioned insects, if a mutation should arise which makes them immune to the plant's poison, they will have access to more food, and thus more chance of surviving to give birth and pass on their genes.
But in basis, species compete because they will always breed until their environment can no longer sustain the growing population, and this then causes the species to have to compete with each other for their food.
I meant competition of the Social Darwinism kind, but I guess I wasn't too clear about it, sorry.
' Wrote:There you've got the human in the medival. An example, in that time, some woman were labled as witches. Those who couldn't prove it differently, were burned.
Still happens today, and also happened before the middle ages. Just in other parts of the world than europe.
' Wrote:Today, you lable someone as a terrorist, because he believes in a religion that's currently controversial.
Not only a terrorist.
Also a sexist, racist, capitalist, communist, socialist, fascist, zionist, liberal, crusader, pedophile, homosexual, lolwhut, and troll.
Sometimes, the labels are accurate.
Just try to be as accurate as possible with your labels, and encourage other people to do the same.
Quote:The surprising thing is, even though our technical development is so stunning, our psychedelic development doesn't grow at all.
We've got air-planes, cell-phones and we can heal most deceases with medicine. But our psychedelic development is still the same as in the medival, with the difference that we know that the earth is round.
...
I wonder how long it'll take that the humanity finally understands that they need to develop psychedelic as well ?
Separate the mind into 2 influences:
Biology and education.
The biological part, which gives us our emotions such as hate, love, fear, greed (or our instinct to aquire resources, rather) cant be expected to change through education. We will be less afraid of certain things and more afraid of other thigns depending on our education. I think any attempts to do that through breeding, gene alteration, drugs, or so on, is just going to give you a seriously screwed up person, not a "better" person. A person with no fear will die early. A person with no aggression will be the doormat of a person with aggression. A person without greed will live in utter poverty, and will probably have to be supported by other people, who will wish the poor person took care of himself.
As for eduaction, it will turn our fears and hatreds on different things, but its not going to eliminated it totally. While knowledge can make us wiser, it can also make us dumber, in a sense.
For example, in my own experience I got while living in different countries and cultures over several years, I have noticed that the more people "know" about other countries without actually ever having been there or even talked to someone from that country, the less they are willing to accept people of that country as just normal people like themselves.
Clever people know that americans are ignorant.
Clever non-south africans know that white south africans are racists.
Clever westerners know that muslims are woman haters.
Clever muslims know that westerners are racists.
Clever atheists know that religious people are ignorant and hate other religions and it just makes them fight.
Only thing worse than a fool is an educated fool.
sidenote: Also, its a common misconception that everyone thought the earth was flat during the middle ages. A lot of people knew it was round, after all it only takes a few obersvations.
It was just the church that forbid people from contradicting their own view, which was just one of the oddities of that time.
Quote:When we're going to tolerate every other human, even if he's different ?
Sometimes humans behave in a way that should not be tolerated.
Quote:When are we going to get rid of all weapons, and have peace on earth ?
Get rid of all guns, and the guys with the biggtest sticks will rule you. Get rid of all sticks, and the guys with the strongest arms will rule you.
The key is to convince people not to resolve to violence.
That is a ballance of 3 things:
1: be reasonable enough towards reasonable people, so they wont turn to violence because you are being unreasonable
2: have big enough sticks in case someone unreasonable comes along
3: make sure unreasonable people dont get their hands on really big sticks.
There will always be people who think that being fair is for the weak and for the stupid, and those people will hit other people with sticks for trying to be reasonable.
In that case, the reasonable thing is to get a stick and hit those people until they agree to be reasonable.
Ok, let me inject a little ray of hope here. The world isn't that bad...
Quote:There you've got the human in the medival. An example, in that time, some woman were labled as witches. Those who couldn't prove it differently, were burned. Today, you lable someone as a terrorist, because he believes in a religion that's currently controversial. The surprising thing is, even though our technical development is so stunning, our psychedelic development doesn't grow at all.
That little bolded bit is kinda important. Last time I checked, people aren't burnt (or burned) for being terrorism, which is progress in its own special way. That, and simply having a certain religious belief is not enough to have you labeled as a terrorist in most parts of the world (there are probably exceptions, but I'm really at a loss to find them). Intolerance is a problem, but compared with the past we're actually doing pretty well. The trend is in the right direction.
[quote name='KoЯny' date='May 1 2011, 05:40 PM' post='1406092']But our psychedelic development is still the same as in the medival, with the difference that we know that the earth is round. [/quote]
Psychedelic? Well, not sure what you mean by that, but the Earth's been round at least since Pythagoras in the 6th Century BCE. And, to be fair, we have made a lot of progress in accepting diiferences and pushing equality. In the UK, for example, same-sex civil partnerships are now legal (they weren't before 2005), everyone over 18 has the vote (prior to 1832, only 10% of the adult male population had the vote. And that was a long time after the medieval period). Slavery has been abolished, religions are accorded equal status before the law, and we don't hang people any more. This is all progress, no?
[quote name='KoЯny' date='May 1 2011, 05:40 PM' post='1406092']I wonder how long it'll take that the humanity finally understands that they need to develop psychedelic as well ? When we're going to tolerate every other human, even if he's different ? When are we going to get rid of all weapons, and have peace on earth ?[/Quote]
See my previous responses. Tolerance just takes time. It took Western Europe hundreds (literally) of years to get from absolute monarchies (without things like, say Human Rights Acts) to open (relatively) tolerant democracies. It's not going to happen overnight in places like Afghanistan, Irag, or Syria (or anywhere alse without fully functioning civil society/democratic government).
[quote name='KoЯny' date='May 1 2011, 05:40 PM' post='1406092'] The logical conclusion now would be, that because of the climatic change, and the still growing amount of nuclear bombs, wars etc, the humanity is next ?{/Quote]
No, that wouldn't be logical. Einstein was also firmly against quantum theory as described by Bohr. Bohr was later proved (as far as that is possible with science) correct. Also, Nuclear warhead numbers have dropped sharply since the 1980s.
In a slightly more morbid vein, it is highly unlikely that humanity will be the next species to go extinct, given that, thanks largely to our activty, lots of other species are far closer to the brink than we are.
[quote name='KoЯny' date='May 1 2011, 05:40 PM' post='1406092']Never before were humans that eager to start wars, even with our current technicial development. Not only that, but we all should've learned from the history, that wars do not benefit humanity in a bit. [/Quote]
Again, I'm going to have to disagree with you on that count. Since the end of the cold war (note, the end of a period of very destructive geopolitics), the number of wars has (generally) decreased. War is less seen as an extension of politics by other means (go, Klausewitz, go!) and more representative of a failure of politics. Yes, there have been some recent high profile "interventions" (Libya, Ivory Coast, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Bosnia), and yes, there have been other wars (like the Sri Lankan civil war), but generally there hasn't been that much fighting, especially compared with the period 1850-1950). I would argue that we are much less eager to start wars than before; just look at the reluctance to act decisively over Libya.
On the subject of wars not benefitting humanity... Well, that's just plain wrong. As an example, WW2 gave us rocketry (which put men on the moon, one of your examples of our technical excellence), computing, decent cryptography, radar, the jet engine, and nuclear power. Of course, there are always negatives, and I'm not saying that they in any way are outweighed by the positives, but you have to acknowledge that war does bring some benefits.
Well, that's me done. Discuss away!
EDIT: Ok, I've been ninjad. Also, why aren't my quotes working?
' Wrote:The correct word would be Culture, not Education.
The correct thing to do would be to split it into biology, culture, education, your momentary mood, the way your mom treated you as a bably, and a million other things.
With education I mean stuff that people think they know, such as stuff people can intentionally teach someone.
' Wrote:Again, I'm going to have to disagree with you on that count. Since the end of the cold war (note, the end of a period of very destructive geopolitics), the number of wars has (generally) decreased. War is less seen as an extension of politics by other means (go, Klausewitz, go!) and more representative of a failure of politics. Yes, there have been some recent high profile "interventions" (Libya, Ivory Coast, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Bosnia), and yes, there have been other wars (like the Sri Lankan civil war), but generally there hasn't been that much fighting, especially compared with the period 1850-1950). I would argue that we are much less eager to start wars than before; just look at the reluctance to act decisively over Libya.
On the subject of wars not benefitting humanity... Well, that's just plain wrong. As an example, WW2 gave us rocketry (which put men on the moon, one of your examples of our technical excellence), computing, decent cryptography, radar, the jet engine, and nuclear power. Of course, there are always negatives, and I'm not saying that they in any way are outweighed by the positives, but you have to acknowledge that war does bring some benefits.
Well, that's me done. Discuss away!
EDIT: Ok, I've been ninjad. Also, why aren't my quotes working?
Wars might not be that often, atleast not around parts we're even getting information from, but note that the wars these days have far more potential of destruction than earlier.
' Wrote:The correct thing to do would be to split it into biology, culture, education, your momentary mood, the way your mom treated you as a bably, and a million other things.
With education I mean stuff that people think they know, such as stuff people can intentionally teach someone.
Biology is everything that is pre-determined by the fact you are human.