Evolution or Devolution ?

Evolution or Devolution ? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Aneirin -> Evolution or Devolution ? (1/26/2010 7:04:17 AM)
At one time the known world held a dominant religion, to some thought control, but are we better now having largely thrown off the shackles of religion, or worse off ? What about medicine, the advances made, mass population killing diseases can be controlled, even eradicated, are we better off, or worse off ? And media, the air waves, the internet, though communication is wonderful as an entertainment perhaps, but has it spurred our advancement, or is it our undoing ? The world is a finite size, the population according to various sources has it seems levelled off, but births still outweigh deaths, so the population of the planet is still growing and with it our needs, were we ever meant to be as a species in such numbers ? Now maybe the planet is warming, but maybe that warming is a response to the increased population, all that snow melting, makes land for people to live on, but with more people, can we be fed ? What does the future hold, evolution or devolution and will that state be by the hand of man or the necessity of the planet ?

Moonhead -> RE: Evolution or Devolution ? (1/26/2010 7:33:42 AM)
"largely thrown off the shackles of religion"? Are you sure? Doesn't look that way from where I'm sitting. That's a big part of the reason for the soaring birthrate you mention, after all.

EbonyWood -> RE: Evolution or Devolution ? (1/26/2010 7:36:56 AM)
We are all fucked.

kittinSol -> RE: Evolution or Devolution ? (1/26/2010 7:44:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EbonyWood We are all fucked. Yes please.

cpK69 -> RE: Evolution or Devolution ? (1/26/2010 9:27:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin What does the future hold, evolution or devolution and will that state be by the hand of man or the necessity of the planet ? I have a very hard time believing in ‘man’s’ ability to pull it together; something tells me it can be done, even, will be done, but I doubt it will be without a ‘miracle’. I’ve received one miracle, or should I say, one I am sure can be called that; I have faith it can happen again. I'll say evolution. Kim

AnimusRex -> RE: Evolution or Devolution ? (1/26/2010 9:43:48 AM)
OK, I may be derailing this a bit, but I just finished reading a few articles that touch on this. Specifically, a 2004 article in LogosJournal that discusses the political scientist Leo Strauss, and the neocon movement of Irving Kristol (and son Bill Kristol, columnist at the NY Times). The neocons are the guiding figures behind the Republican Party (Bill Kristol perosnally selected Sarah Palin as the rising star of the movement). They also have over the last 2 decades remade the intellectual foundation of the conservative movement, where their thinking guided Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, who both led GWB by the hand into the wasteland of Iraq. Another good article appeared in Reason Magazine here. What caught my eye was that Irving Kristol saw religion as a necessary tool for societal control and order; he personally didn't have any sort of faith, but insisted that public figures adopt religious tokens and poses, to maintain order. Or as others have written, when Marxists say religion is the opiate of the masses, the neocons reply "More please, they are waking up!" This explains why not one republican contender for 2012 will admit to believing in evolution; most dodge the question, or flatly insist on Creationism. There is a near half of American body politic that is devolving into a 17th Century pre-Enlightenment way of thinking embracing religion not as a path to truth and justice and human dignity, but as a tool to control the ignorant rabble.

kittinSol -> RE: Evolution or Devolution ? (1/26/2010 9:52:14 AM)
What can one expect from a man who said this: "There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn't work.", but complete cynicism?

Moonhead -> RE: Evolution or Devolution ? (1/26/2010 10:06:02 AM)
he's obviously taken a turn for the worse since he did When Harry Met Sally...

kittinSol -> RE: Evolution or Devolution ? (1/26/2010 10:14:31 AM)
[sm=biggrin.gif][sm=biggrin.gif][sm=biggrin.gif][sm=biggrin.gif]

AnimusRex -> RE: Evolution or Devolution ? (1/26/2010 10:37:43 AM)
And this is why the articles were so hair-raising; For most of the 20th Century, both American political parties shared the viewpoint of egalitarianism, of social mobility. The current conservative movement and party has regressed, moved to a viewpoint similar to the Confederacy. When Rick Santelli faces the camera and snarls that he doesn't want to pay for the mortgages of "losers" while wealthy stockbrokers cheer, or when Teabaggers go around quoting John Galt, they are putting forward a fundamentally anti-American thought; that the world is,, and should be, dvidided into an overclass and an underclass, a society of gentlemen and rabble. It is noteworthy that many of the neocons are former Trotskyite Marxists. They switched sides, but kepth the same undrlying suspicion of democracy and egalitarianism.

vincentML -> RE: Evolution or Devolution ? (1/26/2010 10:51:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin At one time the known world held a dominant religion, to some thought control, but are we better now having largely thrown off the shackles of religion, or worse off ? Religion has several times been born again (pun intended) in America. Four revivals after the Enlightenment I think, but whose counting? It will ebb and flow in its grip upon people. Discounting murderous fanatics, religion will continue to give solace to believers, draw scorn from nonbelievers, and exploitation from Pols. The conflict between believers and nonbelievers is no more now than it was in the 1830s from what I have read. Nor is there any greater political exploitation. Call it a draw. quote: What about medicine, the advances made, mass population killing diseases can be controlled, even eradicated, are we better off, or worse off ? Medical advances have been wonderous ... for those of us lucky enough to live in the right place, not so good in rural and/or primative areas. Can't say that most are better off. Also, along with good medicine, we have developed more lethal chemicals. Agent Orange, anyone? Personally, I have been blessed but I am not certain it has been a major plus for the world's population. Call it a maybe, but doubtful as a benefit. quote: And media, the air waves, the internet, though communication is wonderful as an entertainment perhaps, but has it spurred our advancement, or is it our undoing ? Great fun. I am so glad I lived to enjoy it for entertainment, like here, and for information, scandals, rumors, etc. Wiki is teriffic. Downsides: increased consumer manipulation, and a boone for asymetrical war on both sides. Hello, can I speak to Osama please? Gotta give this a plus. Assign an A+ when my computer can provide oral sex and dispense certain pills. On second thought, just the pills. Can't deal with the thought of a sexually active blow-up computer. quote: The world is a finite size, the population according to various sources has it seems levelled off, but births still outweigh deaths, so the population of the planet is still growing and with it our needs, were we ever meant to be as a species in such numbers ? "Ever meant to be" assumes a planner and a creator. Are you fucking with us A? See Thomas Malthus for the process of feedback controls and destruction of excess population. quote: Now maybe the planet is warming, but maybe that warming is a response to the increased population, all that snow melting, makes land for people to live on, but with more people, can we be fed ? Essentially repeating the previous question but now you threw in the global warming controversy. I am conviced you are fucking with us A ! quote: What does the future hold, evolution or devolution and will that state be by the hand of man or the necessity of the planet ? In the near term, same old same old. Not because it is a zero sum game, but there will continue to be winners and losers. Depends where you live, what form of government you have, and how much the fuckers steal. Govt corruption a big cause of poverty in the "not so developing nations" from what I have read. In the long run (don't ask how long) I agree with Ebony .... the species is fucked. Cockroaches in the trillions, human-kind O. Game over. Thanks A. Enjoyed that. [:D]

Termyn8or -> RE: Evolution or Devolution ? (1/26/2010 11:32:46 AM)
Devolution. Religion mentioned. Well in the past, even though it was a form of control. "That's not very Christian of you to do" and so forth. Now religion means that you can screw thy neighbor and all is forgiven by who knows who. Technicologically, we are experiencing an inversion of sorts. People used to fix their own devices. First of all it was possible, as such people did it. They would change the points and plugs on their own car, take the tubes out of their radio or TV down to the drugstore, test and replace them. I hear tell they even mended their own fences. All of these tasks require professional intervention now, unless one spends the time and money to learn a whole lot. People have become experts at pushing buttons, but when the button does not work and changing the batteries is not effective, they are completely lost. Medicine is a joke now. In fact they don't even sell medicine anymore, it is now known as medication. Pills for everything you can imagine, sadness, hangnails, you name it. But then statistics support the improvement, that people live longer now. Bullshit, they can manufacture iron lungs all they want, but in the past when quality life was over it was over. Now they give you enough time to hand over everything you've worked for all your life, leaving nothing for your heirs. You live longer, because that which was once fatal is not now. To take my disbelief in statistics further, people used to die fighting yaks, who knows what else, and of course wars. The numbers of these non naturally occuring deaths became part of the aggregate for the calculation of average life expectancy. And the whole mess actually blurs the line between life and death, with euthenasia becoming an issue for some. Unfortunately the melting snow statement is incorrect. A few degrees here and there don't matter much, but an overall warming of the globe will melt enough to raise sea level. When that happens coastal regions will be more apt to flood, and will flood with an overall net loss of arable, livable space. And what many fail to realize, even if the human biomass has had a deleterious effect on this, it all becomes a money game, like cap and trade. George Soros has a big hardon to get into trading carbon taxes, and I'm sure, carbon futures as well. Anybody who think we can reverse a global climate trend, no matter what the cause, is either lying or very stupid despite their education level. (there's another subject I'll avoid at this time) Man preying on Man has been going on for a long time and is showing no signs of abating soon. We communicate more, and more efficiently, yet some are lonelier and more isolated than ever before. Many will sooner speak to someone ten thousand miles away than their nextdoor neighbor. And communication, I really have to condense this as I go along so it doesn't get too long. Here goes. The advent of television. Here we have something that could be a fantastic teaching tool, enlightening minds the world over. Universal, equal and effective education could be accomplished if it was used correctly. Instead this massively important medium for dissemination of information is used for what ? Now go outside and build the kid a little wagon. You know, four wheels, a swivel thing up front by which to steer. A base and sides for them to throw their stuff in. People used to do it all the time. Then came the advent of the Radio Flier, a very popular little red wagon here in the states. We don't need nails and hammers anymore, just a credit card. We the proletarians sell our time for money, which we then trade for the rest of our precious time. I don't see the gain in this. Perhaps now that many have shed the bigotry of the past and learned to accept one another, the best thing that could happen is that we get bombed back into the stone age. Then we will relearn the skills of our ancestors and then, there may be some hope. Maybe. T

Moonhead -> RE: Evolution or Devolution ? (1/26/2010 11:53:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or Perhaps now that many have shed the bigotry of the past and learned to accept one another, the best thing that could happen is that we get bombed back into the stone age. Then we will relearn the skills of our ancestors and then, there may be some hope. Maybe. T I doubt it, Termy. No argument with most of the rest of that, but even a non nuclear bombing back to the stone age is going to leave your descendants in much worse shape than your ancestors were in during the neolithic. There's plenty of toxins that a good bombing are likely to spread all through the environment, for a start. There's enough shit in the watertable already, without burning plastic and christ knows what else coming back down the next time it rains.

kdsub -> RE: Evolution or Devolution ? (1/26/2010 12:07:31 PM)
I don't mean to make light of this post it is interesting and certainly mirrors history...But I propose that if there were never religion we would be no closer to the utopia we all desire. Man would have just fragmented itself for other reasons and fought the same wars or maybe even bigger ones. Butch ps... sorry Moonhead this post was for the op

vincentML -> RE: Evolution or Devolution ? (1/26/2010 1:30:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub I don't mean to make light of this post it is interesting and certainly mirrors history...But I propose that if there were never religion we would be no closer to the utopia we all desire. Man would have just fragmented itself for other reasons and fought the same wars or maybe even bigger ones. Butch ps... sorry Moonhead this post was for the op Agree. If there is not one reason for tribalism, there will be another and with equal animosity towards the other tribes. ETA: Utopia? who desires utopia?

NorthernGent -> RE: Evolution or Devolution ? (1/26/2010 2:13:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin At one time the known world held a dominant religion, to some thought control, but are we better now having largely thrown off the shackles of religion, or worse off ? What about medicine, the advances made, mass population killing diseases can be controlled, even eradicated, are we better off, or worse off ? And media, the air waves, the internet, though communication is wonderful as an entertainment perhaps, but has it spurred our advancement, or is it our undoing ? The world is a finite size, the population according to various sources has it seems levelled off, but births still outweigh deaths, so the population of the planet is still growing and with it our needs, were we ever meant to be as a species in such numbers ? Now maybe the planet is warming, but maybe that warming is a response to the increased population, all that snow melting, makes land for people to live on, but with more people, can we be fed ? What does the future hold, evolution or devolution and will that state be by the hand of man or the necessity of the planet ? There's a popular misconception which comes out in your post - that is the idea that there was no evolution of ideas and development in science/economics etc prior to the 15th century renaissance (i.e. the idea that church control of society could not possibly lead to advancement). Well historians now generally agree that there was a 12th century renaissance - at a time when the church was the purveyor of learning. There were significant developments in art/music/agriculture/philosophy/education etc. I suppose the 15th century renaissance was more than simply the evolution of ideas - it amounted to an irreversible and decisive step forward (and yes this in part was due to the church's grip on learning being relaxed) - and this is what sets it apart. Human beings have an insatiable appetite for delusion - we tend to think we understand the world and can control and it follows thus we like to think that we can predict the future. In other words we think we're far more important than we actually are. I suppose all of this is bound up in the desire for meaning and identity. The most that can be reasonably suggested is that the future will follow the past in the sense that ideas and lifestyles will evolve. Where it will go who knows and does anyone really care. Striving to understand the world has a lot in common with religion - it provides a source of meaning and comfort (in an otherwise uncomfortable world for some - see Thomas Hobbes and the 'short and brutish life' - we haven't changed so much).

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Evolution or Devolution ? (1/26/2010 4:16:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or Perhaps now that many have shed the bigotry of the past and learned to accept one another, the best thing that could happen is that we get bombed back into the stone age. Then we will relearn the skills of our ancestors and then, there may be some hope. Maybe. T Huh? When the hell did that happen? I sure didn't notice. Human beings, as a species, are every bit as racist, bigoted, and just plain hateful toward others as they have ever been. If we bomb ourselves back to the stone age, the survivors will just start from the same place our ancestors started, and in a couple of thousand years their descendants will be right back to where we are now. This is in our genes. It will never get fixed.

littlewonder -> RE: Evolution or Devolution ? (1/26/2010 4:31:17 PM)
Man will die and then survive in a different form. It's the way of nature. Dinosaurs are not dead, they simply survive in another form.

Aneirin -> RE: Evolution or Devolution ? (1/26/2010 5:54:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: littlewonder Dinosaurs are not dead, they simply survive in another form. Yeah politicians

jlf1961 -> RE: Evolution or Devolution ? (1/26/2010 7:33:50 PM)
Considering two thirds of the human population fall into the category of "Terminally Stupid," it would seem that natural selection has been taken out of human evolution. Humans will continue to get more stupid and eventually will eliminate most of the life on the planet through pollution, expansion and destruction of the ecosphere.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875