I am going to consider this thread Entertainment, and just sit back and read, while swilling my coffee.
Is homo sapiens doomed by it's stupidity? Are we really losing our edge?
What's in the balance?
© WonderCafe. All Rights Reserved
Brought to you by the people of The United Church of Canada
Opinions expressed on this site are not necessarily those of WonderCafe or The United Church of Canada
Comments
spiritbear
.
Posted on: 11/25/2008 12:16
.
spiritbear
Actually, homo erectus is
Posted on: 11/25/2008 12:00
Actually, homo erectus is indeed a failed species, since it went extinct millenia ago. Now as for homo sapiens, to which you and I belong, that's another story. Is it doomed? Perhaps. But I'm not sure that it's stupidity that dooms it. Stupidity implies not having the intelligence to forsee consequences. But we are able to see where our indulgent lifestyle is taking the planet. I think it's more an issue of greed. We want as much as we can for ourselves and we'd like to leave the consequences to someone else, like our children/ grandchildren etc. It's a tug-of-war between whether we (collectively) will be able to look past our immediate self-interest vs. how long will this take?
spiritbear
.
Posted on: 11/25/2008 12:17
.
spiritbear
OK, I give up. My wonky
Posted on: 11/25/2008 12:21
OK, I give up. My wonky connection has uploaded multiple copies. I can edit them, but how do I delete them in the new interface?
RussP
spiritbear "How long will
Posted on: 11/25/2008 12:58
spiritbear
"How long will this take?"
I fear that we have taken too long already, that the amount of CO2, NOx and other junk we are putting into the atmosphere has already taken us over the tipping point.
How do you replace the Arctic ice and snow one it melts? How does humankind restart that process? Gigantic space mirrors? Flying sheets of black paper? We can't even get back to the moon.
I think we are doomed, in the long run. I think we may limp along as in so many Speculative Fiction novels, but in the end, we will die out. We will take off into space, at least a few of us, ala Wall-e, but in the end, our time here is short.
I think the planet will get along very well without us, thank you very much.
To paraphrase the famous line from StarTrek, "We are the carbon based lifeform infesting planet Earth".
IT
Russ
Arminius
Hi spiritbear and
Posted on: 11/25/2008 12:55
Hi spiritbear and ninja:
Yes, we, Homo sapiens sapiens, despite our double sapiency (or perhaps because of it) appear to be headed for self-destruction. But we are destroying ourselves beause of our ego-, ethno-, and anthropocentricity, in combination with analytical intelligence, rather than just greed. We are doomed because we don't know who or what we really are!
Once we become aware that God is the cosmic totality, in a state of synthesis, and that we are an inseparable part thereof, then we become aware of our godlines and of our unity with everyone and everything. From then on, our thoughts and actions will be unitive and world-centric rather that ego-, ethno-, or anthropocentric.
Once we become the godly beings that we innately are, and think and act in the awareness of cosmic unity, then our thoughts, emotions, and actions will be world-centered, and we will halt the self-destructive trend.
I hope we get there before we destroy ourselves!
Unfortunately, organized religion has, so far, hindered rather than helped the spread of godly awareness among our species. Actually, it should do the opposite: Religion should do its utmost to help us discover who and what we ultimately are! The United Church is taking its first few baby steps in that direction, but it may be too little, too late.
In Unitive Consciousness,
Arminius
ninjafaery
Apologies, Spiritbear et.
Posted on: 11/25/2008 15:51
Apologies, Spiritbear et. al. I of course meant homo sapiens sapiens. My bad. I corrected it in my original post.
Ok, so whether by greed or stupidy, we take ourselves either to extinction, or we revert to some atavistic state (which will be done without our original survival skills), does God still exist?
Does God need us?
ShadowxXxDweller
Yup we're all doomed. But
Posted on: 11/25/2008 18:07
Yup we're all doomed. But then again, there are alot of people in power who are dragging down the collective intelligence of the human race. Sure God needs you. For what purpose is the real question. We've pretty much perverted our purpose. Didn't god say we where to rule the beasts of the earth, the fish of the sea and the birds of the sky? If not rule, then take care of them. And if thats the case, we're pretty crappy keepers. More evidence that we're gonna go under. If we can't take care of FISH nevermind ourselves. As for god still existing, deffinetly. I highly doubt someone like him is just going to say 'Ok peeps. I'm out. Peace!" And leave.That would end in something alot worst than the human race ending I can guarentee that.
Thats my ten cents. Hope it helps! ^-^
Shadow
Revolutionary
Yea, we're all doomed, so
Posted on: 11/25/2008 18:10
Yea, we're all doomed, so let's have one big bash before the push the final button. Non alcoholic beverages only, of course. After all, this is the United Church.
Arminius
Yes, ninja, God still exists
Posted on: 11/25/2008 18:57
Yes, ninja, God still exists (if God as the self-creative cosmic totality is an acceptable definition of God).
And, no, God doesn't need us; a new and perhaps more sapient species will rise to the top after we are gone. But we need God, or the awareness of being at-one with God--if we are to survive and thrive!
ninjafaery
ShadowxXxDweller wrote:Yup
Posted on: 11/25/2008 22:19
Yup we're all doomed. But then again, there are alot of people in power who are dragging down the collective intelligence of the human race. Sure God needs you. For what purpose is the real question. We've pretty much perverted our purpose. Didn't god say we where to rule the beasts of the earth, the fish of the sea and the birds of the sky? If not rule, then take care of them. And if thats the case, we're pretty crappy keepers. More evidence that we're gonna go under. If we can't take care of FISH nevermind ourselves. As for god still existing, deffinetly. I highly doubt someone like him is just going to say 'Ok peeps. I'm out. Peace!" And leave.That would end in something alot worst than the human race ending I can guarentee that.
Thats my ten cents. Hope it helps! ^-^
Shadow
Hi Shadow -- Looks like we have the same interpretation regarding our purpose as written in the OT. I agree that there's a huge and important difference between "rule" and "take care of". Rule violates the purpose of wholeness.
I also love the way you so elegantly, in one one line, sum up the dilemna --"More evidence that we're gonna go under. If we can't take care of FISH nevermind ourselves. "
ninjafaery
Arminius wrote:Yes, ninja,
Posted on: 11/25/2008 22:29
Yes, ninja, God still exists (if God as the self-creative cosmic totality is an acceptable definition of God).
And, no, God doesn't need us; a new and perhaps more sapient species will rise to the top after we are gone. But we need God, or the awareness of being at-one with God--if we are to survive and thrive!
Hi Arm -- If the experience of unbinding the ego results in a lost sense of self and a unitive existence, that means IMO that God needs (or maybe calls) us. Not "us" in the arrogant monkey sense, but what our ultimate footprint proves -- what we can tell God????? Are we apologists for ourselves or is there something of God within us that draws our essense like a magnet.
Maybe I've been into the Rilke again........
.
ninjafaery
Russ said:"I think the
Posted on: 11/26/2008 01:13
Russ said:
"I think the planet will get along very well without us, thank you very much. "
To paraphrase the famous line from StarTrek, "We are the carbon based lifeform infesting planet Earth".
I would like to think that's the case -- the earth just moving on and making something perfectly adapted. Just wish I could be here to see that.
And that's the problem IMO. We resist the idea that we aren't fundamentally different than other mammals on the planet.
ninjafaery
spiritbear wrote:Actually,
Posted on: 11/25/2008 22:45
Actually, homo erectus is indeed a failed species, since it went extinct millenia ago. Now as for homo sapiens, to which you and I belong, that's another story. Is it doomed? Perhaps. But I'm not sure that it's stupidity that dooms it. Stupidity implies not having the intelligence to forsee consequences. But we are able to see where our indulgent lifestyle is taking the planet. I think it's more an issue of greed. We want as much as we can for ourselves and we'd like to leave the consequences to someone else, like our children/ grandchildren etc. It's a tug-of-war between whether we (collectively) will be able to look past our immediate self-interest vs. how long will this take?
Couldn't say it better -- not sure I can tell the difference between what's stupidity and what's greed though, they both look the same to me. There's something beyond our rational control here, it appears. As mammals, we partake in those strong instincts, even if they're somewhat trained out of us, we really don't have as much control over all those biological cues as we imagine. IMO
ninjafaery
Revolutionary wrote:Yea,
Posted on: 11/25/2008 22:51
Yea, we're all doomed, so let's have one big bash before the push the final button. Non alcoholic beverages only, of course. After all, this is the United Church.
Yup, I'm throwing a party, and you're all invited. And no one's in church, so BYOB. Just don't get stupid drunk and throw up on the buffet. I'm sure there'll be some provision made due to the fact it's the End of the World as We Know It.
Let's Dance
Arminius
O yes, ninja, God is
Posted on: 11/25/2008 23:12
O yes, ninja, God is slumbering in us in mute yearning, waiting to be recognised for what IT is. If we continue on our ego-centric and self-destructive path, then we suppress that yearning, and deny and betray the Divine in us.
Yes, the Divine in us draws us, irresistibly, like a magnet draws iron filings. All we have to do is give in to the yearning, and abandon ourselves to the mystery which is God.
I think we experience the last moments of a dying civilization, and in re-birth are about to embark on the most amazing transformation humanity has ever known.
"This is no time to stay at home, but to go out and give yourself to The Garden"
-Rumi
Arminius
Hi ninja: End of the World
Posted on: 11/26/2008 15:47
Hi ninja:
End of the World as we Know It
When you give me
Your most amazing thoughts,
Your most amazing time,
And mind.
And I give you
My most amazing thoughts,
My most amazing time,
And mind.
And I pour you
A chalice of fine,
Rich, ruby-red wine,
And we will fly,
To see the universe,
And be the universe.
-Arminius
"At once drunk and supremely lucid."
-Rumi
oui
A couple of years ago a new,
Posted on: 11/26/2008 01:09
A couple of years ago a new, tiny (extinct) species of hominids was found I think on an island off Indonesia. The scientific community was just about doing cartwheels over it, because the bones were dated to about 20,000 years ago.
This means that they existed at the same time as humans. Truly remarkable, because our closest relatives died out 100,000 years ago.
This got me thinking, the human species is "The Lonely Hominid". Homo sapiens sapiens is the one and ONLY surviving species of hominid on this Earth. In evolutionary tems, we are perhaps a dead end species, as great diversity is often regarded as the hallmark of evolutionary success.
For some reason, we can't stand ourselves. We have been killing each other for millenia. Genocide is not uncommon, even today. Did we kill off the other hominids too? Did they look a little too much like us?
We have progressed technologicaly, but the species as a whole still demonstrably struggles with exactly the SAME issues as what were recorded many thousands of years ago in ancient scripture and documents.
We have managed to teach EVERY generation how to make fire and create a wheel, but not how to get along with our neighboring countries, cities, villages, neighbors, and even our own families.
The individual human learns life lessons so very, very slowly, that it takes thousands of years to pass them on as part of the general society. If you have ever watched "Dr. Phil", you can see this in action, the same root problems cropping up time after time after time. People make the same mistakes over and over, however we learn technical, physical things quite easily.
It took perhaps 10,000 years for society in general to condemn slavery, although it can still be found.
My hope is that we are able to progress spiritually, but there will be ups and downs along the way, and I think we are in for another 100,000 years. I believe this because the past is the best predictor of the future, and the species is not producing an increasing percentage of Christ-like individuals, as evidenced by the continued violence at all levels of society, all over the globe.
As Arminius says, the Creator has given us all the tools and seeds, now if we can just quit stopping each other from attaining a higher spiritual level, and instead push each other up and towards the light. WE are the only ones preventing it.
Rant over!
Arminius
Hi oui: Thanks for the
Posted on: 11/26/2008 15:43
Hi oui: Thanks for the rant!
We are godly and creative animals, who don't know that we are godly, and therefore (ab)use our creative powers to over-satisfy our animal drives, and thereby destroy each other and our environment.
Organised religion, I am sorry to say, had a lot to do with preventing us from reaching our godly potential.
Isn't it high time for organized religion to reverse that, and do what it should be doing: Help us realise our godly potential!?
Kappa
Define "failed species". I
Posted on: 11/26/2008 17:32
Define "failed species".
I don't know, but the whole idea of a species failing, seems to me that it is failing to adapt. As a group, we are still adapting well and surviving. Is it sustainable? At some point, the answer is certainly no. The biological record is full of mass extinctions. Pretty much every species disappears or diverges into something else.
And I've always had trouble digesting the homo sapiens sapiens argument. It seems like so much egocentricity. We have done much as a species since we've discovered fire and our lives are very different, but we live in a totally different environment that we have created, compared with our ancestors. I'm not an evolutionary biologist or anthropologist, so I'm probably not aware of all of the arguments for and against the classification, but I don't feel that we're fundamentally that different from homo sapiens, whatever that was. Biologically, anatomically, reproductively, I'm sure we are compatible. It's just that we are embedded in so much history, social conditioning and sophisticated culture now.
I'm not sure what to make of the question, "Are humans a failed species?" To me, it feels like the wrong question.
RussP
Kappa Point well taken. The
Posted on: 11/26/2008 17:43
Kappa
Point well taken.
The real question may be more "Is the civilization and society that we created a failure?" The answer to that is probably yes.
The answer to whether we are a failed species depends on how "bad" the climate/air gets and whether humankind can even survive in a low O2, high methane/CO2 atmosphere. No air, no live !
IT
Russ
Arminius
Hi Kappa: A failed species
Posted on: 11/26/2008 17:45
Hi Kappa:
A failed species is one that failed to survive due to its own doing. We humans are on the brink of self-caused extinction. Our continued survival is up to us, not to cicumstances beyond our control. Time will tell whether or not we survive this current, self-caused threat.
Kappa
Yes! And for many years we
Posted on: 11/26/2008 17:50
Yes! And for many years we have been ignoring the problems that our civilisation and society is creating, or will soon create.
This is one of the reasons I'd argue for homo sapiens. Yes, we have the Metropolitan Museum of Art, quantum mechanics, and ipods, but we still run our lives based on the learning and biological principles that come from our ancestors and the environment. We make the same mistakes, over and over again, as we fail to get the point, or get it, but don't take the necessary steps to bring about change.
In cynical moments, it makes me wonder if behavioral engineering at the societal level might not be a good idea. But there's no way to be completely objective about your own blind spots as an individual or a species. We will just have to do the best we can.
ninjafaery
Kappa said -- "I'm not sure
Posted on: 11/26/2008 19:24
Kappa said -- "I'm not sure what to make of the question, "Are humans a failed species?" To me, it feels like the wrong question. "
Yeah, I can see how it might seem like the wrong question with a negative premise. All I can say is that IMO it's just soberly informed. And yes -- I feel out of my depth when there's so much information I don't have. I guess I can't help but take a different approach to the topic, with is really more like "Does God Need us?".
Sounds like maybe you believe in our ability to transcend our evolutionary adaptations, is that right? Your sound a little more hopeful.
Oui -- just wow. Thanks for posting on this. I really enjoyed your rant, and am in perfect agreement. Well said.
ninjafaery
Arminius -- Who says the UC
Posted on: 11/26/2008 19:15
Arminius -- Who says the UC lacks mysticism?
RussP
ninja I think we will
Posted on: 11/26/2008 20:32
ninja
I think we will transcend. Faced with change or die, a few specimens will evolve and survive. But what we see around us will surely perish, simply becasue we think we are "Gods", not Arminius' God
, and so most of humankind will realize too late that what we are up too is not planet friendly.
We need, if there is still time, to realize that we share this planet, not own it, we are supposed to steward it, it is not for us to trash. As, oh gee can't remember his name, said if you can't even worry about the fish, you'll never solve the the larger problems.
Hope I am wrong, but I don't know. I fear it is already too late, that we are (want to insert bad word here) ouselves. All the CFL lights in the house, water barrels and dimmers, aren't going to compensate for the one twit with the hummer.
IT
Russ
MikePaterson
So long, and thanks for all
Posted on: 11/26/2008 20:39
So long, and thanks for all the fish.
(which was actually a pretty cheap steal from Kurt Vonnegut's 'Galapagos': well worth another read these days.)
RussP
So sad that it should come to
Posted on: 11/26/2008 21:26
So sad that it should come to this.
We tried to warn you. Hmmmm What a waste of a perfectly good planet.
IT
Russ
somegirl
The human species is not a
Posted on: 11/26/2008 21:50
The human species is not a failed species and, barring the earth turning itself inside out like Venus might have done, we will not fail anytime soon. As a species we have survived ice ages and warming periods at times when we have much fewer resources to deal with the changes. Our population might decline, our lifestyle might change, but we will not end any time soon.
Does god need us? To even consider that question I would need to know a little more about god. Is god the god of earth or the god of the universe? If god is god of the universe then he/she/it would not need us any more than any species living on planets around suns that have died or been involved in planet smashing collisions.
RussP
somegirl Ahh, the million
Posted on: 11/26/2008 22:07
somegirl
Ahh, the million dollar question, and why would God need us?
I can certainly think of no reason. A bunch of semi-intellegent pond scum on some backwater world, why would God need us?
IT
Russ
DaveHenderson
I know what I'm going to
Posted on: 11/26/2008 22:28
I know what I'm going to do.
I'm going to build a spaceship. And just before our planet explodes, I'm going to send my son into the farthest reaches of space, feeding him all our accumulated wisdom as he travels. Then, when he lands on a distant planet, he'll find himself with superhuman powers and fly through the air, saving the planet from...aw crap, Superman already did all that.
Okay, we're doomed. But we're not supposed to sit around stewing. We're supposed to go about God's work, which includes caring for His/Her planet. I consider that call to stewardship and God's work down here in the trenches a sacred obligation. So while we may be doomed, I'm gonna try and do my part to make this tiny corner of the the third rock a better place tomorrow.
And maybe start working on that spaceship ;-)
God bless,
Arminius
somegirl: We are headed for a
Posted on: 11/27/2008 00:18
somegirl: We are headed for a Tropical Age, which may not be so bad, but planetary history tells us that an Ice Age usually follows hard on the heels of a Tropical Age.
By then the human population of our planet may have reached eight billion. With the Northern and Southern Ice Caps fully extended, however, the carrying capacity of our planet will dwindle to about two billion.
There will be human die-offs on an unprecedented and unimaginable scale! Unfortunately, those who survive will not be those who are most spiritually advanced, but those with the best and biggest weapons and the willingness to use them to kill their fellow humans en masse.
Not a pretty picture. The United States will survive, and if we are good, obedient and ruthless, they might include us. I'd rather die then be part of this!
RussP
Dave And if a million people
Posted on: 11/27/2008 09:33
Dave
And if a million people do the same, it makes a difference. And a billion, even more.
IT
Russ
killer_rabbit79
Kappa wrote:And I've always
Posted on: 11/27/2008 12:46
And I've always had trouble digesting the homo sapiens sapiens argument.
The reason for the extra "sapiens" is because we are a subspecies of the homo sapiens. It is believed that from the Homo erectus there was a split where some went to Europe, some to Asia and the rest stayed in Africa. The ones that went to Europe are the Neanderthals and the ones who went to asia we don't have enough fossils in order to classify. Homo sapiens sapiens are the ones who stayed in Africa. Eventually, some of them left for Europe and Asia. There is evidence that the Homo sapiens sapiens and Neanderthals interbred, which would explain why Europenas are white and generally shorter and bulkier than Africans. The extra "sapiens" is just further categorization. I do agree that it is a little arrogant because it suggests that we are the most intelligent subspecies. In general, that arrogance that we have with other species may be part of the cause of our global collapse. We don't respect nature anymore and we continue to build up our civilizations without any regard for what will happen if we run out of room.
ninjafaery
So I'm wondering, given that
Posted on: 11/27/2008 13:38
So I'm wondering, given that we've developed our particular adaptations over hundreds of thousands of years, is it realistic to think that we can change in time to make any difference in our behaviour? I'm speaking mainly of "fight or flight" reactions or territorial aggression.
Would behaviour change with circumstance -- if we found ourselves much less comfortable or facing a threat?
Speaking for myself, I can feel the emergence of some physiological aggression as soon as I get behind the wheel of the car and start the engine (just being honest). NOT that I would ever act on those feelings, and I would automatically work on changing them and being real rational. But if I were disinhibited......
and what how much (or little) would it take to create that disinhibition?
Do we really have total control in every situation?
-----------
I remember in Anthropology 101 (as far as I got), I heard a story out of a research study. Someone got the idea of dumping a load of bananas in the midst of a tribe of chimps. They were used to foraging and weren't fed prior to this.
It completely disrupted their working social fabric. Wars broke out. Family members killed each other. Relationships were broken and it took ages for the aggression to settle. Even after that, they were always on the lookout for another windfall.
Sound familiar?
Faerenach
I agree with Kappa and RussP
Posted on: 11/27/2008 14:08
I agree with Kappa and RussP - it is not the species that is failed, but our civilization that is flawed. We haven't failed yet, but we're certainly on the path towards it.
I've made this point before, but it really does frustrate me when people talk about the whole human race as if we've only been around for 15,000 or so years. The species has been around for a looong while now (we're talking nearly 200,000 years), and it is only our 'advanced' civilizations that people bother to study in depth. Why were the earlier ones so boring? Probably because there weren't too many of them, they didn't have world wars, and very little remains of them exist. To me, that's where we should be looking - at the dawn of everything. What happened to us, so that we chose the path towards arrogance and greed? Did we bite at the apple and pretend it gave us total control? Are we simply irresponsible teenagers of a race that made some bad decisions but blow off how bad they really are?
ninjafaery, do you remember what kind of chimps? My favourite study are the bonobo chimps, whose social intimacy is mind-blowing, and not a little scandalous!
Kappa
Faerenach -- who says early
Posted on: 11/27/2008 15:04
Faerenach -- who says early humans were boring? I agree that anyone who thinks so is overly focused on the present. As you say, early hominids didn't leave much behind, unlike our civilization. In the future, when everything we truly hold dear to our hearts has been forgotten by our distant descendants, we will probably be known as the "styrofoam hominids," or some equivalent term.
killer_rabbit79 -- thanks for providing some detail on the extra sapiens. I've probably come across the reasoning for it before, but didn't remember. To me, it comes down to the question of how we want to define "species". We've been calling the Neanderthals a different species for awhile because of their different anatomical features, but if Cro Magnons and Neanderthals interbred, then are they really different? Again, I'm out of my depth hear in terms of my knowledge of biological taxonomy, which is probably subject to debate.
And ninjafaery, behaviour can be QUITE changeable under the right conditions! This is what B. F. Skinner's work was all about! A lot of what he says makes sense, if you can manage to get your head around some very different ways of thinking.* His philosophy, based on empirical research and known as Radical Behaviourism, has many implications for how we might try to change conditions so that we can start acting for the common good.
If this sounds a bit like behavioural engineering, it kind of is, and I think that's why it would have to be carefully understood before it could be implemented on a large-scale level. But for individuals in therapy, it can work EXTREMELY well. For example, several retarded and very aggressive young people have been involved in programs to teach them life skills, after many others had given up on them and said they'd simply need to be locked away. The whole idea is to make it rewarding and worthwhile for an individual to "do the right thing."
Some people don't like this idea, especially in the area of child discipline when a common argument is, "Why should I provide a reward for this child when he does what he's supposed to be doing anyway? He should just do it!" People forget that we do all sorts of things for "rewards," even though they aren't huge. For example, I go out to see my friends on a really cold night because I love their company: their company rewards me for the hassle of going out in the freezing rain.
I'm not sure I "am" completely in control of my own destiny, but I don't think that absolves me from the responsibility for what I "can" control. I have the ability to generate creative solutions for ways to change my behaviour. Have I got out of the habit of eating healthy foods? I can get back on track with it by purchasing those foods at the grocery store, not hanging around the places where I can buy junk food, writing notes to myself, etc.
I'm quite enjoying this thread!
*such as, humans not having free will. This isn't as problematic as it might seem at first, at least not to me, now that I've gotten used to the idea. It doesn't mean that
Arminius
Hi Farren: Yes, Farren,
Posted on: 11/27/2008 15:14
Hi Farren:
Yes, Farren, civilization has failed, but this civilization was not imposed on us from the ouside but created by us. We have created this destructive and self-destructive civilization, and it is up to us to create a better one.
So far, we have put our creative ability in the service of our primal survival instincts. But those instincts evolved when we were yet unable to create; they evolved to serve the uncreative animal that we were not so long ago. And this animal is still in us, and demands to be satisfied.
Creativeness, however, is our godly ability, which began to evolve with the advent of the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens, which emerged only about 30,0000 years ago, and to which we all belong. Creativeness did not emerge to dulfill our "lower" animal needs but our "higher" needs, also known as meta needs.
Alas, we are using our godly creativeness to continue to overfulfill our basic needs while neglecting our meta needs. I see no solution to that except spreading the awareness that we are innately godly and creative, and that we better learn to use our godly and creative abilty in a godly and responsible manner. Not "playing God" irresponsibly, in the proverbial meaning of the phrase, but "being God" in the full responsibility which this awesome role entails.
The function of religion should be to make us aware of our godliness and to teach us to act in a godly manner. I hope and trust that the "Emerging Church" is headed in that direction.
Faerenach
Arminius, you always say such
Posted on: 11/27/2008 15:39
Arminius, you always say such lovely things so clearly and spiritually. What a gift! I agree - our imagination to see beyond what is right in front of us should be our greatest gift, and our prime goal for education and awareness. Yet this is hardly the case nowadays. I would like to believe that we will use what we have created before us and imagine something better and beyond... and then create a way to get there. Unfortunately, our creative mentalities are as much a gift as a burden, because we are constantly outthinking ourselves. First, we must realize our own mindsets. Then we can change them.
Kappa - you got my meaning precisely. We are a world of throw-away consumers, leaving middens of sizes never seen before. Perhaps we shouldn't be trying to leave so much for future archaeologists!
And who says they're boring? That's sort of the point, isn't it? The ones who think they're boring don't say a thing. And when was the last time you talked about precivilization with your friends or coworkers?
(If you're interested in prehistory, I highly recommend Steven Mithen's book "After The Ice". I discovered it in Scotland, and fell deeply in love.)
ninjafaery
Faerenach -- This is taken
Posted on: 11/27/2008 17:43
Faerenach --
This is taken from the Wiki page on Jane Goodall -- it's not a primary source, but I think it's one of those "well known" criticisms of Goodall's earlier research methods.....
" Many standard methods are aimed at helping observers to avoid interference and the use of feeding stations to attract Gombe chimpanzees is, in particular, thought by some to have altered normal foraging and feeding patterns as well as social relationships.[2]
It has been suggested that higher levels of aggression and conflict with other chimpanzee groups in the area were a consequences of the feeding, which could have created the "wars" between chimpanzee social groups described by Goodall. Thus, some regard Goodall's observations as distortions of normal chimpanzee behavior.[3] Goodall herself (on several occasions) acknowledged that feeding contributed to aggression within and between groups:
However, Goodall has also said that the effect was limited to alteration of the intensity and not the nature of chimpanzee conflict and further that feeding was necessary for the study to be effective at all."
Kappa -- I'm really fascinated with behaviour and behaviour change. I use it a fair bit in my work (reinforcing helpful behaviour). Some societal change in terms of decreasing smoking and increasing seat belt use have met with some success, but I don't know if there's enough time to keep warring factions from destroying each other or stopping the insane consumption.
I remember hearing somewhere the analogy of a cage in which mice can reproduce freely in an environment with limited food. They just do so relentlessly even while they eat each other......
Not pretty.
I agree that the self-awareness is what's missing. We've removed ourselves so far from our "brutish, nasty and short" existence, that we've bought our own fantasy. At least in the west.
And Arminius --- Do you think that leisure and creativity might be connected? Maybe finding an easier way to do something and dreaming of other realities is a function of having time to do so???
killer_rabbit79
ninjafaery wrote:So I'm
Posted on: 11/27/2008 17:47
So I'm wondering, given that we've developed our particular adaptations over hundreds of thousands of years, is it realistic to think that we can change in time to make any difference in our behaviour? I'm speaking mainly of "fight or flight" reactions or territorial aggression.
Like with biological evolution, mutations only happen on an individual level. Only individuals will be able to come up with the right ideas. Then they have to spread their ideas around in order to provide the rest of the species with the adaptation. The idea is that if a biological trait is favourable, then the individual(s) with it will be more likely to survive to adulthood and mate, thereby passing on the favourable trait to the next generation. However, it will take many generations for that trait to become common amongst a population.
Translating this to cultural evolution, even if someone has the answer we need, there is no guarantee that they will be able to spread the word before the idea is lost. It can take a long time for "mutant" ideas to spread as well. When a crisis happens in the wild, unfavourable traits die off while those who can resist survive. If a cultural crisis is to happen, unfavourable ideas will die off and solutions will survive. We have seen that in the last election, when the failing economy showed Americans that the cultural mutant Obama has the favourable ideas.
Arminius
Yes, ninja, in order to be
Posted on: 11/27/2008 18:23
Yes, ninja, in order to be creative in a godly way, we have to have our basic needs fulfilled first, and then have the leisure to be creative.
Abraham Maslow, in his "Hierarchy of Needs," says that basic needs like food, shelter, clothing and reasonable security must be fulfilled before we can start satisfying our "higher" or meta needs. The physical hunger has to be fulfilled before we can get on with fulfilling the spiritual hunger. "Erst kommt das Fressen, dann kommt die Moral" ("First comes the food, then the morality") said the famous German playwright Bertolt Brecht.
But we, in Western society, go on overfulfilling our basic needs and neglecting our meta needs. This needs to change!
ninjafaery
Arminius wrote:End of the
Posted on: 11/27/2008 20:23
Arminius wrote:
End of the World as we Know It
When you give me
Your most amazing thoughts,
Your most amazing time,
And mind.
And I give you
My most amazing thoughts,
My most amazing time,
And mind.
And I pour you
A chalice of fine,
Rich, ruby-red wine,
And we will fly,
To see the universe,
And be the universe.
-Arminius
So beautiful....
Is creativity and inventiveness the same? I think of inventiveness as practical -- chimps scooping ants with a stick. Creativity is conceptualizing other realities -- stories expressed in various ways.
ninjafaery
killer_rabbit79
Posted on: 11/27/2008 20:30
So I'm wondering, given that we've developed our particular adaptations over hundreds of thousands of years, is it realistic to think that we can change in time to make any difference in our behaviour? I'm speaking mainly of "fight or flight" reactions or territorial aggression.
Like with biological evolution, mutations only happen on an individual level. Only individuals will be able to come up with the right ideas. Then they have to spread their ideas around in order to provide the rest of the species with the adaptation. The idea is that if a biological trait is favourable, then the individual(s) with it will be more likely to survive to adulthood and mate, thereby passing on the favourable trait to the next generation. However, it will take many generations for that trait to become common amongst a population.
Translating this to cultural evolution, even if someone has the answer we need, there is no guarantee that they will be able to spread the word before the idea is lost. It can take a long time for "mutant" ideas to spread as well. When a crisis happens in the wild, unfavourable traits die off while those who can resist survive. If a cultural crisis is to happen, unfavourable ideas will die off and solutions will survive. We have seen that in the last election, when the failing economy showed Americans that the cultural mutant Obama has the favourable ideas.
Yeah -- I do see change as viral. A zeitgeist -- a groundswell that you can't always see coming, but a perfect storm exists and big, surprising things happen. That's how the Berlin Wall fell too.
Doesn't happen often though.
Technological and intellectual culture moves very quickly, but sociological/religious change is glacial -- and maybe a chunk falls off once in awhile....
ninjafaery
Was just reading up on
Posted on: 11/27/2008 20:35
Was just reading up on Bonobos.
Bonobo chimps are sexy beasts. They are often lesbians. They seem a happy lot.
Faerenach
You keep reading,
Posted on: 11/28/2008 00:02
You keep reading, ninjafaery! There's more to them than just lesbians!
If only we could avoid war with sex... oh, wait. Sorry. That was my Hair character speaking through me.
oui
ninjafaery wrote:Do you think
Posted on: 11/28/2008 00:56
Do you think that leisure and creativity might be connected? Maybe finding an easier way to do something and dreaming of other realities is a function of having time to do so???
And there, in a nutshell, is the greatest human conflict, that which is within ourselves.
We possess this incredible spark/piece of The Creator, but it is deeply embedded inside a bag of water and bones that has to be, MUST BE fed, clothed, watered, sheltered; it gets sick & tired & old, too hot, too cold, aches, demands resources.......produces offspring which need to be looked after 24/7.......it takes almost all our energy just to look after our body.
The creative spark begs, pleads, cries out to express itself, but its very hard when you are starving.
The meta struggles constantly with the matter. The body necessarily wins, it must be maintained or there will be no place for the meta.
But what happens when all physical needs are met? We can create freely, we can get lazy, we can work harder to prepare for the next famine, we can use our bounty to conquer others, we can get greedy.
Creativity takes discipline too. Time, energy and desire all combine to create, whether its poetry, music, art, writing, quilting, or praying.
The Huichol Indians in Mexico make beautiful bowls from gourds. They decorate the inside of the bowl with incredibly colourful and intricate patterns in beads. The bowl faces upwards toward the sun. Each bowl, or any piece of art is considered a prayer. Incidentally, this particular tribe consistently produces a higher percentage of shamans than other tribes.
Arminius
Hi ninja: I think that all
Posted on: 11/28/2008 17:18
Hi ninja:
I think that all creative expression is spiritual, and does not have to be high art. It is the ultimate Creator in us yearning to assert and express ITself. Yes, I think creativeness and inventiveness are the same, but creativeness might be pursued more from a spiritual and inventiveness from practical perspective. We see the beginnings of creativeness in some of the highly evolved mammals, the most advanced and human-like of which might be the Bonobons.
(Does their name come from the French "bonbon" (goody-goody)
ninjafaery
Bonobos are the original
Posted on: 11/28/2008 20:25
Bonobos are the original hippies.
"Make love not war".
Sounds good to me too. All those endorphins making us peaceful and feeling too calm to fight.
-------------------------
I often wonder if the turning point was agriculture -- when we moved from having just enough (if lucky) from day to day. No stockpiling, no property of our own, always moving.
I remember reading that the optimal number for a community was about 40 (I could be wrong). More than that strains resources and creates tension and overcrowding in tribal situations.
Faerenach mentioned the low numbers. We tended to keep to small family groups and "hive" when critical mass was reached. It was estimated that populations ranged from 7 - 15 people per sq. kilometer in settled areas. It was normal to lose large numbers through starvation, accidents and disease.
Once we had control over food supplies and stayed in one place to wait for crops, we had something to fight over IMO. Populations exploded. We also gained time to create and scheme.
What would have happened if we developed without becoming agrarian? For one thing, I think it would have taken a lot longer to make a huge mess........
But we might have buried our dead with flowers.
Faer also pointed out that we we've been around in our current form for 10's of thousands of years longer than traceable history. The measurable impact humans have made on the environment is a recent phenomenon. Scary how quickly that happened. I can remember when there wasn't even a thought toward depletion of resources or pollution. Everything was infinite.
Kappa -- sometimes I wish some really wise and bossy environmental Junta would take over and send us to reconditioning centres. (Well not really, but I think that's what it would take).
But the fact is, the barn door is broken.
Revolutionary
In the year 8510 God's gonna
Posted on: 11/28/2008 22:40
In the year 8510 God's gonna shake his mighty hand
He'll either say I'm pleased where man has been or tear it down and start again oh oh
-(From 'In The Year 2525, Zeger and Evans).
Now am I dating myself, or what? (Yea, I'm a throw-back to the 1960's, just accept it). Mankind may fail, but God's ways are perfect. We mess things up, but He works his purpose out in spite of, rather than because of, us. Mankind, politicians, the church, etc. all need to get over themselves and whatever trip they're on. Take God out of the picture, and you have chaos.