SIOUXROSE --

Perhaps the most valuable reminder brought to this discussion is your thought that LOVE may be altruism in nature --

Lovely thought that the universe is eternally making love to itself!
Everything in nature has that rhythmn!

NSPIRE --
Interesting comments ---

As someone who tries to artistically create, I am often amused at myself as I observe within nature every stroke, every shape, every color which I may seek to "create."

IMO, we do not "create" --- we imitate.

JMACNEIL --

So -- that's who "jmacneil" is . . . !!!

Didn't notice this contribution previously ---

quote: jmacneil January 12th, 2008 1:29 pm
The idea that altruism can be hard-wired into a gene cannot withstand scientific scrutiny because if we allow such an idea that learned behavior can be imprinted on an inheritable gene then we would have to agree with a recent assertion that each kind of bird has their own kind of nest hard-wired into their biotic mass. Extrapolating from that, then we would have to concede that Inuit have an igloo gene and Africans have stick house genes and Indigenous Americans have teepee genes. Following that trend, we would then have to concur that every degree of every emotion has a gene and that would lead to every thought we would ever have needing it's own gene and only requiring the right stimuli to bring any particular thought to the forefront of our minds. Maybe that's what the closed-minded "evolutionists" mean when they refer to "instinct".

No doubt the publishers of such books as has inspired the above article like to provoke an international debate over each and every one of them so that they can entice another dozen or so people to buy them. And I'm equally sure that studying such ant colonies gets terribly exciting after awhile, but it would probably be more beneficial to the planetary science if more realistic, and less philosophical, descriptions were used for survival behavior.
unquote

I disagree that altruism is a "learned" behavior.

And . . . no, it's not that birds have a specific nest instinct, nor Inuit have "Igloo" genes, nor Africans "stick house" genes, nor indigenous Americans "teepee" genes ---
rather it is that each group has an instinct to build shelters and that's probably genetic. Some birds, in fact, will pick up bits of ribbon and man-made articles to add to their nests!

Where humans, IMO, have crossed the line is in creating shelters which exceed our needs and which are not as easily broken down again into "earth" as nature probably requires.

They also keep us more mired to one area rather than keeping us moving from place to place.

Now, granted, birds may eat the bread crusts many will throw to them --- and you will see birds now around fast food area parking lots picking up bits of food debris tossed to the ground. We know this will sicken them -- just as much of the food we eat today sickens us.

Someone above was suggesting that when someone doesn't have children they take themselves out of the gene pool.
I don't think that is true, either. The gene pool provides for the WHOLE of our genetic experiences, with or without many of us. "All the world in a grain of sand..."?

And that "gene pool as a whole" result was part of the study* which tried to rebalance the NAZI thinking that you could remove certain types of people from the gene pool by killing them!!

* Don't recall the particulars right now ---
but plantings of "peas" --- ?
and wasn't it a Jesuit priest who did it?

At times fascinating discussion. I would like to bring my humble thanks and acknowledgement to the following: ANN ONYMOUS, PAUL BRAMSCHER, EILEEN FLEMMING (excellent posting!), CONSCIENCE, MATTI, WWSWORD, and NSPIRE.

The concept of LOVE has largely been left out of this long and interesting discussion.

VOXCLAMANTIS: I also live closely with nature, and learn directly from this inspired source.

In earlier postings I've shared my views on big bang and how the very premise is shaped by male thought. Once again, since knowledge is always evolving and one theory tends to fall when the next is developed, the very poetry of Creation suggests that there is NO starting point, and it's not a MASCULINE ejaculatory big bang that started life or our universe. The safest bet is to learn from the one common denominator nature is writ in: the union of He and She. The universe is making love to itself and forever creating as a result of an everlasting undulating dance between forces of Yin and Yang. Any theory that only takes into account HALF the DIVINE sum is another false extension of patriarchal religion.

Every one of us is locked into perceptions that have been structured from BEFORE birth, but certainly after, the sensitive child who sees discarnate family members is told to shut up or forget their dreams, or it's just fantasy etc. Just as my father's left hand was tied behind his back to force him to write with his right hand as a school child, EVERY culture similarly CRIPPLES the full perceptual range so that its members remain ensconced within its limited paradigm. ONLY the radical escape the punitive measures every society uses to silence its radicals and visionaries. A few manage to leave behind inventions that benefit the entirety of mankind.

Altruism IS a form of love, and LOVE is the highest response on the part of any sentient creature to those forces that have endowed it with life. Self-interest, an extension of self-preservation is necessary, but mystics understand it constitutes the lowest aspect of character, a foundation block of being an individual, but certainly NOT where the evolution of said individual should stop, nor should self-interest constitute what his/her life should serve.

LOVE is the realization we are all connected, and maybe in some small ways the ants get it better than far too many "intelligent" people. LOVE has everything to do with it. And for persons really slave to the "tyranny of nomenclature," it amazes me how your world is shaken that a "political site" would actually entertain conjecture as per a "different subject area." Wow. Talk about being O.C!

¿ Is not being born a life sentence, too ?

It is our INTENTION to do so that creates

¿ What have we chosen to create during our lives ?

¿ Could it be that the search for meaning and TRUTH
IS what humanity's inquiry of life is about = PURPOSE ?

If so, than ALL-TRUISM is the highest form of EXISTENCE

Namaste … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … Mahatma Gandhi … … … … … … … … … …
« We must be the change we wish to see in the world »
« There is a sufficiency in the world for man's need but not for man's greed »

This is a most interesting discussion, we are honored by this opportunity to look at these issues and shared experience.

Pacplyer

Who is the biggest headbanger? It is he who engages in headbanging the most across settings. There is much to learn from this but relatively few come to understand it as a concept because it becomes isolated in society.

I fail to recognize that you have spent a lot of time in the sky above the earth, I am sure this has an interesting perspective as well. I think anything that is grounding would be a good thing for you if you think an embalance has been created. Sunflower seeds come to mind.

If indeed you are part of the walking dead you join many others. Whales are considered in this group as well. It makes you thier brother and that is not such a bad thing.

Science, not all bad but cummulatively unbalanced. I actually bloged for several years with a member of UCS, there are still heroes. Many people here know much more than I when it comes to science, no doubt about that. I don't think it is going to save the world. I think it is important for people to remember how to see the stars as thier ancestors did, in case other things don't work out.

I think discussion demonstrates there is altruism and that people are searching for it.

PACPLYER --

Who is "jmacneil" . . . ?

Well, you're sticking with the idea that we are communicating with aliens; however, try it the other way around, they have been here visiting our planet for probably nearly 500,000 years or longer! And various alien species -- perhaps as many as dozens.

The Bible also is an argument for our being "hybrids" ---
the product of these visitors --- the guards of the universe, the angels -- the aliens who visited and
mated with the people of the this planet. Check it out!
Nor does the Vatican rule out this "alien" intervention.

Also note that these aliens --- many of them humanoid-like -- are a million years and more ahead of us --- and in at least one case, perhaps 1 billion years ahead of us.

Also agree with you that it is unlikely --- without time travel --- that humans can leave this planet. You don't mention our alleged moon landing, but that too seems unlikely. Van Allen Belts.

Yep, we were watching "I Love Lucy" and they were traveling the stars!

QUOTE:
Good points conscience, I can't argue with anything you posted.

The belief in alien visitation is interesting. Take the appearance of jmacneil for example…..
I have no doubt life forms probably exist throughout the unbelievable number of stars of the universe, but the problem is that we have not been here long enough for evidence of ourselves to have been noticed by any ET life. We've only been broadcasting our civilization for 72 years. That means, I think, (if nspire would correct me on some of this here…) that our first broadcast of the 1937 Berlin games has traveled 72 light years from earth. There are very few star systems without perturbing (violent colliding) orbits in that range. We know this since about 90% of planets we can detect through gravitational star wobble have large planets with violent paths. As far as we know, life would have trouble evolving on a planet in such an unstable neighborhood (sorta like living next to republicans.)

It's very unlikely that in our present human form we can leave this planet. Cosmic Background radiation, solar flares, high speed sub-atomic particles, all reek havoc on the bodies of our astronauts, many of them dying of cancer and suffering from weakened immune systems. This is why the manned mission to mars has not been attempted yet. At rocket speeds of today our little pink bodies would unlikely survive the approximately six months travel time without the protective atmosphere we evolved under (equivalent to thirteen feet of concrete in protection from hazardous rays.) And space payloads cannot put that much weight into orbit! A capsule surrounded by thirteen feet of concrete is greater weight than all the apollo flights combined (some science type may want to check my claim here for validity.) As I understand it, it is just not do-able. NASA's plans to do this, at the commander-in-chimps direction are not even funded. So whether it will be attempted is unknown.

Even we long haul pilots only used to live to an average actuarial age of 57 because we spent so much time at high altitude. Cosmic background radiation is something even most airline pilots are not told about. If you cross the country at FL 410, (41,000 feet) it is equivalent in rems to a medical chest x-ray. Not something you want to receive every day you go to work. After years of this your odds of making it to ripe old age are not good.

pac "deadman walking" plyer

This has been interesting, although I certainly don't feel qualified to comment on whether either of the gentlemen who are taking part in this "war" are correct or not.

At least they're "warring" over something that isn't going to result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, though, like oil.

nspire,

You could have fooled me. I think you are being modest.

Tell you what, we'll learn it together. I'm just a hobby programmer, even though I have a degree in computer science back in the card reading days! So I need to start all over again. It's darn hard to learn at my advanced age. I'm going to try and learn Dreamweaver. I'm not sure I'm smart enough to do it though (Adobe CS2 I think it is called.)

And to my native american and alternate belief friends, who I don't make light of (I have come to understand, for instance that indigenous medicine is far superior in many instances to chemo-big-pharma in their collusion with the rubber stamp FDA,) I should point out that science, indigenous belief and even religion are all man's feeble attempts to describe the same thing: the world around him. All are deficient and at the same time all have something important to offer us. Science, as many have said above, can be used for greed or for altruism. I criticize religion because right now it is out of balance with the other ways to describe the world. Extremism in religion is destroying any hope we have of peace. Religion in government is justifying mass murder and theft.

This is the world as I see it. A world created by beings with faulty memories and men with poorly developed critical thinking skills and limited perceptive capabilities.

We are all just biological animals, with very primitive brain cortexes. Our Cerebellum is the only thing that has kept us from going extinct up till now. I fear we won't make it as a species because many of us confuse faith with reality.

Science can be a beautiful spiritual journey, however, but it is unfortunately frequently mistaken for the misdeeds of corporate and government machinery. These predatory capitalists have no exclusive ownership of science.

Greenpeace and other groups of the progressive movement use science to debunk the subterfuge spooned out by destroyers of our planet.

Together, all CDer's have important gifts to offer in the movement to make our world less predatory and more survivable.

Thanks for the great conversation everybody,

now I have to get off my butt and do something.

pac

To make this war a little more interesting, perhaps we should all read Dr. Aaron Filler's new book 'The Upright Ape'. He is a Harvard-trained biologist and an MD (spinal surgeon) and he dedicates his book to Mayr and Gould whom he studied under, but he proposes that Darwin got it backwards and that Apes descend from humans and not the other way around. He is not a creationist either, rather he claims to be a materialist, but in my view his materialism is a little bit suspect, because he bases much of his really excellent argument on the scientific work of J.W. von Goethe, an Idealist if ever there was one.

I have no problem with Common Dreams leaving the political sphere, it makes a welcome change.

Lol Treefrog,

Whose the bigger headbanger? The Headbanger or the headbanger who argues with him?

Good points conscience, I can't argue with anything you posted.

The belief in alien visitation is interesting. Take the appearance of jmacneil for example.....
I have no doubt life forms probably exist throughout the unbelievable number of stars of the universe, but the problem is that we have not been here long enough for evidence of ourselves to have been noticed by any ET life. We've only been broadcasting our civilization for 72 years. That means, I think, (if nspire would correct me on some of this here...) that our first broadcast of the 1937 Berlin games has traveled 72 light years from earth. There are very few star systems without perturbing (violent colliding) orbits in that range. We know this since about 90% of planets we can detect through gravitational star wobble have large planets with violent paths. As far as we know, life would have trouble evolving on a planet in such an unstable neighborhood (sorta like living next to republicans.)

It's very unlikely that in our present human form we can leave this planet. Cosmic Background radiation, solar flares, high speed sub-atomic particles, all reek havoc on the bodies of our astronauts, many of them dying of cancer and suffering from weakened immune systems. This is why the manned mission to mars has not been attempted yet. At rocket speeds of today our little pink bodies would unlikely survive the approximately six months travel time without the protective atmosphere we evolved under (equivalent to thirteen feet of concrete in protection from hazardous rays.) And space payloads cannot put that much weight into orbit! A capsule surrounded by thirteen feet of concrete is greater weight than all the apollo flights combined (some science type may want to check my claim here for validity.) As I understand it, it is just not do-able. NASA's plans to do this, at the commander-in-chimps direction are not even funded. So whether it will be attempted is unknown.

Even we long haul pilots only used to live to an average actuarial age of 57 because we spent so much time at high altitude. Cosmic background radiation is something even most airline pilots are not told about. If you cross the country at FL 410, (41,000 feet) it is equivalent in rems to a medical chest x-ray. Not something you want to receive every day you go to work. After years of this your odds of making it to ripe old age are not good.

pac "deadman walking" plyer

PACPLYER -- I am but a nascent programmer and engineer of possibilities

BUFFALO_KEN --

One thing I really want to stress first, however, is that "survival of the fittest" has mistakenly been interpreted as a survival by domination/violence ---
whereas what it actually means is THOSE SPECIES WHICH BEST COOPERATE WITH NATURE.

Moving into the "hybrid" area . . .

There's a science fiction movie I really love which is called: "The Day the Earth Stood Still" --- Michael Rennie and Patricia Neal, Richard Calson -- It's brilliant!

And re your comments, it is rather a case not of our meeting the first aliens in outer space, but that more likely that they have been visiting our planet for hundreds sof thousands of years. In fact, the Vatican doesn't deny alien involvement in the Bibical account.

And, if you pay any attention at all to our efforts to deal with UFO's, it is our species rather than theirs which can be seen firing weapons!

And, yes, it is thought that these visitors would be a great deal more advanced that we are --- by millions of years and in some cases by as much as a billion years-!!

Presumably you don't have an interest in UFO's and the history of Roswell, etal --- however, there is, IMO, evidence to suggest that we have captured alien spaceships and have used the information for our own benefit.
Sadly, including trying to develop Star Wars/militarizing
the skies!

Lt. Col. Phillip Corso in his book "the Day After Roswell" is an excellent source for this. He can also be seen in some A&E documentaries which play occasionally. The original hard-cover book, btw, had a foreword by Sen. Strom Thurmond, which was removed in later editions. Thurmond stated that he had long known about the Roswell incident, including the alien life from the spaceship; presumably at least one alien lived for some time. Thurmond's position on alien visitors was that they were a threat to us which should be met with violence.

If you get to see the movie I recommended you will note that the alien species developed a system whereby the first individual/nation which uses violence/aggression is immediately and automatically destroyed.

Btw, which movie was it that you were watching?

There's a terrific series called "Taken" which is availble
on DVD --- ask your library to get it for you.

Meanwhile, Bob Dean --- known to UFO enthusiasts --- says that we are isolated in the universe and that there are efforts under way to bring us into the universal community.
And, evidently, we're not the only isolated species. They are making efforts, supposedly, to have us all join the larger community.

He also speaks about reincarnation ---
and the idea that we all live a hundred lives or more!

Best wishes --

Re your . . .
buffalo_ken January 12th, 2008 9:41 am
In fact, if I could indulge myself a moment, here is a "thought experiment" that occurred to me. Lets just say humanity continues on with "simplistic survival of the fittest competition" and "fitness by domination" kind of thinking. For the sake of discussion, lets assume that humanity manages to survive this (although I doubt we would) and then reaches a point where we are ready to extend out into the universe. Don't you think the first "alien" species we contact will more than likely choose to eliminate us due to our belligerant and menancing ways? Being that we just got off the planet, any alien species that we meet would likely be vastly more advanced than us and would recognize humanity as a "failed species" that never learned to cooperate amongst ourselves and have reverence for life. The aliens would recognize us as a threat to life in the universe and act accordingly. On the other hand, if we learned how to be cooperative, then the aliens might be willing to teach us what they know, and we might even be able to teach them something so that the relationship could be symbiotic. I think ultimately, nature, the universe, whatever you want to call it favors cooperation - it is in everyone's interest. It is in the interest of life.

Its kind of funny too because just last night my wife and I watched this movie that happened to be on the tube.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_the_Earth_Stood_Still_%281951_film%29

Anyhow, this has been a wonderful conversation.UNQUOTE

BUFFALO_KEN --

Nature is about life and pleasure ---
Yes . . . males are here . . . however their behavior ---their lack of cooperation with nature --- suggests that they are not legitimate. They have turned a Garden of Eden into a pollution pit. Their overwhelming urge to dominate, control and use violence -- often in the name of creation/!!!??? --- have near destroyed our own species and the planet.

And, rather, I think it is important to examine the "why" because it keeps us focused on the altruism and should cause us to examine the violence of males of the human species which endangers not only our own species but every species on the planet.

Unfortunately, we may have caused lasting damage to the planet and there is no guarantee that it will still be turning post-Global Warming's worrst.

About a dozen years ago in the NY Times front section ---
there was a small article which announced that "the dams and reservoirs our Army Corps of Engineers had built in the past 50 years were IMPACTING THE ROTATION OF THE EARTH."
Nature is not indestructible!!

Also keep in mind, as I noted above, that the male desire to control females and reproduction has burdened the planet and our species with tremendous overepopulation --- now nearing 7 billion -- and that often that urge to control is presented as: "reverence for life."

Nice chatting with you --- and PEACE!! wouldn't it be loverly!!!

Re your two posts . . .
QUOTE:
buffalo_ken January 12th, 2008 9:16 am
conscience - I agree that nature is not suicidal. Nature is all about life. Is it not? So, taken as a whole, how could it be suicidal? I'd also put forth that males are here, and therefore, males are legitimate (I know this is circular but I don't see any value in even debating the premise). Plus I think it is a bit too generalistic to use terms such as "male philosophy" - obviously not all males think alike, just as not all females think alike, just as not any two individuals think alike. But we can still be altruistic towards one another. What difference does it make why? I'd rather focus on ways to encourage more of it "in the field" so to speak and learn from experience than analyze the possibilities from the ivory tower. Lastly, humanity hasn't even come close to "destroying the planet", but humanity does seem on the verge of destroying ourselves if we don't start behaving with a bit more reverence for ALL life. The planet is going to be around for a long time with or without us.

Peace,
Ken

P.S. I skimmed over some of the Kropotkin material (thanks to those who referenced it), and this defintely seems worth studying…I particulary appreciated some of the discussion regarding how birds cooperate amongst themselves and interact with other species…the concept of "Mutual Aid" and cooperation seems to be one that has been sadly de-emphasized in favor of a "belief" in some sort of "inevitable competition", which seems crazy to me….Hm, I wonder who gains from this? Anyhow, I thought I'd repost the link.

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/kropotkin/mutaidcontents.html

PACPLYER ---

Re your ....

Evidently you have to qualify what I mean by "nature" and convert it into the "natural world" . . . ??? !!!

ON THE WHOLE . . . OVERALL . . . FROM THE HIGHEST PERSPECTIVE .... Nature is not suicidal.

Bacteria and newly mutated viruses may wipe out the human species before Global Warming does --- but that will have a lot to do with the insanity of our "medical" efforts, for one.

Who dares to say there is a "god" in the sense that organized patriarchal religions sell him? Or that he is not a she; though the evidence of how screwed up things are probably do argue for a male "god" -- !!!

I don't consider myself insignificant, either ---
but I do consider myself female --
And the world is a much crueler place since the right-wing/GOP takeover ---

As far as I can see the Republican Party has only brought us bloodshed --- over and again! As well as torture of other human beings in their custody and in nations where they have inflicted the pain of savage capitalism.

We, indeed, are being tortured by right-wing corrupt leadership of our own nation ---

Evolution is a beautiful thing --- a natural part of nature.
We are not necessarily that ---
The flaws we suffer --- our inability to cooperate with nature --- point to our being hybrids.

QUOTE: conscience said "nature is not suicidal ."

By "Nature" I think you mean the Natural world, and, I have to disagree with you. You need to think at the microbe level here. Nature is frequently suicidal. Yeast kill themselves off in a vat of beer. Many viruses kill the host, and in so doing, kill themselves. Gangrene is a self-destructive bacteria that does this too.

And so, IMHO, is the human race. You see, whether or not they know it, yeast in my tub of beer kill themselves off 100% of the time. They never realize that there's a bigger world up there to worry about and that God (that would be me) is not the least bit interested in their individual or colonial plight.
conscience said "nature is not suicidal ."

By "Nature" I think you mean the Natural world, and, I have to disagree with you. You need to think at the microbe level here. Nature is frequently suicidal. Yeast kill themselves off in a vat of beer. Many viruses kill the host, and in so doing, kill themselves. Gangrene is a self-destructive bacteria that does this too.

And so, IMHO, is the human race. You see, whether or not they know it, yeast in my tub of beer kill themselves off 100% of the time. They never realize that there's a bigger world up there to worry about and that God (that would be me) is not the least bit interested in their individual or colonial plight.

I'm only interested in making good tasting bathtub beer; I'm only interested in the yeast world after they kill each other off and I can reach down from alckie heaven, and scoop up all that glorious alcohol that I manipulated them into making for me.

Who dares to say that God doesn't like beer?

Huh?

(and how would something so insignificant as a man like you know anyway? Have you ever met the drunk?) The world is way crueler than you can possibly imagine.

Evolution is a beautiful thing. It creates beauty out of bloodshed. Just like the Republican Party tries to do (and fails.)

When a child is abused the physical effects are the least lasting and the mental affects are those which are more enduring. A child's mind is that which is most abused and retains those damages for the entire life of the child, regardless of how well they can be overcome or repressed later in life. When a child is lied to in a consistent manner, whether that be in physics, history or the political sphere, with the ultimate goal of controlling that child in conjunction with controlling the whole society, then that lying agenda stunts the intellectual development of the child and is no different in it's long term damage to their minds than any form of pedophilia. The curriculum in all of the schools in the U.S. and the other corporate governed countries is geared to such limiting of student's intellectual development by teaching them the grand lies endorsed by the corporate governments, who, by the way, own all of the schools and all of the publishing houses which produce the textbooks used in them. The corporate governments' main goal is to produce "specialists" who can do their task and not know much about anything else. That system is indentured slavery.

No doubt, by now the proselytizers of the goofy "big bang" baby talk can cite tens of thousands of papers and falsely claim that they support their view, because a requirement for funding in many investigative institutions is that their prospectus include a reference to such nonsense, regardless of how frivolous or inappropriate. And it is always the case that they will always try to add another meaningless reference whenever they are called upon to explain a real physical phenomenon that disputes their juvenile claims and they will totally ignore the pertinent science because their weak minded "hypothesis" are not supported by E=mc².

In our energy universe all energy is in a constant state of change from one form of energy to another. If the poseurs who pretend to understand a little physics cannot explain how far a photon can travel from a star before it exhausts it's expendable energy, then the height of ridicule is what they deserve when they try to tell us that they can "prove" how the universe began. Such poseurs don't even know how to scientifically explain the aurora borealis, so any baby talk of having definitive answers for all of the major astronomical phenomenon is nothing more than an advertisement for what those people really are.

dreamertoo

Yes I agree and a great example of multiple casusation. It is pretty exciting when all the dots get connected. :o)

"I dunno there pacplyer, I spent quite a long time developing theraputic learning envirnoments for headbangers, and I am not suggesting anyone here is a headbanger."(Treefrog)

Common Dreams, a therapeutic learning environment for progressives.

Evolution; clusters of more or less random 'DNA' changes that survive or don't attributable to multiple causations.

"What is in the stars is on earth and what is on earth is in the stars."

"Are you trying to say that all things are connected in more ways than previously imagined?" (Treefrog)

More ways than imagined by some.

"At least the political gene, apparently, is dominant and the altruism gene is recessive." (libertas fugit)

Yes, the altruism gene is progressive.

I dunno there pacplyer, I spent quite a long time developing theraputic learning envirnoments for headbangers, and I am not suggesting anyone here is a headbanger. Just that all people learn regardless of the tool that is used to measure it.

And I have got to point out that it is the Union of Concerned scientists who are pointing out the dangers of global warming and of nuclear proliferation while nobody in corp america or gov is cognizant of these risks or is intentionally hiding the inescapable data of. To paint all learned people as gov scientists is folly. Clearly, good men and women are standing up leaking the dangers of Genetically Modified food, nuclear accidents, leadpaint in toys, faulty voting software etc etc.

While it is understandable that jmacneil mistakes us for scientists (which, by the way, I must say is flattering) I suspect that nspire is a programer and I am probably a retired pilot. But the shear lack of simple gradeschool science knowledge makes me wonder of jmacneil: What is your major malfunction?

Were you raised in a barn or something? nspires knowledge of astronomy and programing greatly dwarfs my own and definitely yours, and rather than pretending to know more, as you do, I defer to his obviously greater knowledge in these certain subjects.

The problem with you jmacneil, is that you do not know how to learn. How old are you? I'd wager 17 if I was a betting man.

Darwin meets Easyrider....

Darwin meets Easyrider....

I think maybe the term "evolution" is misunderstood in this discussion. Evolution of knowledge is different than biological evolution. What is in question here is what if anything brings about these changes and what of this do we actually understand and carry forward.

JMacneil

Birth-life-death are all predetermined processes in that it describes physical reality. It is not meant to address other realities for the purpose of discussion.

I personally don't think evolution is a predetermined process. Take Darwin's birds that experienced behavioral isolation on an island. These birds foraged for seeds to survive and because the terrain was rocky and had many crevices the birds that survived over time were the ones that could best access seeds. This is adaptive behavior to external conditions, and whether this affects the phyical traits of these birds (like longer or narrow beaks) was investigated. I think it is this adaptive behavior that many people consider as evolution. (good-bad-or indifferent)

Now the pseudo scientist jmacneil posts as a mystic! First arguing that he is a detective of false science and bad logic but since that didn't work out he's morphing into a sharmin.

Lol inspire: sounds like when two worlds collide. I had some uncomfortable Texas experiences myself a few times. One night we had a fire break out on a circuit breaker panel on a cargo Falcon Fanjet and had to bomb into Ft Stockton Texas unannounced with no flight plan to put out the fire. They sent the local police to intercept us and tried to open up sacks of the U.S. mail when we opened the main door. I quickly herded them out explaining that their Texas stars and cowboy hats didn't trump federal felony mail tampering laws that we had signed out the mailsacks on, so we shut the hatch, locked it and borrowed a car to go to dinner. They were convinced that we were a drug running flight from mexico so they followed us with their lights out all night. Later they checked us out with the FAA and found we were legit. But they were not happy with a flight crew pushing them out of the cargo compartment and they let us know it. Our California accents weren't cutting it either. You should have seen the gritty expression on this tall, decked out in spurs Texas Sheriff complete with ten gallon hat and duel pearl handled pistols (right out of a hollywood movie!) The next morning the ramp employees showed us what had happened a few days before. In a hanger was a single prop engine Cessna P-210 completely shot full of holes from the rear window to the tail. The ground guys said one bullet broke the elevator (tail) control cable as they were trying to escape with their load of drugs.

I remarked: "Damn that's pretty good shooting to lead a moving target like that and hit the tail."

The ground employee said: "The sheriff and his men were not aiming at the tail."

gulmp.

I'm starting to learn the apple version of Unix a little bit. Guess what that particular flavor of Unix is called? Darwin!

You gotta love it.

pac

(and nspire thanks for the html tag info, great tips)

We are all made of star stuff, even you J MACNEIL

The scientists maybe a trifle biased to grab a paycheck or two along the way, but there are thousands of convergent and self supporting pieces that have again and again been validated independently, across all borders and belief systems.

One of the most well known aspects of astronomy is the H-R diagram of stellar birth to death transformations, and relationships between star temperature, color, age, and size.

Perhaps JMACNEIL sees only "planets condensing from clouds of spatial matter is just plain stupid and not worthy of reflection because there is no hierarchy, no birth and thus no continuity but only randomness and chaos," but anyone interested can find much more, even in elementary school text books (than this dribbling incoherent mishmash of words).

There is a fantastically detailed structure and recipe for supernovas producing expanding clouds (nebula) of various molecules and dust, which then form nurseries to product new stars.

You mention that "Those people who respect nature will be the ultimate survivors in the new global society," which sounds good, but is hardly evidenced in your opinions. Respect for knowledge starts with respecting the people that are knowledgeable, and instead of telling others how it is, they might consider asking questions and listening to answers?

"What is in the stars is on earth and what is on earth is in the stars."

Yes, Treefrog, this is a thought that mirrors my own belief. From an astronomical perspective, it is evident that planets and moons are literally children of stars in the same way that babies are children of women. The "evolutionist's" idea of stars and planets condensing from clouds of spatial matter is just plain stupid and not worthy of reflection because there is no hierarchy, no birth and thus no continuity but only randomness and chaos. The corporate government endorsed "scientists", and I put that description in quotations because anyone who calls themself a scientist but who is not a strict adherent to truth is anything but, will prostitute themselves so long as they receive a paycheck. But their weak and dishonest kind will not long endure in the new world which is birthing with the knowledge of awareness. Those people who respect nature will be the ultimate survivors in the new global society that is becoming aware of it's power even as we interact.

http://www.kstrom.net/isk/stars/startabs.html

PACPLYER & PAUL B -- Paul has already likely heard this one, as he's Linux savvy, but being still young compared to a mountain, he may not have.

Once upon a time in a dank texas diner, several unix programmers were passing through, on their way (quickly) between coastal universities. They were silly, techy, and gabby, while wearing nothing of much social class besides nerdy tape-repaired glasses, t-shirts, sandals, and cut-off jeans. Having long hair and beards in the 70s in texas was clearly not necessarily a hanging offense, but these were unix programmers, who knew no fear, and hacked extraordinarily.

Their T-shirts proudly displayed several of their latest creations to ease the operating system's many challenges, which out of their bizarre and terse world, they'd decided to call daemons (which similar to devils, were red and had forked tails and horns) Of course the devil's work is never none, so too the unix daemons had ubiquitous duties, and sly twisted smiles of knowing understanding.

So the diner's other patrons provided an unseen audience, that moment-by-moment was becoming more shocked at what they heard and saw. One of the locals stood up and walked over the the youths to find out what kind of hell-on-earth that was threatening them. He found out that the T-shirt devils were actually real, and running through hundreds of those new fangled computers. These kids not only worked all night long in their servicing of them, but much worse they told the locals as they paid for their meals, that

"It's all OK as we work at the universities for the gov't, and they know everything that we're doing"

Of course the locals already suspected that the gov't was full of un-Christian devils, that were liable to steal the souls of their children in a twitch, but to find out how large this sinister plot had grown was beyond their ability to fathom - and then to know that computers were now even talking to each other through devil agents - had their heads spinning. This shock was likely what saved those kids from meeting a different 'maker' than the one that they had been talking about that morning.

Are you trying to say that all things are connected in more ways than previously imagined?

I see.

Since you can't refute the arguments of those who have exposed you as a crackpot, now we're all government agents.

What argument have we abdicated?

Sorry nspire,

Our posts keep crossing the pacific at the speed of light in the fiber network Plus the relatively slow speed of router and server mechanisms. You beat me to the doppler proof with that fantastic post that I'm glad you bothered to write. Photons? Another Red Herring from the strawman builder? Not meaning to steal your glory nspire, but to he who sits in mental darkness, I would say the photon travels forever just like it does passing between his eardrums since there is nothing there to impart a slowing force against it. Then I would cite Newton's basic law that an object in motion continues in motion forever, until an opposing force acts against it (IIRC.)

Now that post nspire was poetic beauty. If we, as evolved relatives of simple primates can deduce the amazing specific vector mathematics that you so passionately described above, then why can't we find a way to instill altruism in a bushmonkey?

I suspect the answer lies in the resident ignorance of the rural isolated lifestyle: e.g. Texas! Our red-state brothers know something's wrong, but they just can't get past the religious and cultural dogmatism that they grew up with to embrace a philosophy of tolerance and ultimately, Altruism toward those who are different from them (damn hippies, socialists, and foreigners.)

Now what's the next strawman?

Everyone with intelligence can differentiate between logic, truth and bullshit when it is presented to them. Those intelligent people with values also know when the moles of the corporate government are stroking each other as a validation of each other's existence, like dogs sniffing assholes. If you abdicate from the argument you create, everyone knows you are a fraud.

nspire,

We are engaged in debate with a member of the famous "Flat Earth Society". Just like the "Man will never fly Society" no accepted scientific theory is acceptable to this sage (fool) sitting on the hill. All bodies of knowledge that depart from the dogma of his moldy King James version of the bible are suspect to him. You and I know that, since it must be observed from afar, Astrophysics is even trickier than evolution which he also doesn't believe in. Anyone who can't accept the concept of Red Shift, simply doesn't understand the basic simple properties of the doppler effect.

Let me elaborate for him. I'll be brief.

Go outside, oh ye of little-bang between the ears, and listen to an approaching train or siren. Notice the change in pitch as it goes by? That is the doppler effect and operates the same way on the ground here on earth, with light in a vacuum as it does in space. Light has the properties of a wave, and when galaxies are observed to be redder it means they are moving away from us at high speed. Surveys of mass and matter will differ as more data comes in, but the "center of the universe" is irrelevant to the theory of big bang. The fact that Hubbell's observation of mass explosion of the universe has held true for EVERY additional data set, as nspire correctly pointed out, with the backgound radiation surveys he cited, means that the big bang is an accepted theory of science.

To quibble about the exact center as proof means you've been engaged in too much head banging my boy,

Whooowee! Why, ..shucks, I'll just tip back my raggedy brimmed straw hat and chew a bit on my corncob pipe until the smoke quits a-burnin' my eyes! Ain't I so glad to have found sech a knowledgerable little feller ta set me straight! That's all I was a lookin' fer while I set here a sippin'! Some right smart dude to set me straight!

I sure would like to know how it could be possible that anything that exists of energy could not have a center?

But, primarily, now that we have become aware of an expert in our midst, explain to us just exactly how far a photon can travel from a star before it exhausts it's expendable energy?

I wonder what those ants are up to now that they have totally confused people.

Sitting Bull was a leader. He was a real chief. People followed him because he was great. He never won any election or was appointed by any government. That's not how you get to be a leader. It was an honor you earned.

There are leaders and there are rulers. We Indians are used to leaders. When our leaders don't lead, we walk away from them. When they lead well, we stay with them.

Your system makes people rulers by law, even if they are not leaders. How can a calendar tell us how long a person is a leader? That's crazy. A leader is a leader as long as the people believe in him, and as long as he is the best person to lead us. You can only lead as long as the people will follow.

In the past when we needed a warrior we made a warrior our leader. But when the war was over and we needed a healer to lead us, he became our leader. Or maybe we needed a great speaker or a deep thinker.

The warrior knew when his time had passed, and he didn't pretend to be our leader beyond the time he was needed. He was proud to serve his people, and he knew when it was time to step aside. If he won't step aside, people will just walk away from him. He cannot make himself a leader except by leading people in the way they want to be lead.

That's why Sitting Bull was a leader. He was needed by the people and the people followed him. He was brave. He was smart. He knew how to fight when he had to. And he understood what the white man was all about. People saw that he could not be tricked by the white man, so they followed.

That's why the U.S. government hated him so much. It wasn't just that he set a trap for Custer. Anyone could have done that. It was because he was a leader and people listened to him, and he wouldn't listen to the U.S. government. He listened to the needs of his people.

Isn't that interesting! So....I wonder why they haven't told us where we are?

J MACNEIL Please start the head-banging ASAP, measured from within 1/100 ly from galactic center

Ah...halftime...now I have time to answer the question. If the proponents of the "big bang" cartoon know that the distribution is anisotropic and they have calculated the time from the beginning of expansion, then it is a relatively simple calculable step from there to pinpoint the exact origin of the "big bang", which is to say locate the exact center of the universe. However, the big drawback with their writing such silly papers is that they are absolutely clueless about the real size of the universe and also they are absolutely clueless about it's shape, so any statement about anisotrophy and energy distribution can only be speculation. An island in an archipelago is the most they could ever claim to know by that method, provided they were aware of at least one boundary.

Measured from where?

J MACNEIL -- I suppose that you must have something to refute the anisotropic 3 K cosmic background radiation, that fits perfectly with 14.3 x 109 year ago big bang (REF: MAP spacecraft)?

Please go ahead, I love to hear the sound of your head banging

What we could use is more relativistic scientists who do not preach the religious quackery of "big bangs" and "black holes" so that they can keep the big dollars flowing in from their corporate government sponsors. Every time a serious scientist presents irrefutable evidence that such nonsense is a fairy tale they are practically excommunicated, such as happened with Halton Arp when his investigation proved that redshift was not an indicator of an expanding universe. Read his excellent book "SEEING RED", ©1998, published by Apeiron.

J MACNEIL -- You really should know better where you live:

Our tiny blue marble Earth rotates around its polar axis (at the Equator), once a day at
1000 miles per hour
Our Earth orbits around our Sun (tiny compared to Mu Cephi, whose diameter is larger than the orbit of Saturn), once a year at
67,000 miles per hour
Our entire solar system revolves around the Milky Way's Black Hole (toward the constellation Sagittarius, from ~30,000 light years out from the gravity center), once every 230 million years at
560,000 miles per hour
Our Milky Way Galaxy dances around nearby Andromeda Galaxy, in a progressively faster death spiral for another 5 billion years, while moving together as a local group, toward Virgo's super cluster of galaxies (50 million light years away) at
990,000 miles per hour
This large congregation of galaxies is moving toward the "Great Attractor"(in the Hydra-Centaurus direction), with respect to the faintly glowing embers of the 15 billion yr old "big bang", called the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB)
several million miles per hour

Our net velocity is approximately 2,000,000 miles per hour (450 miles per second, which is 0.2% of the speed of light)

WHEN YOU VISIT GALACTIC CENTER

… the sound that you wont hear, will be your body being turned into a spaghetti shape, as it plunges into a multi-million solar mass black hole …

Enjoy the ride.

As far as anisotropic is concerned, have you any appreciation of Doppler, or do you think that the sound changes for moving wavefronts to also be a cartoon?

Your specious arguments illustrate your complete lack of understanding, while nonetheless, you act as if an authority (read a book, wow). Any astronomer would be LOL ROTFLHAO, but I'll attempt to be civil and explain.

You sanctimoniously question the scientific results of the MAP spacecraft, when you say "If the proponents of the "big bang" cartoon know that the distribution is anisotropic …", yes that a fact - the distribution is actually very uniform within 3 ± 1 x 10-4 K, which is what is described above as CMB's velocity factor.

I guess besides sitting within the confines of your own chair, science has determined that there is no privileged position to view the cosmos.

Which is just as you go further and erroneously state … then it is a relatively simple calculable step from there to pinpoint the exact origin of the "big bang" …". Not true, no one can calculate that, sorry.

Same as with your mistaken idea that "which is to say locate the exact center of the universe," which again is impossible (this is called a straw man argument).

Again you state the obviousness incorrect "clueless about the real size of the universe," which multiple scientists have mesaured to 14.7 billion light years (ly) wide.

And then "anisotropy and energy distribution can only be speculation", which is a completely a mistaken issue, as the relative speed on our current position in the cosmos is what is exhibited by the anisotropy speed distribution (or movement of Earth, respect to the CMB). ISOTROPIC, is by definition ISO = EQUAL and TROPIC = DIRECTION, which is the equally expanding spherical and homogeneous model -- while AN-ISOTROPIC is simply NOT ISOTROPIC, so the spherical distribution is not equally homogeneous, but shows a relative movement (like toward the great attracker, see above)

Why I bother with you is actually simple to comprehend.

There are other readers herein who may actually want to understand our place in the universe, whereas you are content to be part of a "cartoon", which really fits on you well.

As far as the origins of altruism, I tend to agree with Wilson. I don't agree with all of his ideas but I'm a consilience believer.

As for Dawkins being a zealot, I say bring it on. We could use a few anti-religion zealots on the side of science and rationalism to counter the myriad on the side superstition and mysticism. What better cure for holy war, religious terrorism, and the oppressive excesses of the Christian right in the US than atheism? (Anti)-preach on.

And they are certainly not "children". Big names in science have big egos to be sure (seen it with my own eyes), but debate advances ideas and debate by big names advances awareness, and the world needs to be in on the debate.

It would appear to me that the altruism gene and the political gene are mutually incompatible, at least in Western alleged civilization. At least the political gene, apparently, is dominant and the altruism gene is recessive.

Well said, nspire.

VOX -- Please do keep the love flowing, we ALL miss the honor of BEING a part of nature.

Of course LOVE is omnipresent, although at times weakened by expediency. Another poster provided a wonderful view of three or four species of birds cooperating, while feeding upon the fish within the salt marshes.

If we allow the "voices" to be silenced, our presence is innately connected.

Everyone might consider the Galapagos as more than an enchanted experience of primal forces still and exposed. The lobo Marinas were my favorite (sea lions welcome all swimmers to play), although the cantankerous blue footed boobies, and elegant albatross. The spirit of these islands is so strong, that the animals have no fear of man, no large predation, and one walks freely past nesting birds and one can then commune deeply of the LOVE you speak of.

There is abundance, joy, love, and peace in this world - but we seldom are provided access,

exactly as the wanna be seeker of truth upon reaching the Mt. top finds the master,

but has no space to receive those long sought teachings, being and having arrived with so much baggage of wanna be truths, their vessel is w/o allowance or openning.

The TRUTH SEEKER, must first empty their vessel to create the possibility of it becoming filled.

This is an act of unconditional love in exchange for truth that few have the courage to undertake - but the reward is bliss.

It is no guess for me to know that (as you so well speak) "that love is what holds the universe together". Science has a very steep gradient to empty it's pockets and stand naked in truth, so it must be satisfied with but small chunks of it here and there - while unnoticed abundance of LOVE fills the universe - EVERYWHERE.

Thank you.

Namaste … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … Mahatma Gandhi … … … … … … … … … …
« We must be the change we wish to see in the world »
« There is a sufficiency in the world for man's need but not for man's greed »

Generation after generation of psychological, emotional and physical abuse have resulted in human beings who, while possessing caring genes, choose to behave in uncaring ways; there is no better example of what most people refer to as 'lost instincts'; imagine a tribe of human beings, without ego, each member making no distinction between his/her own welfare and the welfare of the tribe; that tribe, Homo sapiens, is us.

The idea that altruism can be hard-wired into a gene cannot withstand scientific scrutiny because if we allow such an idea that learned behavior can be imprinted on an inheritable gene then we would have to agree with a recent assertion that each kind of bird has their own kind of nest hard-wired into their biotic mass. Extrapolating from that, then we would have to concede that Inuit have an igloo gene and Africans have stick house genes and Indigenous Americans have teepee genes. Following that trend, we would then have to concur that every degree of every emotion has a gene and that would lead to every thought we would ever have needing it's own gene and only requiring the right stimuli to bring any particular thought to the forefront of our minds. Maybe that's what the closed-minded "evolutionists" mean when they refer to "instinct".

No doubt the publishers of such books as has inspired the above article like to provoke an international debate over each and every one of them so that they can entice another dozen or so people to buy them. And I'm equally sure that studying such ant colonies gets terribly exciting after awhile, but it would probably be more beneficial to the planetary science if more realistic, and less philosophical, descriptions were used for survival behavior.

Altruism may have evolved as a means to sustain oneself and defend one another from attack by other tribes or dangerous beasts. Up to a point, the more people or ants there are to hunt and gather and the more people to defend from attack gives a survival advantage. To gain that advantage one must care for his providers and defenders. (ezeflyer)
Essentially true.

Today it's too many people competing for diminishing resources and too few hoarding the lions share of resources. That is why in cities there is less altruism than in the country. (ezeflyer)
Actually, it's too many people choosing not to care.

The question is how and when do altruism and other traits cease to become learned inherited traits and become hard wired to our genes? (ezeflyer)
Only homo sapiens (hard wired to their genes) survived; other 'humans' died off.

seaseal, Siouxrose and other animal watchers:

Living as I do in a desert environment far from roads and noise and light bulbs (except my own) I am surrounded by birds and beasts of every description, both inside and outside of the house. Observing and interacting with them has been a rich way of life for me. Although I do not look anything like Tarzan, I have chatted up mountain lions and bobcats and skunks, and for a while I was an honorary member of a small coyote pack. I never have had any fear of them, and getting them to overcome their fear of me has been a fascinating project. I can report a few things with absolute certainty. Most human observation of animals is of their terrified butts going the other way or of their psychotic simulacra in laboratory cages. Most of what people think they know about animals is baloney. Given the scarcity of food and water in this desert, there is some truth to the assertion that life in nature is short and brutal. There is competition and predation and death. But there is also cooperation and dignity. There is humor. There is - I won't call it altruism - a kind of graciousness among species. Each critter is a unique individual, as the indians knew. To say that they are people is not a poetical statement. I've seen things I can still hardly believe. There is plenty of desolation and carnage here in the hinterlands of reality, but my unscientific guess is that love is what holds the universe together.

Please be KIND,

as humans share the desolation of knowing that they stand in the way of their own light.

Animals have nothing standing in their way (but us)

Altruism may have evolved as a means to sustain oneself and defend one another from attack by other tribes or dangerous beasts. Up to a point, the more people or ants there are to hunt and gather and the more people to defend from attack gives a survival advantage. To gain that advantage one must care for his providers and defenders.

Today it's too many people competing for diminishing resources and too few hoarding the lions share of resources. That is why in cities there is less altruism than in the country.

The question is how and when do altruism and other traits cease to become learned inherited traits and become hard wired to our genes? When organisms give up their lives to protect others, usually their young, they are simply protecting their genes. By protecting our genes, we live forever.

In fact, if I could indulge myself a moment, here is a "thought experiment" that occurred to me. Lets just say humanity continues on with "simplistic survival of the fittest competition" and "fitness by domination" kind of thinking. For the sake of discussion, lets assume that humanity manages to survive this (although I doubt we would) and then reaches a point where we are ready to extend out into the universe. Don't you think the first "alien" species we contact will more than likely choose to eliminate us due to our belligerant and menancing ways? Being that we just got off the planet, any alien species that we meet would likely be vastly more advanced than us and would recognize humanity as a "failed species" that never learned to cooperate amongst ourselves and have reverence for life. The aliens would recognize us as a threat to life in the universe and act accordingly. On the other hand, if we learned how to be cooperative, then the aliens might be willing to teach us what they know, and we might even be able to teach them something so that the relationship could be symbiotic. I think ultimately, nature, the universe, whatever you want to call it favors cooperation - it is in everyone's interest. It is in the interest of life.

Its kind of funny too because just last night my wife and I watched this movie that happened to be on the tube.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_the_Earth_Stood_Still_%281951_film%29

Anyhow, this has been a wonderful conversation.

conscience - I agree that nature is not suicidal. Nature is all about life. Is it not? So, taken as a whole, how could it be suicidal? I'd also put forth that males are here, and therefore, males are legitimate (I know this is circular but I don't see any value in even debating the premise). Plus I think it is a bit too generalistic to use terms such as "male philosophy" - obviously not all males think alike, just as not all females think alike, just as not any two individuals think alike. But we can still be altruistic towards one another. What difference does it make why? I'd rather focus on ways to encourage more of it "in the field" so to speak and learn from experience than analyze the possibilities from the ivory tower. Lastly, humanity hasn't even come close to "destroying the planet", but humanity does seem on the verge of destroying ourselves if we don't start behaving with a bit more reverence for ALL life. The planet is going to be around for a long time with or without us.

Peace,
Ken

P.S. I skimmed over some of the Kropotkin material (thanks to those who referenced it), and this defintely seems worth studying...I particulary appreciated some of the discussion regarding how birds cooperate amongst themselves and interact with other species...the concept of "Mutual Aid" and cooperation seems to be one that has been sadly de-emphasized in favor of a "belief" in some sort of "inevitable competition", which seems crazy to me....Hm, I wonder who gains from this? Anyhow, I thought I'd repost the link.

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/kropotkin/mutaidcontents.html

Just a quick comment: a book on similar ideas is Kropotkin's "Mutual Aid," written probably around 100 years ago. A more recent book, "The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism" by Niles Elderidge, 1999 or so, is a good read as well. So is "The God Delusion" by Dawkins.

Correction: Copernicus's SUN-centered Solar System.

(the edit feature just won't work here.)

The poster above, who shall remain nameless, since it is generally in bad form to put down minors, confuses religion with science. He submits that the accepted scientific theory of Evolution is the same as the mental disorder called religion. Since he has no skills in simple deduction, I'll try to help him out here.

Let's talk about the Pontiff's Catholic view that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. The reigning Christian Popes and Archbishops of the Protestant sects have maintained this ignorant position now for hundreds of years, indeed, even burning down peoples houses for daring to suggest such sacrilege as Copernicus's Earth centered Solar System, or Galileo's description of the orbits of the planets and of the Jovian moon system. What was the high priest's proof? They had no proof, just a bunch of canonized (cherry-picked) ancient scripture translated (often incorrectly) from ancient Hebrew which was previously adapted from stories dating back to Sumerian writings. But calculations made from this error-prone excuse for a sacred book, clearly stated, they said, that an unproven God created this Earth 6,000 years ago.

Ben Franklin, in the 1750's during the age of Reason (as opposed to the preceding dark ages of religious tyranny) corresponded with great scholars of Europe speculating on the age of the Earth. Just based on what he saw in tree rings and dirt layers he concluded that religious people must surely be mistaken and that the Earth must be many times more older than the bible states. He said this a century before Darwin even set sail.

Ben Franklin was: The First American Anchor Books 2000 by H. W. Brands

Scholars were so impressed by the original American Scientist, they inducted him into the Royal Society. By forty, Franklin, who suspected there is no god in his letters to friends, had already tamed the lightning bolt, invented efficient fireplaces, advanced the art of publishing, started many altruistic activities to better the community, and planted the seeds for democracy.

His invention, the lightening rod, saved church steeples and tall buildings all over the world. Franklin refused to patent it, or take any money arguing that proprietary practice like that would diminish society.

Of course not even "a childish mind" would argue today, that the Earth is younger than four Billion years old because even religious dimwits who call themselves "creationists" know that a known isotope: Carbon 14 decays at a known rate and dates bones back millions of years before the pope said god created the Earth. In fact, most religious zealots even know that the Earth is older than that because they have heard that the rocks from Tranquility Base were dated at 4.5 billion years using the same radioactive dating techniques.

But to admit that he was related to a monkey, was just too much for the bible thumper at the Scope's trials. He was generally laughed out of the building by all.

Genetic comparison by the Mormon christians, who have genealogy down to an art form, confirms that Charles Darwin and Dr. Lewis Leaky were right. Homo Sapiens Sapiens DNA is 99% identical to that of a Chimpanzee.

Sorry Bible Thumpers, we had the same ancestor as the monkeys did.

Try watching "Bill Nye the Science Guy" or "Mr. Wizzard" reruns to get your brain working logically.

pac "just the facts" plyer

I think they should pursue more studies, but i do not privilege scientific method over others ways of knowing. I have studied theoretical physics and mystic-oriented religions and talked to cultural anthropologists and I am confident that "nature is not suicidal" BUT i do believe if we continue to be a cancerous effect on all the rest of nature, we may not exist anymore or have to be humbled tremendously. Cooperation suits us all, competition is destructive on most levels. I think our concepts of "competition amongst species" is misguided. I don't think it is competitive at least the way we think of competition.

seaseal

I always wonder what happened to the other 90%. In human terms it is equivalent to having to live with 10% of your liver. The only remaining living dunes are in northern california. The people there protect this small area and children visit there as part of thier education so that they may also protect it in later years.

Conscience....wow, that was great!

Paul Bramscher

Again thanks for the recommendation and I will add it to my reading list. Here is one for you that might also broaden your perspective: Spirits of the Earth written by Bobby Lake Thom. In selecting a book that might further your understanding of nature it was this rather simple book that put me in touch with things I had over looked for a long time.

To clarify my position I do not object to science due to religious belief (no not a creationist) nor does the term luddite fit well either but that would take a bit more explanation than you probably really care to know. My objection (and don't take this personally) is science and it's applications. When you find some of the more vile practices on this earth you also find a partnership or origins in science. (No, not all of science is objectionable) and luckily there is never a high level of agreement between scientists for obvious reasons. If there is a scientific basis for my objection it was probably best made by Amelia. My example was to demonstrate that you were basically ignoring my position and attributed it to ignorance. (correct me if I'm wrong) Actually my position on the bear issue comes from another source buy I look for a scientic position that bests explains my understanding. (occassionally they are the same and have the same origins) So in this objection, it isn't what you know, it's what you do with what know and how you found out. Science is corrupted and you can shoot the messanger but it won't change that fact. There is a distrust for science because science is not trustworthy.

PS: Still think my response is the truest --- i.e., "Nature is not suicidal" --- !!!

BUFFALO_KEN ---

No -- males are not here to stay ---
your sperm count is dropping seriously --
Nature favors females; all live begins as female ---

HOWEVER, I am also of the opinion that we are hybrids because our species seems totally unsuited for this planet which we have so easily destroyed!!!

In fact, "survival of the fittest" is often misunderstood . . .
what it really means is those species which best cooperate with nature.

WE are the only destroyers --- 24/7 !!!

And, we've changed the DNA of about every other species on this planet --- !!!

Feminists commented on this decade ago . .
saying tha tthe male philosophy was destroy this planet and keep moving on to new ones!
Today, you can see that kid of thinking does still exist in our gene pool!

And ours is the gene pool which has destroyed from beginning to end ---
native Americans, Africans, and now Iraqis!!

WE are torturing the planet --- and nature!

YOUR . . .

conscience - as a male, I would like to proclaim legitimacy. Like you said nature is not suicidal and us males are here to stay aren't we?

RE MY . . .

The answer seems obvious . ..

Nature is not suicidal —

And, that's why — IMO — there are usually questions raised about the human species which acts so contrary to nature's interests.

And, which, btw, has brought the planet to near death.

In particularly, the questions about humans center on our being a "hybrid" species —

And, whether the male of the species is legimate or whether an accident of some kind — a broken X?

and that is NOT a riddle.

What we need is more focus on what is actually happening rather than all this speculation.

Of course, in my humble opinion.

Peace,
Ken

steona - my genes may "know" it, but I am not my genes.

If you know what I mean.

Ken

Muggle5 and many others, I agree with you wholeheartedly. in general I am impressed with the level of discourse here (even if it gets "chidlish"). It is sad because Dawkins is good to use when arguing against creationists but terrible with anything else. I tend to agree with Wilson. I think Dawkins is the ultimate product of rational thought and Descartes, I wish he would put away his rabid ego and think, feel, etc... I think what is really missing and hard to proof, we(everything) all have an awareness(not always or never conscious) of everything else and we "know" that our livelihood as humans, animal, plants, etc... depends on each other. Nothing exists independently of one another, our genes know that.

Altruism is a character trait that is developed by a mind through it's natural working in conjunction with life experience, therefore it's origin and development is emotion based and inseparable from individualism.

Darwin didn't embrace local "evolution" as a method of describing every local phenomenon on this planet, but, rather, he believed in natural selection, which is to say selective breeding. The childish view that all life on this planet had it's empirical origins on this planet is "creationism", no different than the creationism of the religionists. All energy in an energy universe is in motion and that dictates that the other stars and galaxies in the universe are in motion too, and are not just twinkling lights in the sky. That dictates that if there is life on this planet, then there is life virtually everywhere in the universe and that it all has the potential to migrate.

"Evolutionism" and "creationism" are two subsets of the exact same belief system. Both are closed sets which deny validity to any other perspective without having any scientific basis for doing so. Therefore, both irrational belief systems are limiting, which makes neither proofable according to scientific dictates.

Human beings work hardest to justify those beliefs and actions they know are least justifiable; relax, and your own tendency toward equilibrium, will dispose of these.

There have been recent stories in the news of a cat suckling puppies, a dog suckling piglets, and least surprising, Democrats suckling Republicans.

DERAN: Right on!

What always amazes me is the absence of any enlightened realization about the power, essence, and existence of LOVE in all things. When hard, cold, left brain logic rules our concept of the world, war results.

VOXCLAMANTIS: Brilliant!

It appears that Wilson is willing to sacrifice his reputation to some degree to pursue a truth that could well benefit us all. Must be in his genes :-)

Altruism is all around us (except perhaps in the biology classes at UC) and I'd like to comment about this remark:

"These kind of commensal relationships occur not infrequently in nature."

I live near a large slough, part of the 10% of remaining wetlands in California. A regular occurrence is commensal [or commensual] feeding among cormorants, terns, and egrets. The cormorants form a semi-circle and drive small fish toward the shore.

While encircling the prey, the cormorants also feed. The terns dive into the circle. The egrets station themselves along the shore. Even with this concerted effort, many hundreds of fish escape. It is a wonder to see.

I believe after observing this event many times that the animals involved know each other from living near each other. They know there is benefit involved. They know that cooperation and sharing work better than any alternatives.

If we could present pictures of this type of behavior on the video screens of our world, we'd have a different perspective on how people could act and why people do things.

Is that WAWA or woo-woo? God is concept that carries far too much baggage to have real utility in bringing people to mindfulness. The rise of fundamentalism is a direct testament to that. Instead of starting with what is primarily now a fraudulent notion designed by institutional religion to control people and extend institutional power, why not focus on the notions of mindfulness and its practice? God talk seriously pollutes and impedes people's ability to reach an understanding of that mindful connection.

But back to evolution. One of the difficulties with reducing biological evolution to Dawkins' notions of genes is that it does not take various other forms of systems (or pattern) evolution into direct account. Dawkins is far too much of a reductionist. Systems that capture and utilize energy most effectively for a given environment tend to persist, but that persistence evolves the environment making evolution a continual process that is context dependent. Systems also tend to increase in complexity as various interacting systems combine to act synergistically to utilize energy with ever greater efficacy (notice that this doesn't necessarily mean the most efficient, just the most effective for a given context or environment, which is itself composed of systems).

For more check out Peter Corning's work:
http://www.complexsystems.org/

Whether Dawkins, or, Wilson prevail, it pleases me to know that altruism has a genetic base which happily lays waste to Ayn Rand's economic philosophy that altruism is mere neurosis.

Sorry, I didn't finish my thought. The argument about altruism is one that I remember having 40 years ago in high school, specifically: "Is there altruism in the affluent society?" Based on our 17- & 18-year-old experiences and observations, we concluded that no, there wasn't. Now, was that so hard?

Years later in an anthropology class in college, we were discussing whether there was such a thing as a "pure gift," that is, giving something to someone with absolutely no chance or desire for something in exchange--including the pleasure of giving. We debated the question for weeks, and even though we couldn't come up with an example of a "pure gift," we never stopped hoping to find one. Thirty some years later, my conclusion is, so what. It's okay if the gift isn't "pure" as long as we are still giving them.

And finally, at the risk of sounding sophomoric, I once saw a home movie taken by a couple who had on their property a stray/feral kitten who was being cared for (fed, kept warm and safe, and later, played with) by an adult crow. And this took place over a number of years. Now, THAT'S what I call altruism, and maybe as close as you can get to a "pure gift."

"I said, 'You are "gods": you are all children of the Most High God."-Psalm 82:6

It has been said that evolution is being held up by fundamentalism and the surge of fundamentalism throughout all faith paths sends shivers through cynical atheists and mystics alike. The bumper sticker actually did get it right: "We are spiritual beings having a human experience."

According to the 1987 classic, "The Different Drum: Community Making and Peace" Dr. Scott Peck defines the spiritual life as fluid and that one may pass back and forth repeatedly through any of the four-probably more-stages of the soul.

Stage one upon this journey -that begins from within-is essentially our infancy in the spiritual life. Like a wild child, a person in this stage reflects the inner chaotic and anti-social, unregenerate soul that is interested only in its own self-satisfaction and ego, much like the stereotypical spoiled child. Stage one people may claim to love others, but their behavior reflects they love their own pleasure, money, power, prestige, and security above any other. For stage one people, it really is all about them.

The good news is that the vast majority of humanity responds to that inner tug which is God, for lack of a better word. Catherine of Sienna wrote that within us all is the divine diamond. But life and all our baggage dulls the flame of our divine brilliance. Stage two souls seek to "let their light shine" and will live virtuous lives and do many good works. They also can be judgmental of others, self-righteous, rigid of thought, cold of heart, legalistic concrete literal thinkers and may even be guilty of a lukewarm faith. They want to do right and they even may desire to love and please God, but have not yet fully opened up to the Inner Light, as Joan of Arc did when she challenged church and state and persisted that she had intuited God within -even while being fried.

Stage two souls have not yet been set fully free and prefer the security of a higher human authority than themselves for guidance. They submit to institutions, scripture, dogma, ritual, ministers, or gurus. This is the most appropriate stage for older children and most adults who live busy lives just trying to keep bread on the table and a dry roof above. The difference between a stage one and stage two soul, is that a one wouldn't even notice a neighbor in need, while the two has awoken to the fact that we are to be our neighbor's keepers and they will respond to a friend-and like the good Samaritan, even to a total stranger in need.

Most theologians would agree that the opposite of faith is not disbelief: the opposite of faith is fear. Stage three souls have not just fearlessly awoken, they have evolved! This evolution has led them to the realization of what Christ was really talking about in the Sermon of the Mount AKA:The Beatitudes.

A stage three soul may well reject Christ as God, but often agree with the philosophy of Jesus, which Thomas Jefferson laid out when he weeded out the miracle stories from the gospels and clarified the teachings and ethics of Christ in:

THE LIFE AND MORALS of JESUS of NAZARETH

1. Be just: justice comes from virtue which comes from the heart.
2. Treat people the way we want to be treated.
3. Always work for PEACEFUL resolutions, even to the point of returning violence with COMPASSION.
4. Consider valuable the things that have no material value.
5. Do not judge others.
6. Do not bear grudges.
7. Be modest and unpretentious.
8. Give out of true generosity, not because we expect to be repaid.
9. Being true to one's self in more important than being loyal to one's family...those who think they know the most are the most ignorant...

A stage three soul will see that a neighbor is everyone on the planet and not just those who think and look the same. Stage three's are seekers, doubters, skeptics, atheists, agnostics and frequently adults who grew up disenchanted with institutionalized religion.

Their inherent intellectual curiosity leads them to seek their own way towards the Mystery of the Divine through philosophy and the study of multiple faith paths choosing and discarding according to their "inner light."

Stage three souls often become activists for social justice and reform and Tom Paine most likely was one, but maybe he was a four?

"Soon after I had published the pamphlet "Common Sense" [on Feb. 14, 1776] in America, I saw the exceeding probability that a revolution in the system of government would be followed by a revolution in the system of religion... The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion."-Tom Paine

It has been said we are all called to be mystics in the market place and a stage four, such as Thomas Merton and Rumi give voice to that experience of the curtain being lifted and seeing through the glass a bit less darkly.

A mystic can best be understood as one who is in love with the divine mystery and is viscerally connected to the unity of all creation.

Mystics are not navel gazers, they feel the pain of the world within their hearts and grieve at what humans do to the other when they have no clue that The Divine is within the other as much as within themselves.

Mystics have detached from their concepts of God-not by their own efforts, but by the invitation and action of God upon a willing and simple soul in love with Pure Being, AKA:God.

The mystic fool, Saint Francis, the leper kisser of Assisi, was so head over heels in love with God in everyone and all of creation that most people of his time considered him crazed, or at least, extremely eccentric.

One needn't be a mystic or move beyond stage two on the spiritual journey to do what is good and right just because it is good and right.

On that foundation alone people of faith, atheists and agnostics can surely find something to agree upon.

"I said, 'You are "gods": you are all children of the Most High God."-Psalm 82:6

Or would only a mystic see that?

Eileen Fleming,
Reporter and Editor WAWA:
http://www.wearewideawake.org/

Author "Keep Hope Alive" and "Memoirs of a Nice Irish American 'Girl's' Life in Occupied Territory"

Producer "30 Minutes With Vanunu"

A point of caution (I don't want to assume too much). Karl Popper's method - hypo-deduction - is one of several scientific methods. Science is not reducible to Popper's view and, in fact, Popper's method artificially (and ideologically) reduces the fields of valid scientific activity. There are, moreover, logical problems with Popper's claims, not least of which are that theory can only be indirectly tested (something we all learn in elementary school that doesn't actually follow from Popper's falsification thesis) and that counter-example disproves hypotheses (dialectically, counter-instances may occur because of intervening variables). Theories aren't dreamed up and then rise on indirect evidence and fall on single counter-examples. Lakotas and Kuhn, among others, show that this vision of science is mythic; and Hempel shows that falsification is not less problematic than (logical) empiricism. There are retrodeductive methods, such as historical materialism (which Popper despised), that meet standards of criterion (i.e., predictive), content, and construct validity and explain relationships in the context of webs of relationships (see Bhaskar realist theory of science for a superior albeit less than satisfactory methods of inquiry). It must be remembered that Popper was an dedicated anticommunist and had an ideological motive for drawing up such a narrow criteria for defining science. I tend to side with Feyerabend who suggested that one should use the method that answers the question. This is consistent with the pragmatist and historical materialist methods of connecting thought and practice in truth production.

However, where falsification is particularly useful is in exposing claims that intrinsically rest upon no empirical evidence, such as a claim that a supernatural being created the universe. If there were evidence of supernatural beings then there would be reason to develop theories about such things. However, the way claims about the existence of supernatural beings are articulated, namely as a matter of faith (neither reason nor fact), makes propositions derived from such belief utterly non-falsifiable and therefore useless for rational inquiry.

The dumber the species the less aware and caring it is about other species around it and the environment in which it lives.

Treefrog: Depends on how widely read you are. I'll drop another book, ethologist Frans de Waal's "Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frans_de_Waal.

It's possible to reject it forever, though. The most interesting thing I've voted about the Flat Earthers is the rejection of scientific theory, despite their embracing of the fruits of science: medicine, automobiles, computers, electricity, etc. Like eating a fruit and denying the tree it came from.

The Luddite Creationists, like the Amish, are at least consistent with their rejection of science.

Life cherishes life.

Individuals and species, that don't cherish life, don't survive.

Look around you; everywhere you will see animals caring for and helping other animals. The species that did not do this are nowhere to be found.

Human beings struggle every day to find the motivation to live, to enhance their lives, to enhance the lives of others. Human beings who have lost all apparent indications of caring, nonetheless struggle to survive in a last ditch effort to recover their sense of direction, their inherent motivation to care for themselves and others, to cherish life.

It's easy to view famous scientists as 'having it made'; these two scientists do not; they struggle every day to explain caring in a way that will not impugn their choices draining their energy and will to survive; their will to survive, not for the sake of survival, as they suggest, but rather to restore their ability, their nature, to live cherishing life.

Take a minute today to give yourself credit for the hard work you do living the necessarily altruistic life of a human being.

Does science futher the role of alturism of the human species in the natural world? Not my any measurable standard I can see.

Treefrog,

Read Karl Popper, among others, if you're genuinely interested. Bottom line, a scientific statement must be falsifiable -- through experimental/empirical/etc. means. If you see a hypothesis which is impossible to test/question, then you aren't seeing a scientific statement. You may instead be dealing with religious or political dogma which forbid (or bootstrap) free inquiry with something else.

How the particular behaviour evolved is interesting but we would not be in a position to be discussing why and how, it if it had not.. So whatever we label the neuorchemical mechanism, it clearly is behaviour that confers asurvival advantage and as such, as jessethumm alludes, should be encouraged to evolve.
Might be more productive and worthwhile for the human race, in the long run..

Animals often eat or kill their babies if they don´t find the right material surroundings right. Rabbits held in captivity that don´t have nesting material, rats, mice, even primates are known to kill their own babies for reasons which we often don´t understand. The sentimentality which we call "love" - especially "mother-love" is something we transfer to other animals, but I believe is a product of social luxury, something accompanying the rise of the middle class. Up until then was a baby a symbol of a dynasty or of more hands to help in the situation of extreme poverty, where (in Austria and Germany) children were "sold" in marketplaces as farm or maid (in the case of girls) workers. There was seldom room for great attachment or sentimentality with 12 kids.
As for Ayn Rand - she had some very challenging ideas but, unfortunately, very naive, and she was not yet witness of the progress since then made in the sciences, especially concerning human beings and this discussion. "Objectivism" has a lot of very good teachings about human nature, but based on a very false premise. That of "egoism" as being the ONLY standard of moral right in decisions human beings make. It is a real part of our survival system as it is of every species. But it´s not the ONLY "tool of survival" to put it in her own words!

Good stuff. This is an intelectual Ali-Forman. What I would like to know is how do you explain alturism to NON-relatives like we see in humans? Ants and bees are easy- they are more related to their siblings (.75) than to offspring (.50)so it makes more sense to work for the colony and not reproduce, but why does a human behave alturistically when there is no immediate genetic advantage?

muggles5 January 10th, 2008 3:42 pm asked "Why do we only seem to hear from the ones who hate uncertainty, who loathe any trace of mystical searching or creative expression?" Sorry to be so clueless, but what do you mean by "only seem to hear from?" Hear where? Who?

There are many great and thoughtful scientists who are excellent writers and very much attuned to the mystery. A few who come immediately to mind, in addition to the oft mentioned Stephen Jay Gould, are Loren Eiseley, Thomas Lewis, and Jane Goodall.

And in terms of altruism at the human level, there are some very interesting data in Daniel Goleman's book, Social Intelligence. He reports that certain emotions, commonly thought of as compassion and empathy, arise from chemically triggered, and rewarded, emotions and behaviors. He also describes the involvement of neural activity, "Here the brain achieves that efficiency by firing the same nuerons while both perceiving and performing an action.....When we see someone else in distress, similar circuits reverberate in our brain, a kind of hardwired empathic resonance that becomes the prelude to compassion." He says it's not a question of nature versus nurture, but the way in which our genes are expressed. And that recent studies have shown that parental nurturing is a vital component to gene expression.

"The pups born to devoted mothers, who licked and groomed the most, grew up to have denser connections between their brain cells, particularly in the hippocampus, the seat of memory and learning." They also experienced less upsets and recovered faster than the other rats. Quite an interesting and exciting read.

it's because of the mystery that I know there can't be a god, not one that any known religion has articulated, anyway. And that makes me very happy. Sorry for the long-winded post. Now I am going to look up Kropotkin.