h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

This comes from my recent conversation with Dim26Trav .

Read the following. The following addresses "influence and causality" or "people being the end product of a series of results from factors", and the following finally addresses "De-evolution":

>>Relationship of Subjectivity/Objectivity:

>>The above "influence vs. causality" model can also be illustrated in
the relationship of subjectivity and objectivity (ontic-wise, not
epistemic-wise).

>>Consider the old cartoon of the 5th grader, who has just presented a
school report card of all F's to his dad, who is sitting in the
favorite easy chair. The father has looked sternly at the kid, and the
kid has asked the important causal question: "Well, Dad, what do you
think? Was it ENVIRONMENT, or HEREDITY?"

>>The kid has won the day...if the dad says "ENVIRONMENT", then the
parents are to blame...if the dad says "HEREDITY", then the parents
are to blame likewise...UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES is the kid a
'fault-center'. http://www.christian-thinktank.com/what.html

I thought THIS was hilarious! LOL.

The author is correct. I agree with him. If a *being* (for instance
the child) is redefined to mean "as set of results from
factors", then there is no such thing as conscious choice. When
Secular Science redefines people to be as programmed entities, then
this is a horrible conclusion! When the human condition is redefined
to mean that of a biological robot --which is unable to think and make
conscious choices because of program history-- then I *sigh* and say,
"What a irresponsible way Secular Science has slotted humanity into!"
Ultimately, as a logical following through of this line of thought,
Secular Science has taken away a person's conscious responsibility and
has reduced him/or her to that of machines. Not only have people been
defined as biological machines, but we are in such a low and confused
condition because Our Only Purpose Is To *Live and Reproduce*. To me,
this final conclusion is *Mindless Replication* (such as that of a
virus that infects the face of the Earth). Oh, as well, the Theory of
Evolution tries to establish a higher purpose for humans to attain
(for all life to attain). But the notion, "Survival of the fittest",
is actually truly evil and will only defeat itself. LOL. Just hear
me out. According to Socrates, "Survival of the fittest", or of each
man versus every other man, will only result in men killing each
other. Each man fights the other, and the last standing will then do
himself in (self-destruct) because he would be alone and have only
himself to quarrel with. LOL. The notion of "Survival of the
fittest" really translates to mean as "Life As War" or "each one, kill
many" or "Naqoyqatsi". The Evolutionary notion of "Survival of the
fittest" is really not evolution but de-evolution into oblivion. Now
Darwin only observed how life changes its outward appear. So, he
could not infer *what the consciousness of life was* and what its
purpose was. Charles Darwin was unfortunately not asking
philosophical questions because he was only studying the matter of
this world. He recorded what objective reality looked like to him.
He only saw the fighting (the sin of the world), the war, or "life eat
life just to live", and he then tried to infer from this objective
reality as to what the propose of this struggle is. His final
conclusion was the notion, "Survival of the fittest." ...And this
notion, I do not subscribe to.

Define fit.

In some cases, fit can be the ability to reproduce rapidly. In other cases, it is the best way of gathering food, or the best colour to avoid predators. In societies, "fit" is how to work with the society and fit in best- which in human society means you take care of your kids and your elders, and sacrifice your needs for the good of the community.

...of course the two frogs with the perfect colour combination to survive might get hit by a truck on the way to the next pond. And the poor cheetas, forced into a genetic bottleneck after the last ice age wiped out a lot of their habitat, and now further endangered by humans... if a critter that can go faster than my car isn't fit, then I don't know what is. Evolution isn't "survival of the fittest" it's survival of the lucky.

I believe it's more likely to be a combination of the two

TK[1]

‘Fit’ used as a Transitive Verb:

transitive verb to make somebody or something ready or suitable for a task, function, or purpose

Greetings Scandrea:

I am glad that you ask me questions.

-->>Okay, you have now read the ABOVE,
which is my intent of meaning of "fit" that I used
in the statement "Survival of the fittest".

Please proceed to read the following of my clarification concerning your questions:

I have read Charles Darwins "observations", or what he saw as many "varieties" of (for instance) finches on the Galapagos Islands.

The example of the finches posed a question to him:

Why are there so many "varieties" of finches?

So, he investigated and (years later) concluded that the different "varieties" arose because the place of the Galapagos was insular (its own world), which proved to be a ground for beings of the same genus to then develop into many different species. So although the finches were all alike in their "finchness", however, different *races* of birds arose. Charles Darwin then further asked about this objective reality as to why different races of finches arose and also why did these birds squabble with each other from time to time even though they were alike in their "finchness". Now, I am using ONE example. As you already know, there are countless examples.

Please keep hearing me out. Please have patience.

Now, when I put in the notion "Survival of the fittest" in my recent post. I FORGOT to say "Natural Selection". LOL. I can be absent-minded sometimes. So when I write, I put in the right idea but I sometimes use the wrong coined statement. LOL. The term "Survival of the fittest" was based on Charles Darwin's IDEA/theory that he termed as "Natural Selection". The term "Survival of the fittest" was first coined by Herbert Spencer later on after Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species", which was published in 1859.

Now, when I used the term "Survival of the fittest", I also FORGOT to mention *Charles Darwin's hindsight* of what his observations of the Galapagos Islands and his concluding IDEA/theory of "Natural Selection" could mean. I give respect to Charles Darwin's belated afterthought concerning what he first presented, which was the notion of "Natural Selection". He later wrote "The Descent of Man" in 1871, which was to address what I was proposing in my recent post. So, Mr. Darwin proposed that Evolution could be De-Evolution for humankind (but perhaps he did imply that all life could end up in a low and mean state). I further FORGOT to mention that Charles Darwin specifically criticized the justification of cruel social policies at home (in Britain) and imperialism abroad in his book "The Descent of Man".

Just keep hearing me out please.

Now to finish talking about Charles Darwin's observations on the Galapagos Islands:

He did make the conclusion that (for instance) finches on the Galapagos Islands adapted and specialized --which is why there were so many varieties of these birds-- according to their environment or the place in which they existed. Now, remember that I said that Charles Darwin included in his observations the Galapagos Islands as really a world apart from the greater world called Earth? Okay, with this thought in mind, he saw micro (individual) examples of animals (life) on the Galapagos adapting, specializing, and struggling to survive in this insular world. This is why he concluded that the objective purpose to this reality is for the animals (life) to adapt, specialize and struggle to survive. OR "Survival of the fittest" IS the purpose, which he termed as "Natural Selection". These two terms cover the same idea, and I stick to what I say.

Now, according to *Charles Darwin's hindsight* concerning the notion he first proposed (or what he objectively saw on the Galapagos), he then talked about what I said in my recent post. So, the way of life as "Natural Selection" and "Survival as the fittest" translates to mean (as Socrates before Darwin philosophized about) "Life As War". Now Socrates had the same idea of what I just said but he DID NOT use the term "Life As War" just like I did. . Socrates philosophized that, "If justice is established by the strong, and the strong are the 'fittest' according to the world in which they live, then justice is not just." What Socrates was philosophically proposing was that, "if justice was meant to serve the purposes of the strong and fit, and the purpose of the strong is to always be in competition with their peers and to finally remain dominant over the weaker (the ruled), then justice is really WAR." So, "Life As War" does not ever mean peace but will only result in the "Descent of Man". Or, like I said in my recent post: ...each man versus every other man, will only result in men killing each other. Each man fights the other, and the last standing will then do himself in (self-destruct) because he would be alone and have only himself to quarrel with.

So, now are you starting to better see my philosophy or what I was proposing in my last post?

I am sorry for my recent post being stated so simply. I did not elaborate enough and I made the mistake of FORGETTING to add the term "Natural Selection" along with the term "Survival of the fittest", which both cover the same objective reality that Charles Darwin observed on the Galapagos Islands. I also further made the mistake, in my last post, to not add that Charles Darwin had an *afterthought* concerning what the ramifications of his objective rationale, which was first proposed in his "On the Origin of Species", COULD MEAN.

So, the proposition I made in my recent post is a POSSIBILITY or a perspective with firm evidence to support its argument.

Overall, thank you for challenging me. I am becoming an Academic right now, so I need the practice of challenge and debate because this (LOL) can make me better able (stronger) to put forth very clear theories of mine, or of what I agree with.

<>

No...


Because it's wrong!

I'm sorry to put it so bluntly, but you have to look at these sorts of things in a bigger context.

OK- hypothetical situation. You take a man, and put him on a deserted island. There is limited food and water that periodically gets replenished, and thousands of other species competing for it, and some willing to make a meal out of him. Would he survive? More than likely not, or not without consequences to his health, even if he was a professional weightlifter that ran twelve miles each morning before sitting down with his survivalist manuals. There are too many other things out there that are too well adapted- if a tiger didn't get him, E. coli would.

Now let's say you take a bunch of people and strand them on this same island. They're average people, some strong where others are weak. Would they survive? In all likelihood, yes! Some would build shelters, some would hunt and protect the camp, some would care for the sick and wounded... you get the idea. Lord of the Flies was fiction.

Look at monkeys- they are proven to be our closest relatives via DNA- gorillas are a 90% match, right? Have you ever seen a solitary monkey? They run around in troops, like wolves run around in packs, small fish school, and geese flock together. Humans are SOCIAL animals- that's why they build cities, make friends, congregate in nightclubs... it's not one man against the rest of the world, it's a group of humans genetically programmed to be "fit" by helping each other through life, and thereby propagating the species. Of course, there's some smaller conflicts about who gets to mate with who, but there are the like in every social species.

I only said SEE. I did not mean AGREE with me.

Oh dear, , Scandrea, I understand your examples. But I am not wrong, but proposing a perspective you have not fully considered.

The circumstances of this world are POSSIBILITIES. Now, you've already stated certain examples as possiblities. Furthermore, what you are saying is that your examples are the most likely reality to exist. This is true concerning what you say. However, you misunderstood what I meant by "Life As War". I did not say that men are so belligerent to one another that they cannot possibly be together and exist peaceably.

[For men to be together, they have to agree and work toward a purpose that ALL of them can agree on.]

I should have further clarified for you. Well, I can admit to that mistake. LOL. Please be patient with me instead of immediately saying that I am wrong, or even implying that I am crazy.

Now like I already said, I agree with you that men (animals alike) exist in social troops. Even badgers have to come together for a shared purpose. . But I supposed that you had already considered that all genus of animal go to WAR, but also try to live peaceably.

So right now, for you to see, I present this situation:

On the island, (as example of "Lord of the Flies"), the kids try to establish a stable peaceful society. However, THIS attempt fails because *necessities of life* have not been sufficiently met for a "peaceful" society to exist. So, the kids live "Life As War" or live in a low and mean state of murder and brutality.

I have read Lord of the Flies.

Now, before you write me off (and I assume this) as ONLY "bookish" and, therefore, out of touch with reality, please be patient with me and hear me out. You cannot tell me that I am wrong because you do not know me or what my life experiences have been like. But what you can do is further inquire as to why I proposed my ideas, which you disagree with. Then finally, you can either believe what I am saying or you can let me keep to my perspective. [Keeping to our different opinions will not necessarily (because of civil effort) result in WAR.] But to call me wrong is not your place to say, my dear. . For instance (just hear out this example) 52% of the American people have voted for Bush Junior, and would you say that they are wrong? To you they are wrong, but they can also say that you are wrong because you offer NO OTHER FEASIBLE options for them to choose. So, the American people voted for Bush Junior because he provides a consistent and certain way to follow (perspective) unlike Kerry who was *unsure* but still willing to keep to the war. Scandrea, what I am saying by this example, is that the world is full of possibilities but only certain ideas BECOME situations when they are 1st) recognized, and 2nd) choosen.

To get back to my example from Lord of the Flies:

The one child first had the idea of establishing a peaceful society, and the other children recognized this idea and then chose it. So, the idea of the peaceful society was implemented. However, THIS idea couldn't sustain itself in the environment because the "necessities of life" were difficult to gather, and thus, this struggle proved to make the peaceful society break into two tribes.
The child leader of the dissenting tribe then declared war on the leader of the tribe, who first thought to establish a peaceful society. Finally a ship arrives, and the children are caught sight of.
The children then realize the shame for what they've become. The adults of the ship have just witnessed that TWO BOYS are already dead because they were murdered (I believe this is correct) and the rest of the children have De-Evolved into brutal animals. As brutal animals, the children murder other animals for them to survive (please do not think that I am TALKING from a vegetarian view), and they have degenerated into the state of fighting each other.

Now like I said before, I understand your very real examples. But what I have been philosophizing about is "Life As War" or Evolution as De-Evolution. The reality you've talked about has TWO RULES, which are the following:

1) For Life to Live, life has to murder life. So one life has to be murdered (or eaten) or also die (as in, expire) for another to live.

Life is a paradox (or contradicts itself) since death is included in the definition (the word) of life.

2) To live comfortably, one life subjurgates another life. Or to talk less abstract: Humans have domesticated all sorts of species of animal. For instance, cows are ruled by us and have been categorized as "food" (livestock) so that we can live comfortably at their expense. Now, let me put Cows in the place of Humans (and Humans in the place of Cows). With this switch, the cows now rule the humans (or the cows are like vampires) and the humans are, therefore, in the unfortunate position as "food".

Please be patient with me. I know that you want to jump to conclusions but continue to hear me out.

In history, humans have been in the category of "food" for other animals. As well, viruses have ravaged our bodies (and brain matter) because we are a harvest for them to subsist on.

[I also study Virology and the History Of Disease. LOL. Try not to think that I am being a-know-it-all. I can't be a-know-it-all because learning and living is a continual effort and process.]



Scandrea what I was proposing, is the problem with the reality of this world --EVOLUTIONARY THEORY-- that puts living beings into the position in which they have to be brutal to one another (struggle to survive) or murder each other (such as, life eat life) in order to live. What I was proposing is that, "If the struggle to survive is a *STRUGGLE* to the fullest meaning, then Evolution could be De-Evolution. If the RULES of the struggle to survive are brutal, then all living beings have no choice but to play by these inmutable rules. Evolution of life within this already established reality only means that (for instance) animals can ONLY change their outward appearances, their size, whatever else, and the outward appearances of their environment. But the RULES, which make them struggle and brutal, cannot change."

So Scandrea, to fall back to my example of the 52% vote for Bush Junior: 52% of Americans voted for Bush Junior because they saw NO OTHER FEASIBLE options (choices) to solve the current dilemma (or change reality).

Now you have several retorts. I will address your immediate retort (if I guess right):

If life didn't eat another life, if life didn't die, then the world and the universe would be full of Cells Of Life that don't die off and only result in a CANCER.

Well, I am currently meditating about why reality is the way it is. I ask, "Can reality be different? Or is this existence the best POSSIBILE reality that can ever exist?"

What you first saw in my proposition (that post to which you quickly replied ), is my musing, wondering, meditation and philosophizing. So, I do not expect you to AGREE but perhaps SEE what I talk about.

Scandrea, what I unfortunately can't zip-file for you to fully understand, is that I see all of your examples as the ONE POSSIBILE reality of this world (of this universe) because no other way seems plausible or attainable to have all of life exist in peace. THIS physical material reality, although the form can be change but not the RULES that keep this reality intack, has all animals (beings who are born) be automatically put into the position of (1) and (2) (please refer to my list of the TWO RULES of reality). Or all living beings come into a world of struggle and suffering.

Now, you have several retorts. But I will only address one more (if I guess right): If life is nothing but struggling and suffering, then why do animals try to get along within their own groups? Or why do humans try to exist in peaceful societies?

However, I've already answered your question.

In the reality of struggle and survival, animals (also plants) and humans stay alive by not eating their own kind. If animals ate their own kind *all the time*, then their kind would self-destruct or eat each other out of existence. LOL. So, each genus of living being eat (or murder) something that is not of their genus. Doing this enables the notion of peace to exist within species. However, sharing is a matter of war more often then not. So although a species, such as human beings, do not rely on each other (all the time) as a "food resource", wars have been fought because 1) livestock was scarce, 2) territory, in which there was food, was scarce, and 3) because of greed and fear. Or a group (an elite, a class, or also a disgruntled untrusting people) did not share the "necessities of life".

Scandrea, I can write for hours and hours about my philosophizing. LOL. Well, I already do. .

Overall, in sum, I do not like the reality of (and neither do some philosophers, scholars, and even people without titles) "Natural Selection" and "Survival of the fittest" because this objective reality always puts people (no matter who or what they are), or all living beings, into the position of "Eat or be eaten. Murder or be murdered. Kill or be Killed." The situation is not only brutal in this sense but is also difficult to observe from an alien outside perspective. Well, I one time wrote the story, "Leiann the Space Cadet." So, perhaps I am somewhat of an alien from the imagination. LOL. But I am most certainly not crazy.



************************************************************************
I only said SEE. I did not mean AGREE with me.
************************************************************************

There are some typos in the above, which definately shows that I am not perfect and most certainly not arrogant as a Know-It-All.

Well, you can further ask me questions. Or read what I post. But, please refrain from saying that I am wrong. Also when do you present examples to me (to support your argument), I will ALWAYS (actually more often than not) respond as an observer or in an impartial manner.

***I do agree that EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
is the best observation of THIS REALITY in which we exist***

Overall, in sum, I do not like the reality of (and neither do some philosophers, scholars, and even people without titles) "Natural Selection" and "Survival of the fittest" because this objective reality always puts people (no matter who or what they are), or all living beings, into the position of "Eat or be eaten. Murder or be murdered. Kill or be Killed." The situation is not only brutal in this sense but is also difficult to observe NOT from alien outside perspective. Well, I one time wrote the story, "Leiann the Space Cadet." So, perhaps I am somewhat of an alien from the imagination. LOL. But I am most certainly not crazy.



************************************************************************
I only said SEE. I did not mean AGREE with me.
************************************************************************

When I type I sometimes leave out necessary words. So, when you've reached the last PARAGRAPH of my essay response to your recent reply, be sure to know that I left out the word "NOT" in...

The situation is not only brutal in this sense but is also difficult to observe [NOT] from an alien outside perspective. Well, I one time wrote the story, "Leiann the Space Cadet." So, perhaps I am somewhat of an alien from the imagination. LOL. But I am most certainly not crazy.