Domestication

Vanitas wrote:

How an inIn Africa, where there's no real winters to speak of, they still cannot produce a food surplus after hundreds of thousands of years of farming...

Egypt.

Quote :

That you think I'm a capitalist or that you use the term "conservative" in the same old typically liberal way, is indeed funny.

The above exchange with Vanitas has made your political positions abundantly clear.

Quote :

What he intended was to offer a plausible excuse which made the divergence observed and which cannot be denied, less insulting to some segments of the population.

Whilst conveniently ignoring the subconscious motivations of his own racial nature?

Quote :

After all, who can be blamed for blind chance?

The blind watchmaker only worked up to the point intelligent consciousness evolved. After that the situation becomes much more complicated, as consciousness begins to play a role in determing the future.

Quote :

What a defeatist attitude.
Are you powerless to preserve your concepts of truth, your ideals, your ideas, within the pressures of modernity and the bullshit which confronts you?
Are you powerless to become more discriminating in a world telling you that it is "wrong" to do so?
Are you powerless to distinguish your own not by genetics or nationalities, alone, but by memes, demeanour, a sense of aristocracy?

You must alter your perspective here.
If you were to find yourself in the jungle, would you want to change it, correct it, liberate it?
Would you wish to save the creatures that habitat it from their suffering, their ignorance, their baseness?

No, you would study it, know it, understand it and all the elements comprising it; all the animals that populate it.

Now transpose this to this world; apply it to these manmade environments.
The only big difference being that in this New Age, the animals all appear to be the same, because they are of the same species...they almost the same genes.
The differentiating markers are no longer easily discernible. Now the divisions are about spirit: meme.
What does this mean? Ideals, principles, thinking, spirituality.

Isn't it rather ironic that you call my attitude defeatist right after telling me you consider 'dropping out' the only means of surviving this cultural holocaust? You fail to understand the simulacrum. It has no intention of destroying our ideals or our ability to discriminate or of enslaving us. The simulacrum can enrich our cutural experiences, just as one can find the world's finest chefs and restuaranteurs in America, inspired there to ever greater culinary creations, even though its a nation lacking any culture of its own, simply because humans move to where there is capital, as it presents the best opportunities to free themselves up from a life of labor and express their nature.

Quote :

The Matrix is a perfect example. In it the "real" humans coexist with the asleep one; they enter and exit their world at will.
It is dangerous, no doubt, but it is also rewarding.
Now, the difference here is that in opposition to the Hollywood message where the real humans wish to free all of humanity in this case I say that this should not be the goal.
Those who are free shall be the ones who can free themselves. The others should remain as they are because even if one would dream of freeing them, as in the movie, this would be impossible. the shock would kill them or they would prefer to return, like that character did in the movie.

You project a common theme onto the Matrix, one that liberals everywhere do. That of rebels/resistence vs oppressor, but you alter it according to your own philosophy, creating your own dystopian vision of the future, one where you are increasingly relegated into the role of observer against a seemingly unstoppable chaos and relativism overtaking man. Unfortunately your interpretation is one that some black 'thinkers' frequently use as well, albeit in a slightly less subtle way.

But I would suggest that the chaos you witness around you is the work of the simulacrum, not of some natural force you like to term entropy. That's clearly provable when we look at how Western governments have acted over the past century, encouraging mass immigration to the detriment of their own people, creating concepts such as rights for the weak and unfit, etc...

In the film it is the machines ruthless efficiency that we are expected to side against in these liberal times, but which I find myself siding with, as it is a projection of the most rational aspects of the Western psyche, a distillation of the purest in Greek thought. An undeniable logic.

As you point out the 'humans' live undergorund, but as is made clear in the film the location and climate of that place puts it closer to Africa. It is far removed from the northern hemisphere:

Quote :

Neo : Where is it?
Tank : Deep underground, near the Earth's core, where it's still
warm.

Tank and Dozer pure human... both black. Tank describes himself as a "genuine child of zion". 'Zion', whilst also being a synonym for Jerusalem, is also a Rastafarian word for Africa.

Quote :

"In the Rastafari movement, "Zion" stands for a utopian place of unity, peace and freedom, as opposed to "Babylon", the oppressing and exploiting system of the western world and a place of evil.

For Rastafarians, Zion is to be found in Africa, and more specifically in Ethiopia, where the term is also in use. Some Rastas believe themselves to represent the real Children of Israel in modern times, and their goal is to repatriate to Africa, or to Zion."

Who can doubt this interpretation when in the film Zion is almost entirely black and governed by tribal rituals, drumming, feet stamping and nudity?

Without going into this laboriously, I've collected loads of notes on this film and researched it, with the intention of writing an essay on it, but I simply haven't had the time to due to work commitments and what have you. Zion has been destroyed many times before, and as the Architect makes clear in the film the machines have become increasingly more efficient at doing so with each passing destruction.

'Neo' represents to me any prophetic figure, a false dawn, which is quite pertinent to my interpretation as Keanu Reeves is racially mixed, half of him coming from the east. The cyclical destruction of Zion is simply a metaphor for the continual evolutionary eradication of more primitive phenotypes and cultures. Hence, at the end of the film the question is left hanging. The machines have not acted 'wrongly', but only within the parameters of their programming. Neo has prevented the apocalypse, but only temporarily and to what end? So that we can return to a more tribal state of existence, go backwards in evolutionary terms? No my dear, this ending is only to satisfy the hypocrisy of white liberalism, to feed the simulacrum itself. The fact is that the 'humans' will inevitably expose themselves to be the animals they are, guided primarily by instinct and emotion, incapable of higher reasoning, so invariably the machines will continue to do their work, as evolution is a process without end.

The Matrix itself can only be compared to Baudrillard's simulacrum on a simplistic level. The simulacrum already dominates the world. There is no 'natural space' into which one might escape or be 'unplugged'; only areas which are maintained to give the illusion of nature still flourishing independently. As Baudrillard points out, "Disneyland exists to make the rest of America seem real". Nowhere is this more obviously true than the internet, our own hyper reality, where we're already programs maintaining the Matrix.

If you we're really interested in staying out of the simulacrum, Satyr, you wouldn't be online. Yet here you are, plugged in, proving yourself to be quite a program indeed. Perhaps you should change your moniker to Merovingi? Drinking fine wines, wiping your derriere with silk whilst admiring female ass would seem to appeal to you.

OK, you're not a Luddite, I know, but where is this virgin nature that exists independently of the simulacrum?

Quote :

Then seek out and cooperate and share and create with your own kind.

In the simulacrum 'seeking out' seems more and more an anachronism, as spatial and temporal boundaries are reduced to zero.

What time is it in this place?
Where is this place?

phoneutria wrote:

Vanitas wrote:

How an inIn Africa, where there's no real winters to speak of, they still cannot produce a food surplus after hundreds of thousands of years of farming...

Egypt.

Can't you even be bothered to flesh out an argument? It won't be one that I haven't heard before, but even a half decent troll would flesh out an argument, perhaps you are not even that, just thick?

I don't waste my time with brutes.

phoneutria wrote:

I don't waste my time with brutes.

Of course not my dear, you're far too pure and above me.

I'm only a sad gorilla, sitting in his cage rattling the bars.
Or worse.

(Is that why you responded in the first place?)

I can see why he equates postmodernity and liberalism with entropy, for they allow recessive memes and genes, the weakest and the stupidest to flourish unabated, even encouraging their growth, and individuals have become too dependent on technology and each other for survival.

But I'm not sure of what use a term like entropy is in a debate like this, it only really makes sense in physics when discussing inorganic systems. It implies a natural tendency at work, when post modern culture is still a system with limits and controls maintained by men.

I'm basically simple and it confuses me.

Satisfying all of our needs and especially all of our wants, makes us fat, weak and decadent. Keeping everyone alive makes us fat, weak and decadent. To be absolutely complete and fulfilled is to be a corpse. To be absolutely incomplete and unfulfilled is to be a corpse. Therefore, moderation + quality = life. The Parmenidean one (entropy) can be achieved, not just in one way, as we've all been told, but in two. Through absolute deprivation, and spoiling, saturation. It is this homogenous, uniform one (chaos) liberals and postmodernists pursue- inactive, ataraxic, atrophic and completely contented. In reality, it is no different than death, with a positive spin, a somethingism, not unlike nothingism. It is the Heraclitean fragmentation and individuation Satyr seeks, not entirely satiated, not entirely unsatiated, in other words, life, for what is life without death or the threat of? Satyr's philosophy is one of the most ingenious philosophies I have ever encountered, or at least my interpretation of it is, but he doesn't always make his ideas clear, it's like he's testing us, giving us clues, hints and pieces of the puzzle we must put together ourselves. I've had similar thoughts for some time, but I don't think I ever quite put it together as well as he has.

Let's try to bring his philosophy down to earth.

Is it healthy to eat whatever one wants?

Is it healthy not to have to move a muscle?

Is it healthy to spend all or most of one's life in the simulacrum, cut off from nature, from the environment we evolved in?

Is it healthy to blast your brain and eyes with a steady stream of electromagnetic waves and light?

To be completely dependent on machines for survival? What if the machines turn on us, or we run out of resources to maintain them?

To extend human rights to the genetically and memetically retarded?

Of course he's not arguing for a return to the jungle, rather I would describe him as a modernist (as opposed to a postmodernist or premodernist), whilst wanting to retain some of the innovations and inventions of the previous half century. Politically I would describe him as an aristocratic republican.

Key words here are nature, need and pain. Can a man be said to be alive without being in touch with them? Therefore, he is not a hedonist, a materialist, nor a seeker of religious or secular immortality. He familiarizes himself with them, they give him strength, fortitude. Such is the path of the male and the warrior. Does not one feel most alive when confronting death? Does not a life of leisure and luxury sour appreciation?

Quote :

Egypt.

BTW, I think Vanitas was referring to Sub-Saharan Africans (Negroids), not north Africans (a sub-race of Caucasians).

Quote :

BTW, I think Vanitas was referring to Sub-Saharan Africans (Negroids), not north Africans (a sub-race of Caucasians).

lol thanks, eyes. I don't know where I'd be without you.

eyesinthedark wrote:

Whenever and wherever I've heard the word used, it has always been to refer to technologically advanced and socially stratified cultures, not just any culture, I've yet to hear a historian or scientist refer to monkeys in a pond, sharing feces and half-baked ideas as a civilization, or the art of fishing for ants with a stick.

Here's the definition Satyr attempted to counter me with-

1. an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached.

How does one measure advanced, hmmm?, if not by whether they have some semblances of urbanity or not? How can one be civil if he/she dwells in pig vomit or eats raw meat?

I have watched documentaries and read books where the author was attempting to determine whether this culture was a civilization, or that culture was a civilization. No, he/she would say, I don't think they qualify, because they didn't have agriculture, or they didn't have writing, or they didn't have centralization of power, a government.

I think you're unwitting attempting to equate monkey culture with civilization. You don't want there to be a word to distinguish the two. You despise social analysis, you only acknowledge social synthesis and that is your major malfunction, spider.

I bet to you, all religions are one, and there are no races, they're man made arbitrations.

Lets ignore this brief burst of teen blood and try to focus on the missunderstanding: it seems that you have declared urbanism and civility mutually exclusive, that to live in a civil way I must go somewhere where people live in the mud or eat vomit or whatever fantasy your priviledged little mind is able to conjure.

I hope for all of us that you are wrong.

Urbanism and civility are completely independed adjectives indeed, and can evolve independently, but they are not by any means mutually exclusive.
Both urbanism and civility have the same objective, which is to improve our quality of life.
If one that evolves and not the other, there will be notable shortcomings in that society.


In dumb words, civility does not stand in a society where physical resources lack, and urbanism does not stand in a society where there is no respect for a common conduct.

And I only whote this many words because I like you, kid. Expect less. In fact, expect nothing.

eyesinthedark wrote:

Is it healthy to spend all or most of one's life in the simulacrum, cut off from nature, from the environment we evolved in?

The problem here is that go back far enough and we are the environment.

Our evolution has not been solely determined by an interaction with a separate entity termed the environment, but an interaction with ourselves, our own internal nature which is nothing other than the very environment that surrounds us. One learns that there is no absolute dividing line separating the inner and the outer.

Ergo, our nature, contrary to the popular mythologies emanating from evolutionary anthropologists, has a large if not decisive component determined by what is invisible to the naked eye. The reason that liberal half-wits like Diamond and Jablonski create these theories that try to do away with the visible aspects of race is precisely for reasons of social control for the ignorant masses who cannot see beyond their noses, what they can touch and smell, and they are guided by this their whole lives, as sheep are corralled by the fences and gates around them.

Yet it is the invisible parts of our racial nature, the major parts, that have created and maintain the simulacrum. It is post-modernism that will give us the final vindication for doing away with all that is impure in the world. The simulacrum is a tool that only gives people what they want so that it can suck them dry and destroy them.

(The primitive was dissected and analyzed centuries ago, there was never any doubt then as there is none now. That the science has been hidden away, now invisible to our eyes, so that the untermensch, like the cattle entering the slaughterhouse, will not be caused unnecessary anxiety, is not cause to think that it no longer determines the course of the simulacrum, or that it is gone forever)

I'm going to have to disagree with you, Vanitas. It is common these days to hear people say humans and our constructions are a part of nature, or there is no precise demarcation between man and nature.
When an ant or a bee builds a nest, or when a beaver builds a dam, it does so instinctively, an instinct that took millions of years to evolve, subsequently the surrounding environment- animals and plants, have had millions of years to accommodate and adapt to these constructions, they do not significantly disrupt their environment.
When man constructs a mall or a piece of plastic, he does so intelligently, subsequently the object itself, or the accumulation of thousands, millions of such objects, have the power to significantly interfere with and alter the course of the surrounding environment, to extinguish thousands, millions of animal and plant species.

Man is the first animal that does not adapt himself to his environment (although he is capable of this as well, via his instincts and his Dionysian, right brain), he adapts his environment to him.
Now, there are those who say this knowledge, this power should only be used when necessary, it should not be abused, and there are those, like you, who say we should proceed in converting all of nature into artifice, into something human, or fit for humans, and I think this an act of hubris. Can humans survive without nature? Do we not want to preserve at least a portion of it? I certainly do, and there are many who agree with my sentiments. However, nor do I wish to put an end to civilization, to see a return to primitive living, but we have to make it more sustainable.

In a world of finite resources, the notion of endless growth is absurd, the time has come for capitalism and consumerism to end, or slow down, and I hope communitarian governments will get elected.
We cannot allow Brazil, Russia, India and China to become another United States of America, I do not think the planet earth could endure it. In the face of resource scarcity, peak oil and other threats, we need to power down our economy, we need centralization of power, to replace human rights with human privileges, that or the individual must take responsibility and slow themselves down, consume less, or government will have to step in.

Is consumerism healthy? Is cancer not dramatically increasing? I think your mentality is becoming obsolete. I hope we can make the transition without government, as I fear government, the power it has to destroy and enslave us, but I also fear the tyranny of the individual. If only people could live a simpler, slower paced lifestyle, and realize the benefits of a more natural way of life. Get more exercise, eat healthy, organic foods, stop participating in this rat race, this unnecessary acquisition and hoarding of matter.

In stark contrast, human constructions, conceived and introduced into the surrounding environment within mere weeks or months, stand before nature as wholly new, unprecedented phenomena, to which nature has no reply.. it cannot cope. There is indeed something different about what it is we do. We possess both Brahma and Siva, with such power comes great responsibility, and if we do not take responsibility, then I'm afraid we shall perish, man, animal and plant alike. There is indeed something alien, about man, something foreign. I do not think it was pride alone, that lead men to believe they were descended from the Gods. Perhaps we have a partially extraterrestrial origin, which would explain this imbalance of power.

eyesinthedark wrote:

Is it healthy to eat whatever one wants?

Is it healthy not to have to move a muscle?

Is it healthy to spend all or most of one's life in the simulacrum, cut off from nature, from the environment we evolved in?

Is it healthy to blast your brain and eyes with a steady stream of electromagnetic waves and light?

To be completely dependent on machines for survival? What if the machines turn on us, or we run out of resources to maintain them?

To extend human rights to the genetically and memetically retarded?

Of course he's not arguing for a return to the jungle, rather I would describe him as a modernist (as opposed to a postmodernist or premodernist), whilst wanting to retain some of the innovations and inventions of the previous half century. Politically I would describe him as an aristocratic republican.

Key words here are nature, need and pain. Can a man be said to be alive without being in touch with them? Therefore, he is not a hedonist, a materialist, nor a seeker of religious or secular immortality. He familiarizes himself with them, they give him strength, fortitude. Such is the path of the male and the warrior. Does not one feel most alive when confronting death? Does not a life of leisure and luxury sour appreciation?

Who is supposed to answer?

Quote :

Who is supposed to answer?

Vanitas

Quote :

In stark contrast, human constructions, conceived and introduced into the surrounding environment within mere weeks or months, stand before nature as wholly new, unprecedented phenomena, to which nature has no reply.. it cannot cope. There is indeed something different about what it is we do. We possess both Brahma and Siva, with such power comes great responsibility, and if we do not take responsibility, then I'm afraid we shall perish, man, animal and plant alike. There is indeed something alien, about man, something foreign. I do not think it was pride alone, that lead men to believe they were descended from the Gods. Perhaps we have a partially extraterrestrial origin, which would explain this imbalance of power.

Nature cannot cope? Man arrives in an era when nature has already extinguished over 99% of all the species that have ever lived, yet you would seek to reverse this natural decline or suggest it's wrong? Who was responsible for all this devastation before man arrived? You seek shelter and separation from the very thing you claim to want to embrace, suggesting a somewhat schizoid position. That you introduce the supernatural or extraterrestrials into it shows how out of touch with your own nature you are.

To use the pre-human extintion rate as an argument for our supposed small impact on nature is very misleading.
I 'm sure I don't need to elaborate on that either.

However I agree with the ultimate point that nature doesn't care and will go on. It is ourselves we're putting at risk.

phoneutria wrote:

our supposed small impact on nature

Where did I say our impact on nature had been small?

You propose that our effect on the world is natural, as in "reverse this natural decline", however, you don't offer a timeline or the other causes for this 99% extintion, leading the reader to conclude that everything just "naturally" died off. It is misleading, as is everything you write. You put so many words into your posts, and still manage to turn out lazy and dishonest arguments. Makes me cringe a little.


edit: typo.

Quote :

Nature cannot cope? Man arrives in an era when nature has already extinguished over 99% of all the species that have ever lived, yet you would seek to reverse this natural decline or suggest it's wrong? Who was responsible for all this devastation before man arrived? You seek shelter and separation from the very thing you claim to want to embrace, suggesting a somewhat schizoid position. That you introduce the supernatural or extraterrestrials into it shows how out of touch with your own nature you are.

I thought I explained why it's not a natural process (intellectual as opposed to instinctual manipulations of the environment), or at least why I think it's not a natural process.

Whether it's natural or not, it's harmful, like cancer is harmful, harmful to it's self, in addition to the host it depends on. There are no other hosts, we only have one earth, we almost certainly won't be able to reach another earth in time, after we've ravaged this one in nuclear Armageddon over control of the earths dwindling resources. All because we couldn't control our unnecessary appetites.

This civilization is unsustainable. In natural processes, animals and plants eventually evolve to counterbalance the aggression of other animals and plants, so no one dominates for long/grows indefinitely. Nothing can stop our cancerous growth, except the Gods, or reason.. or antihumanism/neofeudalism.

The key is you can be an environmentalist on largely social Darwinist and egoist grounds.

Civilization has fallen many times before, due to overpopulation, soil depletion, erosion, over-consumption of critical natural resources. There's no survival or health advantage to owning an iPod, or driving a hummer, or eating copious amounts of food, or traveling to Alaska, then Japan, then India...

There's nothing fit about consumerism, it's actually unfit.

phoneutria wrote:

You propose that our effect on the world is natural, as in "reverse this natural decline", however, you don't offer a timeline or the other causes for this 99% extintion, leading the reader to conclude that everything just "naturally" died off.

So explain how a species prior to the evolution of man could go extinct unnaturally if you are adhering to eyes' interpretation of what is unnatural? If you have your own then please furnish us with it.

Quote :

It is misleading, as is everything you write. You put so many words into your posts, and still manage to turn out lazy and dishonest arguments. Makes me cringe a little.

How interesting that it's your responses that are lazy, barely a sentence or two. Sometimes only one word. Yet you accuse others of being misleading when you are almost completely ambiguous. Don't your posts make you cringe when you read them back to yourself?

I know they do.

eyesinthedark wrote:

I thought I explained why it's not a natural process (intellectual as opposed to instinctual manipulations of the environment), or at least why I think it's not a natural process.

It's a question of degree. In all manipulation of the environment the intellect is at work, it is only in animals this quality is grossly underdeveloped compared to man, but everyday I witness 'humans' acting instinctively, with little or no intellectual input, or animals such as primates and corvids using their intellects.

Beavers don't all build the same quality of dam nor bees the same quality of hive. Within a species there is intense competition with the weak or unfit or simply less successful dying off or becoming less dominant. What becomes more clear here is when species encroach on each other we approach a situation similar to that you described above, where a man made product encounters nature, as an animal has not evolved to deal with new predators in its environment, yet such encounters are necessary for evolution to move forward. Could not the savages in the New World have raised the same objection as you to the arrival of the Spanish and Portuguese conquistadors?

How an artificial construct survives its encounter with the environment determines its success, that environment includes other humans. Here it is the intelligence, imagination and foresight of its creators that is under the spotlight, as it is their nature that is really being tested. If we are unable to negotiate it or survive it, then this is nothing other than example of intra-species competition and we are the failures.

Quote :

Whether it's natural or not, it's harmful, like cancer is harmful, harmful to it's self, in addition to the host it depends on. There are no other hosts, we only have one earth, we almost certainly won't be able to reach another earth in time, after we've ravaged this one in nuclear Armageddon over control of the earths dwindling resources. All because we couldn't control our unnecessary appetites.

This civilization is unsustainable. In natural processes, animals and plants eventually evolve to counterbalance the aggression of other animals and plants, so no one dominates for long/grows indefinitely. Nothing can stop our cancerous growth, except the Gods, or reason.. or antihumanism/neofeudalism.

All life is typified by the rise and fall of its power. That some have no power and wish to lower others is simply another tactic of survival, where one acts as a leech upon the more powerful.

Quote :

There's no survival or health advantage to owning an iPod, or driving a hummer, or eating copious amounts of food, or traveling to Alaska, then Japan, then India...

There's nothing fit about consumerism, it's actually unfit.

Of course there are, but the health and survival advantages accrue to the producers and suppliers of capital, not to the consumers, as the profits accrue to the farmer, not the sheep.

Vanitas wrote:

phoneutria wrote:

You propose that our effect on the world is natural, as in "reverse this natural decline", however, you don't offer a timeline or the other causes for this 99% extintion, leading the reader to conclude that everything just "naturally" died off.

So explain how a species prior to the evolution of man could go extinct unnaturally if you are adhering to eyes' interpretation of what is unnatural? If you have your own then please furnish us with it.

People and words...

You are not to take my "naturally died off" as opposed to "unnaturally".
I could have written instead: "...leading the reader to conclude that mass extinctions happen suddenly and uneventually as a light switched being turned off. That it is the natural state of things for 96% of species to abruptly end.

... when we know that in fact all 5 mass extinctions were due to meteor collisions and climate change provoked by increased volcanic activity, and more importantly, happened withing the span of several milllion years.

So in order to accept this comparison, we have to hope that man continues at it for at least another couple million years, and make the stretch that an oil spill is a force of nature.

Not on my watch

Quote :

Quote :

It is misleading, as is everything you write. You put so many words into your posts, and still manage to turn out lazy and dishonest arguments. Makes me cringe a little.

How interesting that it's your responses that are lazy, barely a sentence or two. Sometimes only one word. Yet you accuse others of being misleading when you are almost completely ambiguous. Don't your posts make you cringe when you read them back to yourself?

I know they do.

Aw. I don't write succinctly because I'm lazy, it's a compliment to your comprehension skills! A portuguese phrase " to the good understander, half a word is enough.
I do feel it a bit of a drudgery to have to keep coming back and expanding when people fail to apply proper comprehension to my posts, but I will continue to put my best hopes on you.

Quote :

It's a question of degree. In all manipulation of the environment the intellect is at work, it is only in animals this quality is grossly underdeveloped compared to man, but everyday I witness 'humans' acting instinctively, with little or no intellectual input, or animals such as primates and corvids using their intellects.

I agree, intelligence is not black and white. I've seen some humans behave like animals, and I've seen some animals behave like humans. Chimpanzees, Gorillas, Orangutans, Dolphins, Whales, Crows, Parrots, Dogs, Cats, Elephants and Pigs can be very bright. Elephants and crows have been known to have funerals for their dead.

Quote :

Beavers don't all build the same quality of dam nor bees the same quality of hive. Within a species there is intense competition with the weak or unfit or simply less successful dying off or becoming less dominant. What becomes more clear here is when species encroach on each other we approach a situation similar to that you described above, where a man made product encounters nature, as an animal has not evolved to deal with new predators in its environment, yet such encounters are necessary for evolution to move forward. Could not the savages in the New World have raised the same objection as you to the arrival of the Spanish and Portuguese conquistadors?

I don't regret our history, I'm just saying that perhaps now it is time to slow down, not to go backwards, just to stay put. Why do lions stop eating when they are full, is because they're Jude-Christians? is it because they sympathize with the antelope and the zebras? Or is it because they do not need anymore meat to sustain themselves, and they've evolved not to kill off all their prey, so their prey can replenish their numbers? It's called rationing. in a world with limited resources, we must ration things, not use these precious resources to build junk we don't need, nor really want, all because corporate idiots have convinced us otherwise.

Quote :

All life is typified by the rise and fall of its power. That some have no power and wish to lower others is simply another tactic of survival, where one acts as a leech upon the more powerful.

If Darwinian evolution is true (I'm not questioning evolution itself, but the mechanism, in part), then every emotion and sentiment has evolved in man for a survival reason, and is not necessarily a trick or delusion of the mind, including humility, modesty, compassion, etc. Perhaps there is a survival advantage to sharing with the disenfranchised, so they don't gang up on you and steal the superfluous goods you're hoarding, or perhaps one day, if you lose your money through foolishness, stupidity, or bad luck, others may remember that you helped them out when you were doing well, and they may be more willing to share with you when you're doing poorly. Maybe the poor are not merely envious, when they demand or ask something of the rich, although some of them are certainly, if not most, maybe their idea of fairness differs from yours- some of the poor may actually be willing to share if they were in the rich mans place. The idea that only fascism, wrath, pride, greed and competition can come from evolution, and communism, love, humility and other Jude-Christian sentiments cannot evolve, is preposterous.

Quote :

Of course there are, but the health and survival advantages accrue to the producers and suppliers of capital, not to the consumers, as the profits accrue to the farmer, not the sheep.

Many of the rich are also part of the consumerist circle jerk, they want so much money for there are so many frivolous things they themselves want to purchase, they may also be under the consumerist spell of other rich men, most of them aren't ascetics, or minimalists (on the contrary), they don't only make money so they can spread their seed, or something Darwinian and utilitarian like that, they also make their money so they can pig out, and take skiing trips, and snowboarding trips, go boating, rent prostitutes and purchase all sorts of things that have no survival advantage whatsoever, that only serve to plunder the earth of it's dwindling resources, for some of our instincts no longer serve an evolutionary purpose, or they only do to extent, which is why they should be restricted, if one wants to be healthy, and they want the earth to be healthy, and they don't want their children grow up destitute, impoverished, in an overcrowded, polluted, barren wasteland.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

 The famous Siberian experiment conducted by Russian scientist
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

A quote from the Wikipedia page:

Wikipedia wrote:

The experiment was initiated by scientists who were interested in the topic of domestication and the process by which wolves became tame domesticated dogs. They saw some retention of juvenile traits by adult dogs, both morphological ones, such as skulls that were unusually broad for their length, and behavioral ones, such as whining, barking, and submission.
 
In a time when Lysenkoism was an official state doctrine, Belyaev's commitment to classical genetics had cost him his job as head of the Department of Fur Animal Breeding at the Central Research Laboratory of Fur Breeding in Moscow in 1948. During the 1950s, he continued to conduct genetic research under the guise of studying animal physiology.
 
Belyaev believed that the key factor selected for in the domestication of dogs was not size or reproduction, but behavior; specifically, tameability. Since behavior is rooted in biology, selecting for tameness and against aggression, means selecting for physiological changes in the systems that govern the body's hormones and neurochemicals. Belyaev decided to test his theory by domesticating foxes; in particular, the silver fox, a dark color form of the red fox. He placed a population of them under strong selection pressure for inherent tameness.
 
As Lyudmilla Trut says in her 1999 American Scientist article,
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]The least domesticated foxes, those that flee from experimenters or bite when stroked or handled, are assigned to Class III. Foxes in Class II let themselves be petted and handled but show no emotionally friendly response to experimenters. Foxes in Class I are friendly toward experimenters, wagging their tails and whining. In the sixth generation bred for tameness we had to add an even higher-scoring category. Members of Class IE, the "domesticated elite," are eager to establish human contact, whimpering to attract attention and sniffing and licking experimenters like dogs. They start displaying this kind of behavior before they are one month old. By the tenth generation, 18 percent of fox pups were elite; by the 20th, the figure had reached 35 percent. Today elite foxes make up 70 to 80 percent of our experimentally selected population.
 
Belyaev and Trut believe that selecting for tameness mimics the natural selection that must have occurred in the ancestral past of dogs, and more than any other quality, must have determined how well an animal would adapt to life among humans.
 
The result is that Russian scientists now have a number of domesticated foxes that are fundamentally different in temperament and behavior from their wild forebearers. Some important changes in physiology and morphology are now visible, such as mottled or spotted colored fur. Many scientists believe that these changes related to selection for tameness are caused by lower adrenaline production in the new breed, causing physiological changes in very few generations and thus yielding genetic combinations not present in the original species. This indicates that selection for tameness (i.e. low flight distance) produces changes that are also influential on the emergence of other "dog-like" traits, such as raised tail and coming into heat every six months rather than annually.
 
The project also investigated breeding vicious foxes to study aggressive behavior. These foxes snap at humans and otherwise show no fear.

Essentially the experiment discovers the process and the effects of domestication.
Selection for timidity, submissiveness, is what domestication is.
Lower adrenaline levels allow for the emergence of dormant genes producing the different color shcemes not found in wild foxes.
Dogs show similar traits in comparison to the grey wolf: color variations not found in wolves, floppy ears, curly tail...an infantile demeanor.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Now apply this to the domesticated human.
The female's form evolved to take advantage of a naturally occurring social behavior towards adolescent features; the instinct of nurturing, meant to ensure that the adult organism will care for the helpless infant until it matures enough to fend for itself.
Females must endure long periods of dependence during gestation and afterwards when they raise the human child.
The development of the adolescent, immature look and attitude is part of the evolutionary strategy to ensure that the male or other females will be inclined to care or to be nurturing towards her. 
Feminization is this social selection for timidity, adolescence, submissiveness, as it evolves in the female sexual type.

Later experiments with pure bred grey wolves raised in similar environments as dogs resulted in the conclusion that domestication becomes ingrained in the organism and has little to do with nurturing.
Wolf pups raised in exactly the same homes by the same people in the exact same way did not display the same demeanor as dog pups did after a certain age.

Other than lower levels of adrenaline, the variations of coat colors, the floppy ears and curly tail, the accompanying submissiveness, timidity, what domestication produced was an increase in dependence and a careless curiosity exhibited by immature organisms during the early stages of their development.
Wolf pups began losing interest in their handlers, becoming more free-spirited, independent, unwilling to please.

Dogs never developed beyond this initial adolescent stage.
Wolves did.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

For the domesticated human, being cruel, or even thinking cruel things about someone is shameful.
If you associate with someone, or if like them, then no negative can be found in them, or none can ever be admitted, or announced openly...fearing a break in the relationship.
Because the effete mind is all about relating and socializing and maintaining good ties with every member in its group.
Hypocrisy is how we remain civil towards those we need...because respect, after all, is a founded on fear.
We respect those we fear can subtract from us something we value and we want.

This is where we get this break between racism and race realism.
The domesticated mind tends to prefer using the lower end racist, to caricature and then use to dismiss an idea he cannot fully contradict or ignore.

True, there are those who use hatred of other peoples as a way of dealing with personal insecurities, but the same can be said about those fearing the possibility that they may be wrong about equality and uniform potentials, or about humans being the only species excluded from the rules that govern natural selection and Evolution Theory.
There is just about the same insecurity in hatred as there is in love.
It simply uses different methods to deal with it.

Love, after all, is no less a way of compensating for personal insecurities than anger or hatred is.
Hatred is the fight mechanism; love is the flight mechanism suddenly surrendering to the inevitable.
Nothing like reducing the other to something familiar to make it less of a source of anxiety.
We anthropomorphize everything, including the world itself....the latter we make into a God with bears and kind eyes.
He now loves us and we love Him...and our concerns about the randomness of existence and the pains and suffering it entails are suddenly reduced, somewhat.

The practice of using hillbilly, Rednecks, and these Nazi skinheads, as an example of those who insist on considering appearance relative, and who cannot just ignore how humans are to considered exempt from natural processes, by the shared modern narratives, reminds me of the methods used to dismiss valid conspiracy theories, and how those who have some valid questions concerning the official story, the official narrative, are included in the same category with those who believe in Big Foote or aliens in the White House.
A coward usually considers his acquiescence to the popular a sign of health.
He thinks belonging to the bigger group makes the fact that he congregates in groups of the like-minded more inconspicuous.

He insists, though he may not be totally aware of it, in associating value with quantities.
Here is where his baseness, his stunted mind, shows itself to be only slightly above those degenerate Rednecks and those infantile Skinheads he feels so above of.
He is but a more cowardly version of the same stupidity, permitted to propagate in the human herd for far too long.

The slight superiority is found in that he sides with the most comfortable, easy, soothing, less challenging side of the same coin.