Amazing McKenna.

[MindRider]

All respect but I don't see your point.

We use the same "bodies" because they are perfectly adapted, and we will continue to evolve. I don't see any examples in nature of de-evolution toward a previous state, actually the opposite is true.

We need to use tech better, not to deny it.

 

[fairbanks]

Dear VIII,

I'm not speaking in black and white. If anyone is doing that, it would be you. You just contrasted the disconnect from resource refinement to being able to understand that disconnect through technology.... Woopdy wooo!

In and of itself that statement is not negative unless the process that creates the product is having a negative impact.

That's the thing, they ARE having a negative impact. So you are the one trying to pit it as black and white.

Given an environmentally friendly and sustainable product what is wrong with having ample supply that can be exchanged for currency?

Never said anything was wrong with this. I said before that the mirage of money provides the disconnect from third to first world hands. Money would be good in a gift economy and with products that are environmentally sustainable. Yet there are already sustainable products out there but are exchanged by the dollar which in itself is a representation of oil. So it will be rather hard to switch over to this gift-society utopia unless implemented on local levels like what's rising in Greece. Hopefully they can set an example for the rest of the EU and have domino effect on the rest of the collapsing world economy.

 

[fairbanks]

MentalAnimal,

You've been in this thread since the start. Did you not see my posts with sources from Cambridge and Durham about brain and body size decrease? As well as photo evidence from Weston Price about nutrition in relation to narrowing and degeneration of skull and dental? How about the amount of degenerative diseases we have today that were non existent in the past 100 years. We've been degenerating and devolving. I can't stress it enough... If you really went through this whole thread w.o checking up on this stuff and researching it yourself how can you give such a bold baseless statement that our bodies are perfectly adapted and we will continue to evolve... COME ON MAN.

You don't seem to understand what devolution is.

Perfect example is how every dog aka canus lupus familiaris devolved from the grey wolf aka canus lupus. Even Chihuahua came from grey wolf, it just devolved downward. It's the devolution of domestication. Same thing with humans since our domestication aka civilization. We've been devolving since then just like the rest of our domesticated food and pets.

 

[VIII]

I'm not speaking in black and whites I am only trying to give light to the all sides including those you are not showing, fairbanks. I agree, we ARE having an impact. My posts are highlighting the facts that we have the technology to be environmentally friendly and sustainable, but are choosing not to give that path priority. Which means the problem is people, not technology.

Technology does provide a disconnect, but that is the point. Technology increases the speed and efficiency at which we can operate by allowing us to bypass certain steps. The technological choices made up to this point largely stressed speed and efficiency, but not sustainability.

Your stance, if I understand correctly, is we need to eradicate technology and return to hunter-gatherer/tribal societies and if we do not then we are ensuring our own destruction. I believe this to be false. I believe it is possible to utilize technology in a safe and sustainable way. We should not eradicate technology, but we also should not continue on our current path. I believe we must find balance between these two extremes.

Do you believe sustainable technology to be an impossibility? Technology has never "done" anything, we have. We developed and tend to the technology, can we not change how we use it in order to respect our environment? Can we not develop better technologies with these goals in mind? What technologies do you believe may have a place in this world? What technology should be eradicated?

 

[MindRider]

MentalAnimal,

You've been in this thread since the start. Did you not see my posts with sources from Cambridge and Durham about brain and body size decrease? As well as photo evidence from Weston Price about nutrition in relation to narrowing and degeneration of skull and dental? How about the amount of degenerative diseases we have today that were non existent in the past 100 years. We've been degenerating and devolving. I can't stress it enough... If you really went through this whole thread w.o checking up on this stuff and researching it yourself how can you give such a bold baseless statement that our bodies are perfectly adapted and we will continue to evolve... COME ON MAN.

You don't seem to understand what devolution is.

Perfect example is how every dog aka canus lupus familiaris devolved from the grey wolf aka canus lupus. Even Chihuahua came from grey wolf, it just devolved downward. It's the devolution of domestication. Same thing with humans since our domestication aka civilization. We've been devolving since then just like the rest of our domesticated food and pets.

Smaller brain size doesn't mean less intelligent. We have also plenty of diseases that were raging 100 years ago and that now are gone, thanks to medicine, Chihuahua,as I read, comes from Mexico, there were no wolves there, and there aren't now...
Our lifespan is longer and we are stronger, smarter and generally better than who we were 100/200 years ago. Unless you think that slavery and genocide were trait that we should have kept?
Of course there's plenty of places on the planet were people decides to go back in time and live like in the middle ages...It's a choice. Generally connected with religious extremism, not intelligence.

 

[jamie]

All respect but I don't see your point.

We use the same "bodies" because they are perfectly adapted, and we will continue to evolve. I don't see any examples in nature of de-evolution toward a previous state, actually the opposite is true.

We need to use tech better, not to deny it.

Man there is tons of evidence of epigenetic degredation. Do you understand what epigenetics actaully is? If not google it first, then go study the work of Weston Price, and people like Tony Wright.

Why do you think people nowaday are born with overbites, in need of braces, widom teeth not fitting into the jaw? Why do you think we suffer from chronic degenerative disease and our overall bone structure and desnity pales in comparison to indigenous peoples who have never stepped a foot into the western paradigm of industrial agriculture? Wheat, pasturized dairy, hybrid sugar rich nutrient devoid fruits, corn syrup and vegetable oils have been our downfall. The staples of the western diet.

 

[fairbanks]

VIII,

I said in this thread a couple times before that primitive technology on a local community scale is in my eyes the only potential. Adding modern technology to combat the mess that modern technology has created is just fighting fire with fire.

Modern industrial technology needs to be eradicated IMO. Primitive technology picked back up. If not by choice it will be by force b/c of degradation of environment and civilization. Billions of people still only use primitive technologies. We, the modern industrial, are the ones in the wrong forcing them towards modern methods of unsustainable practice.

MentalAnimal,

Brain size does effect intelligence as shown in this study, don't throw out such bold statements if you're not gonna give a citation.

Also, check what Chihuahua is classified as. CANUS LUPIS FAMILIARIS. It devolved from canus lupus aka grey wolf. So, yes, the name Chihuahua originated in Mexico as seen by the city Chihuahua, Mexico. But the physical evolution or devolution, depending on how you look at it, goes farther back than simply that.

 

[mescaline-man]

*

 

[jamie]

MentalAnimal,

You've been in this thread since the start. Did you not see my posts with sources from Cambridge and Durham about brain and body size decrease? As well as photo evidence from Weston Price about nutrition in relation to narrowing and degeneration of skull and dental? How about the amount of degenerative diseases we have today that were non existent in the past 100 years. We've been degenerating and devolving. I can't stress it enough... If you really went through this whole thread w.o checking up on this stuff and researching it yourself how can you give such a bold baseless statement that our bodies are perfectly adapted and we will continue to evolve... COME ON MAN.

You don't seem to understand what devolution is.

Perfect example is how every dog aka canus lupus familiaris devolved from the grey wolf aka canus lupus. Even Chihuahua came from grey wolf, it just devolved downward. It's the devolution of domestication. Same thing with humans since our domestication aka civilization. We've been devolving since then just like the rest of our domesticated food and pets.

Smaller brain size doesn't mean less intelligent. We have also plenty of diseases that were raging 100 years ago and that now are gone, thanks to medicine, Chihuahua,as I read, comes from Mexico, there were no wolves there, and there aren't now...
Our lifespan is longer and we are stronger, smarter and generally better than who we were 100/200 years ago. Unless you think that slavery and genocide were trait that we should have kept?
Of course there's plenty of places on the planet were people decides to go back in time and live like in the middle ages...It's a choice. Generally connected with religious extremism, not intelligence.

I really think you need to do more research. What you are saying is not the case when you actaully start to look into this.

 

[jamie]

"Smaller brain size doesn't mean less intelligent"

Well, actaully yes it does. The ratio of brain size to body mass is directly correlated to intelligence in mammals. You cant really dispute this. It is well know. Spend some time studying mammalian intelligence esp in relation to cetaceans and you will find this is the case.

 

[jamie]

"We have also plenty of diseases that were raging 100 years ago and that now are gone, thanks to medicine"

This is of ne relevance here though. What we are talking about is epigenetic degredation that takes place over generations and was def already established 100 years ago. Industrial agricutlture has been around far longer than that..and in our world today it is far worse than it was back in the 1930's when Weston Price was around doing his research..we are exposed to far more toxins today than ever before.

The epigenetic damage we are talking about has not been cured at all due to medicine. It is getting worse. Just because we have antibiotics that can cure certain viruses etc does not mean anything in relation to epigenetic degredation. We dont have cures for week bone density, the screwed up jaw formations with overbites and teeth that dont fit etc that we see in people today that is completely absent in indigenous peoples who still live a traditional lifestyle.

Look up "wheat belly" if you want just one little place to start in relation to why the standard western diet is killing us.

 

[fairbanks]

Thanks for jumping in jamie! I appreciate it!

 

[mescaline-man]

*

 

[MindRider]

"Smaller brain size doesn't mean less intelligent"

Well, actaully yes it does. The ratio of brain size to body mass is directly correlated to intelligence in mammals. You cant really dispute this. It is well know. Spend some time studying mammalian intelligence esp in relation to cetaceans and you will find this is the case.

Ok then Elephants must be smarter than us... Not to mention whales...right?

and this is from your link Fairbanks....

Does evolution always lead to bigger brains?

The commonly held assumption that as primates evolved, their brains always tended to get bigger has been challenged by a team of scientists at Cambridge and Durham.

 

[mescaline-man]

*

 

[fairbanks]

Elephants are one of the most intelligent species on earth, it's called elephant cognition, and their brains have just as many neurons as the human brain. Same goes for the whale brain, which shows surprising similarity to the human brain in terms of complexity.

Have you seen an elephant painting a self-portrait? Or how about studied the distinct language of whales?

You make baseless bold statements w/o even looking into the subject...

You seem to think that us humans are above or beyond nature; that we're the only ones with SKILLZ :lol: . In reality, there are equivalent if not stronger intelligences in this world as we speak. Even certain plant intelligences and mycelium intelligence out compete hominid in terms of importance to environment.

 

[fairbanks]

and this is from your link Fairbanks....

Does evolution always lead to bigger brains?

The commonly held assumption that as primates evolved, their brains always tended to get bigger has been challenged by a team of scientists at Cambridge and Durham.

What is your point here by copy-pasting the header of the study? The scientists of Cambridge and Durham studied fossil records showing degradation. This backs up everything myself and Jamie are talking about with degradation & devolution.

You seem to be getting your arms and tongue tied.

 

[MindRider]

I think we are the peak of evolution so far yes. We are the dominant specie.

You pointed out that our brain actually is smaller today compared to the past, I noted that smaller does not necessarily mean less intelligent, but probably more efficient and adaptable. So we have evolved.
All going back to your point (?) that we should all live in a tribal society, which is unsustainable for 7 billion people.

What I think we should do, is to develop a social and political system with less or none of the huge differences and classes that rogue capitalism created, where we all would have access to medicine, technology and information, in a balanced way compared to our planet's resources.

What I hope is that eventually we will get there. after all we are all here for a reason, that I believe is to be interacting with matter and this planet, making mistakes and correcting them.

Does it sounds that crazy?

 

[fairbanks]

probably more efficient and adaptable. So we have evolved.

That's a hasty generalization aka logical fallacy. Where is your evidence for this? I've provided multiple sources of evidence for rather the opposite, that we've been in fact devolving.

I noted that smaller does not necessarily mean less intelligent

didn't we already go over this? AGAIN, lemme refer you to this study by Virginia Commonwealth University.

What I think we should do, is to develop a social and political system with less or none of the huge differences and classes that rogue capitalism created, where we all would have access to medicine, technology and information, in a balanced way compared to our planet's resources.

I wish it were that easy. Your snap of the fingers solution is up against the inverted totalitarian corporate states of america.

What I hope is that eventually we will get there. after all we are all here for a reason, that I believe is to be interacting with matter and this planet, making mistakes and correcting them.

Couldn't agree more homie. I think we'll pass through this, not with hope, but with direct action.

 

[VIII]

"Smaller brain size doesn't mean less intelligent"

Well, actaully yes it does. The ratio of brain size to body mass is directly correlated to intelligence in mammals. You cant really dispute this. It is well know. Spend some time studying mammalian intelligence esp in relation to cetaceans and you will find this is the case.

I'm not well versed in this area, but read a new study on this topic recently that may add more to this. Granted, this is a broader approach to the subject than some other studies mentioned.
Here's a quote:

When using brain size relative to body size as a measure of intelligence, the assumption has always been that this measure is primarily driven by changes in brain size. It now appears that the relationship between changes in brain and body size in animals is more complex than has long been assumed. Changes in body size often occur independently of changes in brain size and vice versa. Moreover, the nature of these independent changes in brain and body size, are different in different groups of animals.

Blog Post on study
Comparative analyses of evolutionary rates reveal different pathways to encephalization in bats, carnivorans, and primates

What I hope is that eventually we will get there. after all we are all here for a reason, that I believe is to be interacting with matter and this planet, making mistakes and correcting them.

Does it sounds that crazy?

Doesn't sound too crazy to me. We aren't perfect.

"I am very poorly today and very stupid and hate everybody and everything. One lives only to make blunders."
-Charles Darwin (just saw this when I went to find the above study)

VIII,

I said in this thread a couple times before that primitive technology on a local community scale is in my eyes the only potential. Adding modern technology to combat the mess that modern technology has created is just fighting fire with fire.

Modern industrial technology needs to be eradicated IMO. Primitive technology picked back up. If not by choice it will be by force b/c of degradation of environment and civilization. Billions of people still only use primitive technologies. We, the modern industrial, are the ones in the wrong forcing them towards modern methods of unsustainable practice.

All alternative techno energy supplies (wind, water, solar) are unsustainable and would never be able to pick up the slack for oil, coal, and natural gas so they'd never be implemented on a wide scale.

Your previous posts assume that no technological progress can be made towards sustainability. We already have the technology to make a major change towards environmentally friendly and sustainable ways of living. Not only do we have the ability to reduce our impact now, but technology will progress to allow for even greater abilities.

The majority of technology was developed without sustainability or the environmental effects in mind. Improving upon our technologies by implementing safe processes and eliminating harmful processes is not fighting fire with fire, imo. I think it's more like learning fire doesn't only cook food, but can also harm you so you better take safety precautions.

This may require many changes, some of which we agree on. I simply believe at this point it would take a very large movement to return the masses to a primitive state of living with limited technology. Personally I would prefer the mentioned approach of sustainability being a primary focus while still allowing for technological progress (I love Earth & Space & Universe). However, I find your perspective very enjoyable and interesting to contemplate.

I'm still curious which particular technologies you feel are causing the most problems and whether it be their usage or production. Also I'm interested in your views as to the possible improvement or replacement of these technologies. If you feel like sharing