Archives for category: evolution

History doesn’t go anywhere.
It pesters us with lessons.
Until we figure out their meanings.
Or until there’s no one left.
No one left to be pestered!

Darwin 2.0

One of the recurrent lessons history is peppered with:
‘Imperia always fail. Sooner or later, eventually all imperial social arrangements end up in abject failure.
Empires as well as monopolies.’

And no, the Pharaonic empire didn’t last for 3000 years.
What happened there was 30 something successive empires. Read dynasties.
Whenever a dynasty lost its grip, its empire folded. Whenever a new dynasty took over, it presided over a new empire.
Same thing happened in modern France. Same territory, same population, same culture, 5 republics and two empires since 1789. The fact that the last three republics have been consecutive doesn’t merge them into a single one.

Europe has been the scene of a whole host of wars. Some of them worldwide wars.
Since the French Revolution, all empires which had attempted to subjugate their neighbors have failed.

Napoleon’s attempt had initiated the German ‘coming together’ and turned Russia’s attention back to Europe.
Napoleon the 3rd had helped Bismark to finalize Prussia’s taking over the rest of what we currently call Germany.
WWI was started by people who had no clue and put on hold by people who had no vision. Started by imperialistically thinking people who didn’t see any need to evaluate the consequences of their countries going to war and put on hold by (other) imperialistically thinking people who continued the well established tradition. Again, without any attempt to evaluate the consequences. Hence the vanquished - the only vanquished that was still standing at the end of the war, Germany – was presented with a hefty bill. And made to pay crippling war reparations. Which clumsy actions had prepared the scene for Hitler’s advent to power.
WWII – or, more exactly, WWI 2.0 – was ended by far wiser decision makers. Who had chosen to integrate the vanquished rather than deepening the trenches.
Although fought with ‘softer’ weapons, WWIII – also known as the Cold War – fits perfectly. It was also lost by the aggressor. Not as much won by those resisting as lost by the empire attempting to widen its grasp.

What we currently have on our hands, WWIV, is a ‘pinnacle’.
Putin attempting to revive Russia’s ‘old glory’ and the reaction of the ‘free world’ are a case study. And a horrible remake. Mistakes already made since the French Revolution have been reenacted as if never happened.
The aggressor failed to realize that at some point his actions will beget a reaction. That even if that reaction will be late, it will surely come about.
The ‘good guys’ have forgotten – never really cared to understand? – the lessons of WWI and WWII. No real attempt to integrate post communist Russia into the democratic fold had been made. Not in an organized manner, anyway. Everybody was happy that ‘history had finally reached its end’ and Russia was left to its own devices. Even worse, it was treated as a no-man’s land. Mutatis mutandis, post-communist Russia had been treated just as South America and Africa had been treated after they had been discovered by the Europeans.
Even worse, the ‘good guys’ have forgotten – or had never understood – that a bully has to be stopped early. And that the easiest way to stop a bully is to encourage his ‘sycophants’ to free themselves from his influence. And to help, in earnest, those who are bullied to overcome their plight.

Now, almost two years after the aggression organized by Putin against Ukraine has become ‘hot’, there still are people who consider Ukraine should negotiate. Should accept the inevitable.
Other consider that helping Ukraine is ‘money down the drain’. That there’s no way for Ukraine to win.

The way I see this, we’re back in 1942.
Nazi troops were controlling most of Europe and most of North-Africa. But the signs were already there.
Russia, nor Britain, didn’t collapse under the onslaught. The nazis had been driven out from Moscow’s suburbs and Leningrad remained out of reach.
From there on… Hitler kept making stupid moves. Until the Third Reich crumbled under its own weight. Helped by the Allied bombardments.
And let’s not forget the huge amount of western weapons and munitions shipped by Russia’s then allies to Murmansk. Nor those hauled using the Iranian railway.

Now.
Will we relearn the lessons which are readily available to us?
The lessons we should have already learned?
What’s keeping us?
Does anybody still think Putin, or any other dictator, will ever stop?
Tired of waiting? Be glad Ukraine isn’t.
Be glad Ukraine isn’t tired of fighting!


What happened to our capacity to compromise?
When did life become nothing but a zero sum game?

Our capacity to compromise – in the good sense of the word – has diminished when religion – the thing which keeps us together – has been split into religions.

And it completely drained out when we’ve become too confident in our ability to think things over.

We’re so confident now that our solution/decision is not only better than any other but the only one possible that we’re no longer capable of considering a compromise.

While religion taught us to respect and trust each-other, religions have split us into factions.
Our intellectual arrogance has done the rest.

and, too often, disregarded!

Well, last time I checked, there were more than a dozen onions in my cellar.
And since my cellar is orbiting the Sun… along with the rest of the Earth…

As for who says what about who made what…

This morning I had to shovel some snow. I live near a kindergarten so the sidewalks should be clean.
Along with the snow, I also had to shovel some dog turds.

Snow coming down from the sky and dogs dropping turds are natural occurrences.
People shoveling snow so that other people may walk on the sidewalks is de rigueur. Also de rigueur is to pick up the turds dropped by the pet you take out at least twice a day.

People have a clear idea about who is responsible for the dog turds on the side-walk.
Even if they were dropped by dogs, the responsibility lies with the owners.
It’s the owners who have raised the dogs, who take them out to poo and who ‘forget’ to pick up the droppings.

In the last couple of centuries, people – well, some of them – have also developed a rather clear understanding regarding the snow. Regarding the water coming down from the sky. About evaporation, clouds, condensation… etc.
God is no longer held responsible for these matters.

Which brings us to the real subject.

There is a guy, Richard Dawkins, who tries to demonstrate there is no God.

And here we go again… I have at least a large china teapot. And since my house, along with the rest of the planet, does follow an orbit in the solar system…

More about who made what, if you care about the subject, can be found here:

https://nicichiarasa.com/tag/god/

And the Lord God said,
Behold,
the man is become as one of us, to
know good and evil.
Gen 3:22

Why are we doing all this?

?!?

You heard me. ‘Why are we doing all this?’
Everything that we do.

Is anything wrong with you?

No. Not anything that I know of.
Only this question which has arisen on it own.
Why don’t we just stop?
Stop doing everything that we do…

But doing what we do is the reason for our existence…
Otherwise we would not exist. At all!
The world itself would have been different.
Completely different!

So what?!?
Do you really care about the world?
What’s in it for you? For us…
What benefit do we have from the world being as it is?
Or at all…

Click here if this post doesn’t make any sense.


“Twelve-year-old Carly Nix of Lakeland
says breaking the wishbone from the turkey is a silly tradition,
but that won’t hold her back from testing her luck this year.”

I have to start by confessing that until yesterday evening I’ve never seriously considered this possibility.
Why would anyone bother?

Then somebody – thank you, Jeffrey Mercer – introduced a whole new twist into this conundrum.
‘What if this whole (computer) simulation thing is nothing but yet another attempt to make sense of the Universe?
To attribute sense to the Universe?
Which whole thing, if anything, is the epitome of anthropomorphism…’
I took the liberty to rephrase Jeffrey Mercer’s words. To make them more ‘suitable’.
To fit better my preexisting answer. Yet another ‘anthropomorphic’ thing….

My immediate answer was ‘our world is indeed a simulation. Or maybe not as much a simulation as an artifact.’

Before delving into the matter, I’m going to formulate two questions. Hence ‘the furcula’.
If we live in a simulation, what kind of world does the simulator live in?
Why would anyone bother? To study us responding to its simulating our senses/minds? Why doesn’t it study itself? Its own self/persona?

Coming back to my initial answer, I have to point out that the key word here is ‘our’.
We’re speaking here about ‘our world’. The world we live in. Our reality!

We, the ones trying to make sense of this world/reality, have a few characteristics.
We’re made of matter and we have, each of us, a conscience.
Having a material nature introduces certain limitations and being conscious widens those limitations.
Us being conscious widens those limitations, by introducing a ‘new dimension’, but this doesn’t mean those limitations disappear. A bucket is ‘wider’ than the circle at its base – the bucket has height, hence volume, while the circle is ‘flat’ – but the bucket itself continues to have limits.

Let’s examine the consequences of us being conscious agents of a material nature.
Limited conscious agents of a material nature…

Us being conscious means us being aware of our material nature. Of our limits.
Having a material nature means the most powerful instinct we have is our ‘need to survive’.
Both as a biological organism – a.k.a. animal – and as a conscious agent.

Our consciences – I’m speaking about the individual ones here – are very crafty ‘devils’. They can accept our individual material fate – death – but have a problem accepting their own dependency on the ‘bodies/brains’ they need to inhabit.
Hence ‘the soul’.

Which ‘soul’ has been invented – by our conscious selves – as the first step towards building a sense for this world. For the reality we inhabit.
Which soul is the building block for all religion. For all religion known/built to/by man.

Are you still here?
I have to make a pause here. And to mention the fact that I’ve already cut a few corners… A lot of corners… What I say is probably rather hard to follow. Mostly because I don’t have time/space to explain myself. Not now but certainly in due time.

And yes, what we call ‘religion’ is of our own doing.
The Bible itself has been written by us, regardless of the origin of the ideas mentioned there.
It doesn’t matter whether we have been the interface between (a) God and ‘the world’, we are the ones who have written the Bible. And all other sacred texts.
We have written them, we have believed in them and we have shaped the reality we live in.

We have done all that according to how we have interpreted the teachings we have inherited from our forefathers.
And we continue to.
Even those of us who consider themselves to be ‘free of religion’. We might not believe but we continue to act as if. Believers and nonbelievers alike hold the same things as being valid. Don’t kill, don’t steal, respect the values which keep society together…

What about where we started from? What about the ‘original’ simulation?

One moment please, I haven’t yet finished with ‘God’.
If (a) God made us who/what we are, then who made God?

If someone took the trouble to build the simulation we consider to be ‘home’, what about the ‘real’ world? What about the reality harboring the simulating agent?

There’s no need for an outside agent?
The world we live in, our world, is the world we have built for ourselves? Using the things which were at our disposal and the information we have gleaned about how things work?
Maybe not always fully aware of what we were doing?

You got it! That’s exactly what I was trying to say!

If you’re still interested:

Are you living in a computer simulation by Nick Bostrom

Confirmed! We live in a simulation. by Fouad Khan

Of course we live in a simulation by Jason Kehe

“Only in silence the word,
Only in dark the light,
Only in dying life:
Bright the hawk’s flight
On the empty sky.”

Ursula K. Le Guin

4,000 years ago.
An alien probe examines the Earth and determines there are two ‘species of interest’ on the planet.
‘Interesting’ in the sense that both had already discovered ‘exploitation’.
Ants farming aphids and humans farming sheep.

4.0 seconds ago.
The same alien probe checks back and determines that both ants and humans continue their respective farming activities. The only difference between now and then being the scale of the respective operations.
And the consequences to the environment…

The probe is a robot. Which robot has no feelings. Doesn’t care. Does what it has been instructed to do and that’s it.
The data is being transmitted to those who had commissioned the robot.

‘The ants are practically the same. Individuals transported through time would fit perfectly in either situation.
The humans have evolved in a certain manner. They live longer – on average. They have thoroughly transformed much of their environment. But they have maintained the ability to survive in either situation. To thrive, even, if the individuals are transported through time very soon after birth – and if they are well taken care off at the receiving end of the journey’.

The received data is deemed ‘baffling’ by the agents whose job is to make sense of it. To analyze it.
To determine whether each planet checked by the probe was inhabited by a potentially autonomous species. In which case the planet was deemed ‘off limits’.
Or not, hence open for colonization.

The procedure to determine the outcome is simple.
Is there at least a species which evolves faster than the rest? Is there at least a species concerned with the well being of the environment it depends upon?
If only the first condition is met, the planet is scheduled to be checked again later.
If both conditions are met, the planet is considered off limits.
If none are met, the planet is considered ‘open for business’.

The present situation is unprecedented.
During their entire recorded history, this is the first time the analyzing agents have come across such an occurrence. An intelligent species who has achieved so much yet still remain driven by desire. By emotion.

A species perfectly capable of thinking yet still prone to judging.
A species comprised of individuals who consider perfectly acceptable to rationalize their own wishes while entertaining a low opinion on others who do the very same thing. Find excuses for indulging.

This find generates an ontological storm among the analyzing agents.
Being the first time when they no longer have a complete grasp on what’s going on, this whole thing compels them to reconsider.

To reconsider everything.

Segue

The key word here is ‘anger’.

Had we been less angry, maybe our reaction would have been more ‘efficient’.

Instead of being angry with the sinners, we could try to convince them. Those of them who can be convinced…

After all, a sin is but a possibility. An ‘opportunity’, not a fatality.

“When we talk about birthing people, we’re being inclusive.
It’s that simple.
We use gender neutral language when talking about pregnancy,
because it’s not just cis-gender women that can get pregnant and give birth.
Reproductive freedom is for *every* body.”
@reproforall

– What’s wrong with these people?

– What do you mean?

– They consider themselves to be reasonable.
Their ability to ‘reason’ is mentioned, by their thinkers, as the single thing which separates them from the rest of the animals. Sets them apart from the rest of those who inhabit this planet.
To me, reasoning is how their consciousness operates. How their consciousness manifests itself.
The real difference between them and the rest of the animals being the fact that their consciousness is far more capable than that of the ‘mere’ animals.

– ?!?

– Just look at them!
Is there any difference, any real difference, between a 3 days old human infant and a chimpanzee of the same age? Or even between a 3 days old baby and a 3 days old foal? Except for the foal being able to run?

– The baby will eventually learn to speak. Will develop consciousness and the ability to think. You said it yourself…

– WILL!!!
Will eventually… if everything goes right!
If that baby is raised by responsible people. Who speak to the future human being. And teach them to be human. Help them develop a functional consciousness.
Children who have no significant interaction with other human beings and fail to learn to speak – or other form of language, until they reach puberty will never be able to ‘recover’. To accede to consciousness.

– OK. But I still don’t understand what has flabbergasted you!

– Not you too!
What drove you to copy them? To misuse language so horribly… “what has flabbergasted you”…

– But it’s so funny!

– Until it no longer is!
Look at them. Just look at them.
20 years ago, they made a movie about a man getting pregnant. A comedy. Everybody laughed.
Nowadays they take sides on ‘pregnant people’
OK, language can be used ‘artistically’. ‘Stretched’ to obtain something. To explore new meanings, to express emotion, to make fun.
But does it make any sense to use language in order to seed confusion? To cause people to fight each other?
Rather self-defeating, isn’t it?
How much sense does this make? To misuse the medium which made you possible in the first place?

How sensible is it to weaponize language?
Who has anything to gain from this?
Other than a few, very short-term, perks?

The times when it might be appropriate to use “pregnant people” is when you were talking about the universe of people who can get pregnant, some of whom are actually men, trans men like me, and some of whom are non-binary people who don’t identify as men or women.” (Evan Urquhart, Slate, 2022)

“If the only tool you have is a hammer,
you tend to see every problem as a nail.”
Abraham Maslow

Did you recognize him?
Yes, Sigmund Freud. Dr. Sigmund Freud, as depicted on http://www.marxists.org.

“While the different religions wrangle with one another as to which of them is in possession of the truth, in our view the truth of religion may be altogether disregarded.
Religion is an attempt to get control over the sensory world, in which we are placed, by means of the wish-world, which we have developed inside us as a result of biological and psychological necessities.
But it cannot achieve its end.
Its doctrines carry with them the stamp of the times in which they originated, the ignorant childhood days of the human race. Its consolations deserve no trust. Experience teaches us that the world is not a nursery.
The ethical commands, to which religion seeks to lend its weight, require some other foundations instead, for human society cannot do without them, and it is dangerous to link up obedience to them with religious belief.
If one attempts to assign to religion its place in man’s evolution, it seems not so much to be a lasting acquisition, as a parallel to the neurosis which the civilized individual must pass through on his way from childhood to maturity.”
[Sigmund Freud, “Moses and Monotheism”, 1932]

No, I’m not going to argue with Freud.
I’m not going to compare his opinion on religion with that of Durkheim. Which makes more sense to me. You may find them here, at #e., and compare them yourself. If you wish, of course.

What I’m trying to point out in this post is that reason is over-rated.
That reason is an extremely powerful tool but, like all other tools, the consequences of yielding it depend on the yielder.
On the person using reason in order to get somewhere.
To find the intended meaning…

Which is?

You cannot learn
what you think you know.

Epictetus

How many times have you been hit by something you didn’t see coming?

Not very often… for the simple reason that these encounters use to end up badly!
Bent fenders, broken bones…
Hence we pay attention. Or get killed… end of story!

But how many times have you experienced bad consequences, really bad consequences, after misjudging a situation?
After a ‘doesn’t matter’ uttered nonchalantly?