Those who dwell, as scientists or laymen, among the beauties and mysteries of the earth are never alone or weary of life. – Rachel Carson (The Sense of Wonder)
Section 1: Life on Earth
(Conjecture) 9
All systems break down as if entropy is turning the universe into a barren Nirvana where nothing happens. Fortunately, some energy gets corrupted into form. For instance, sunlight adds extra energy to the Earth, helping the grass grow and helping the winds blow. Change makes stuff happen as events create more events, and turbulence can help spawn organized structures. Consider how the organized pattern of a snowflake falls out of a storm. We live in a giant storm of many storms called Chaos. Technology lets us think we control the storm, but that might be an illusion. The ancient Gnostics said Ialdabaoth rose out of Chaos and falsely considered itself the only one in charge. No force has all the control because there is more universe than anyone could control.
The whole is unknown, but we can understand some of it. Suppose someone claims they can fly across the Atlantic by flapping their arms. Whether this method will work does not depend on socially constructed concepts. Instead, something outside of groupthink determines if this method will work. That something is called reality. In our temple, this reality is the seventh perspective, Mother Nature, whom we call Aphrodite. The Roman poet Lucretius wrote about the Goddess of reality.
“To you every kind of living creature owes its conception and first glimpse of the sun’s light. You, goddess, at your coming hush the winds and scatter the clouds; for you the creative earth thrusts up fragrant flowers; for you the smooth stretches of the ocean smile, and the sky, tranquil now, is flooded with effulgent light.” (On the Nature of Things 1.4-5)
In 1887, the researcher Stephen Alfred Forbes published a paper about a lake where a community of species depended on each other, even though each species occupies distinct places in the lake’s ecosystem. The lake is a small part of the larger green biomass growing on the Earth. We depend on green organisms to convert energy from sunlight into energy stored in chemicals. These chemicals are food, and the biomass was our home. When civilization cut people from the land, we lost the community we once belonged to.
Our ancestors lived as foragers for thousands of years, and it was the way of life our ancestors evolved to fit. Let us consider if the daily activity of primeval society fits our psychological needs, including the right amount of leisure we need for good health. If that were true, only as a forager will we ever find comfort, only a forager will we function properly, and only a forager will we feel at home.
According to a paper in the New England Journal of Medicine, the diet of foragers matches what our body needs (Eaton, 1985). Before we assume all our ancestors lived healthily, remember that research on a paleo diet that only counts local food sources does not tell the whole story. Even prehistoric tribes did not operate in isolation, so like our society, they were part of a multicultural world. The tribes in this research most likely also got food from trade with other cultures. A guy could trade healthy food for candy.
Yet there were important differences. In prehistoric times, people lived surrounded by wilderness. In a civilized society, people live detached from Nature, which allows the civilized to choose law over Nature. Of course, the foragers had rules, but civilization floods people with rules. Schools and jobs expect people to suppress their desires and obey the rules. Since desires upset the civilized routine, people reject Aphrodite, which means they deny Nature, desires, and the world. For domesticated people who have no contact with the wilderness, the world would seem painful, and they might start seeking something outside the world.
For the life of this world is but goods and chattels of deception. (Qur’an 3:185)
Plato found the changing world too confusing to be true.
“When it focuses on something illuminated by truth and what is, it understands, knows, and apparently possesses understanding, but when it focuses on what is mixed with obscurity, on what comes to be and passes away, it opines and is dimmed, changes its opinions this way and that, and seems bereft of understanding.” (Republic 508d)
Plato saw this world as a prison.
“The visible realm should be likened to the prison dwelling, and the light of the fire inside it to the power of the sun.” (Republic 517b)
Though the world changes, we do not need to invent a myth about a stable order if the world does fine without it. The sun will rise tomorrow, even if platonic forms don’t exist. Plato also thought the knowledge necessary to find the stable good was hidden in our minds, and in Plato’s books, Socrates tries to convince people to find truth by searching their minds. Plato was probably wrong since knowledge requires information from the world outside the mind.
The New Age philosopher Alan Watts would accuse Western scientists of being too logical when the scientists claim order exists in the universe.
Western science has made nature intelligible in terms of its symmetries and regularities, analyzing its most wayward forms into components of a regular and measurable shape. (Watts, 1957 pt. 2 ch. 4).
Watts was talking about a false worldview and called this illusion of order Maya, a word borrowed from Eastern scriptures. The writers of those scriptures thought the mind invents a creative feminine to make illusions for us.
“From the practical point of view, Maya is regarded as self-evident. In reality, however, it does not exist—only the supreme exists, in an absolute sense.” (Devi Gita 3.3)
In this scenario, Maya happens when someone becomes attached to the world due to desires. Such a person might think the changing material world is real. The Guru Adi Shankara did not want ignorance to rule life and wanted to turn away from the outside world to look at the divine inside, which Shankara identified as the ultimate fact of the universe.
“I am convinced that whoever has his mind dwelling upon the Great Being who is being worshipped by Indra and other gods and is thus completely at peace with himself has not only understood Brahman but he is himself that great Brahman!” (Manisha 5)
Section 2: Pleasure of the Flesh
8
I call the material world Maya and do not equate Maya with an illusion. The world may be an illusion similar to a virtual reality computer game, yet even a virtual reality has a kind of reality. It has rules. We live in an interactive game where our actions change the situation, and if other people are real, the game is multiplayer. Do not forget the illusion includes those close to you. My friends seem important to me, and my friends make the show seem important. I want to keep playing. Besides, If the quality of Virtual reality were good enough, no one would notice if we live in a projection of the mind. Instead of creating a world just so we would reject it, the designers could make enjoyment possible for those who like it.
Calling Maya ignorance implied the existence of truth other than Maya. Religions compete, each claiming to know the only truth. While ignoring reality, Maya haters will make up any illusion and then call anyone ignorant if they subscribe to a different version of reality. Avoid this confusion by accepting Aphrodite, and you will discover a world outside your mind.
Maya knows the truth, the only truth, the source of all knowledge, and the only natural way because only the touchable world exists. Civilization runs by controlling Aphrodite, committing an act of perversion when they disciple the body. You got to let go if you want to live your life. Become the Hedonist who follows the wish to enjoy the pleasures of life. The body takes care of itself by giving you the desire to build a healthy, happy life. Civilization prevents us from finding this healthy life, so don’t blame Maya for the unhappiness produced by civilization. The Haters of Maya fail to see people have the right place where pleasures lead to more pleasures. Aphrodite is Nature, the place where natural life belongs.
The will to touch is our strongest instinct. We are social animals who need each other, and our instincts motivate us to care for each other. People become part of society and learn how to get along with other people when we organize into tribes and families. We feel the family as our greatest need, and without family, people end up lost. Denying the beast within denies the social part of us. Civilization changes society. Civilized pressures even break up the family and lead to other antisocial behaviors.
The civilized receive benefits in their gilded cage and appear to have all the advantages. The domesticated also find purpose and meaning by being part of the system after undergoing a long preparatory process, going to the right schools, and joining the right clubs. They even get vacations to celebrate their success. The slave works more when unnatural bits of pleasure get used to pervert our desires until people want whatever the system makes them want. Meanwhile, domestication makes us free from ourselves when we are trained to act and feel what the trainer wants.
They trained me to believe in civilized progress, and their doctrines almost convinced me. Every day I fight a war against those ideas inside myself. Escape from any civilized restraints. I now know Aphrodite brings the reward of happiness if you live a natural life, and doing what feels good leads you to a happy life because your body takes care of you. The body reacts to the world and tells you what you should do next. Something feels wrong when your instincts reject it. Do what your urges tell you to do. Aphrodite drives us wild.
For the social creature in us, the will to touch feels like the divine purpose of the universe, though other aspects of the universe may have other reasons. Surely, the mystery says to love each other, for failure to touch drives people to reject the world. These social rejects turn their madness into creativity, inventing new ways for progress to advance. Civilization needs to make people lonely to spread.
We live in a game called the will, which chooses your motivations. The planet Venus appears as the Evening Star in the West, the star of passion. It also appears as the Morning Star in the east, the star of discipline. The lines on the star with five points star map the path of Venus, and the five points represent times Venus appears farthest from the sun. Let us place this human star at the center of the star of Aphrodite. The mystery behind this symbol teaches us the meaning of life, which should be our goal, and this goal lets us win this virtual reality game.
Section 3: Evolution is a fact
(Verifiable) 8
Darwin did not invent evolution. Before Darwin, researchers found evidence showing life had changed. By 1785, James Hutton found geological layers that formed over extended periods (Hutton, 1785), and by 1799, William Smith noticed fossils in separate layers differ (Smith, 1816). Charles Lyell was aware the Earth had gone through climate changes (Lyell, 1853 ch. 6), and Lyell considered the possibility that organic life also changes (Lyell, 1853 ch. 9), though Lyell did not know what regulated this change until Darwin showed the way natural selection influenced evolution (Darwin, 1859). Darwin observed how the selective breeding of domestic animals produces new varieties of animals and then realized Nature also selects which individuals get to reproduce. An understanding of life requires an understanding of natural selection, which became the cornerstone of modern biology.
Individuals differ from each other. A small bump could one day allow a creature to grab a rock, or it might give a predator something to grab; however, the creature with a new feature can’t have much success unless it lives in a niche, allowing the new feature. Since natural selection allows traits that fit existing conditions, there is no survival of the fittest or hierarchy of fitness; either it fits a niche or it does not fit. If an individual with a genetic change fits enough to produce healthy offspring, the new feature could be passed down to future generations.
Herbert Spencer thought life struggles for existence (Spencer, 1864), while Peter Kropotkin thought creatures cooperate to survive (Kropotkin, 1902). Both writers confused evolution with their political agenda about cultural progress and invented all kinds of misinformed stories about what they though evolution did or will do. In the twentieth century, Ernst Mayr and Dobzhansky improved our understanding of evolution by discovering separate populations develop genetic differences (Dobzhansky, 1937 ch. 1). After generations of genetic change, separate populations become so different that members from one could no longer breed with the other. Hence, the populations became different species (Mayr, 1942 ch. 9). The way each population has different evolutionary results implies that evolution does not head in any particular direction.
Though evolution has no particular goal, it builds upon the past. Gould thought new adaptation happens when old structures get repurposed (Gould, 1982). Notice the similarity in the layout of bones in a whale’s flipper compared to our hand. The fossil record tells us macroevolutionary differences, such as the shapes of a hand compared to a flipper, are separated by thousands of generations (Thewissen, 2009). Microevolutionary changes, such as a small bump on a worm, can become the source of features that get recycled for multiple functions for millions of generations.
Environmental changes influence what features get repurposed (Cameron, 2013). Conditions change slightly each time a new variety comes about or an old variety gets lost. These new conditions open new niches for life to enter, and a new variety of life might find a new home. The Earth’s biosphere allows a wide variety of life, where any living type can become the parent of other varieties if conditions make this possible. More than one variety could survive if the environment has places for it, or a variety will become extinct if the conditions change too much for it to survive. An old type can live long after a new variation fails. Without significant environmental changes, a species might look the same for generations (Eldredge, 1972); therefore, evolution happens when the Earth’s biosphere changes. Dawkin’s selfish genes have no control over this situation.
From the point of view of our social species, how people treat each other seems important. Evolutionary scientists are still trying to figure out how we developed morals that benefit a group because if natural selection selects individuals, how could a behavior that benefits a group come about? I do not know. Natural selection involves competition, though I assume, under some circumstances, Nature allows cooperation. Social cooperation has worked for ants, bees, and chimpanzees.
Instead of inherited behavior, we learn some of what we do; however, if our biology guides some of this learning, we would be wrong to assume all of our behavior is the product of culture. In the book “Sociobiology,” E. O. Wilson claims evolution influenced our inherited behaviors (Wilson, 2000 ch. 27). Our social behavior came about by natural means, and we inherited some of our behavior from our primate ancestors. The most recent edition of homo sapiens developed in Africa thousands of years ago. Incidentally, the social habits of dogs were so similar to homo sapiens the two species adopted each other.
Also, though our social Nature prefers morals that support our social structures, I do not think Nature makes social cooperation an improvement in every situation. Descendants of social animals can lose social traits if the descendants move into a niche that does not require social behavior. We are changing our environment, and in thousands of years, these changes will change us. Imagine human descendants that do not have human morals because they do not have social instincts.
Section 4: Creationism
7
Biologists are still learning new stuff, and I look forward to discoveries that will challenge my ideas about evolution. People sometimes ask why there are still apes if we evolved from apes. We are apes. One form can become the ancestor of multiple varieties. Darwin found different species of finches on the Galapagos Islands, and the common ancestor of these finches must have come from the mainland.
“Seeing this gradation and diversity of structure in one small, intimately related group of birds, one might really fancy that from an original paucity of birds in this archipelago, one species had been taken and modified for different ends.” (Darwin, 1845 p. 380)
The common ancestor of both us and chimps lived millions of years ago. Our DNA revealed evidence of this relationship by having similarities with chimps’ DNA (Cheng Ze, 2005). Our ancestors became separated from the ancestors of chimps when the separate populations experienced different genetic changes in different environments. Chimps are a variety of apes that are adapted to the forest.
The word selection implies that something is consciously doing the selecting. I do not believe in a conscious selector. Before Darwin, an intelligent designer seemed necessary to explain the creation of the intricate workings of living structures. The discovery of how environmental conditions influenced the emergence of living structures made a designer seem unnecessary. The educated clergy of the Catholic Church learned to accept evolution as part of God’s plan (Scott, 1999), while Islamic fundamentalists and Christian fundamentalists have trouble accepting evolution (Isaak, 2000). Misguided Christians believe the stories in Genesis actually happened, and they deny scientific research that refutes their presuppositions.
I heard people claim that there are no transitional forms. Whoever claims this ignores the collections containing millions of carefully examined fossils that allow researchers to reconstruct a picture of the evolutionary past. There are exhibits all over the world. You can observe evolution in geology, genetics, and similarities between related organisms. Yet still, creationists claim macroevolution has never been observed.
The truth of a scientific theory is not a moral question. However, creationists sometimes equate evolution with political values and then argue against those values in their argument against evolution. The Creationist movies “Expelled” (2008) and “Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels” (2014) equate Darwinism with Hitler’s plans. In reality, Hitler knew very little about Darwin and, instead of evolution, claimed that destiny created races. The Nazis thought selective breeding would remove the wrong blood and restore the master races. Hitler thought this project was a mission from God.
“And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.” (Hitler, 1939 vol. 1 ch. 2)
The idea of selective breeding people to produce a master race did not come from Darwin. It is found in Plato (Republic bk. 2). Plato thought truth, beauty, and goodness were united in a singularity. If that were true, you could tell when you were near the truth because everything would be better. I do not think the world works that way. Nature is more like a tangle. The tangle does have regular patterns, and truth might exist in these patterns.
Even if believing in evolution leads to badness, I think that ignoring the truth will lead to worse badness. Of course, everyone has the right to believe what they want to think, yet anyone who closes their eyes to reliable evidence tends to misunderstand all fields of research where scientists made significant contributions. Modern research has contributed to our understanding of society, ecology, history, and ethics. Accept no idea with faith alone, and don’t deny what you do not want to believe. Evolution gave us a brain, and science gave us tools. By combining the two, we gain understanding. Ignoring modern discoveries will give a person a limited perspective full of superstitions, paranoia, and misunderstanding. The mind gets wasted on such people. They fail to see the universe and have no comprehension behind their eyes.
Section 5: The Next Step, us or not us
(Conjecture) 10
The first amphibians could not run as fast as a horse. Millions of years later, decedents of amphibians could. These examples give a false impression of evolution as an improvement. Old movies portray dinosaurs as inferior to modern animals. Actually, dinosaurs were similar to modern birds (Prothero, 2007 ch 12). The intricacy of animal bodies has been the same for over a hundred million years. The mistaken idea that one species is better has existed for millennia. In the book “History of Animals,” Aristotle classified life forms in a ladder pattern from those with little movement to those with sophisticated movement. Assuming evolution means improvement implies that we are on top of the evolutionary ladder. Evolution has no up or down. If all animals became extinct except sheep, a few hundred million years later, the world would have complex animals in addition to simple animals, all descended from sheep.
“It is absurd to talk of one animal being higher than another,” (Darwin Notebook B p. 74).
An extinct variety of life can have improvements over you, so do not assume future people will have improvements over you. No niche or species is better than another. Individuals do better or worse, depending on how well each fits their natural niche, and civilization is far from how we should live; this makes the domesticated less than the simplest life. A savage can claim to live the life of an earthling. A civilized person cannot.
In addition, life on Earth is an intricate web where species adapt to each other and grow together in one biosphere called Gaia. Our bodies are bags of chemicals in a global soup, and our bodies need the soup to live. We never ruled the Earth. The Earth rules us. The rulers of the Earth are microbes who sustain the life zones on Earth. Only an unhinged society would disturb the Earth’s ecology since technology will never rebuild what only Nature can build. Technology could destroy us and vaporize the surface of the Earth. Eventually, the surviving bacteria would reclaim the globe, starting the soup over again.
For hundreds of millions of years, life on Earth produced new animals that lived very similar to the older animals, though one change has emerged in the last five million years. Whales and dolphins also have big brains, Yet something unusual lives in the homo sapiens’ mind. Developing culture beyond any other animal gave us a way to step outside of Nature. Civilization came about, and now modern people become something other than people. Believing culture will take us to the next step in evolution has led to all kinds of myths. Teilhard wrote about a goal for evolution called the omega point, where everything units in higher consciousness.
“The end of the world: the overthrow of equilibrium, detaching the mind, fulfilled at last, from its material matrix, so that it will henceforth rest with all its weight on God-Omega.” (Teilhard, 1959 ch. 3)
In this myth, people will develop into something like Star Trek, the Next Generation, and then move on to a more wonderful culture. Before we take the next step, stop to consider what we will end up doing. We produce culture, but people have little control over culture, and the growth of progress that controls us could lead somewhere horrible. Also, the Earth may undergo natural ecological changes, which our descendants will miss if they live outside the natural order. We could lose our place on Earth.
All creatures connect to their outer ecology, the animal’s natural environment. Fish need water. Creatures also have an inner ecology in the way their parts cooperate, and the inner ecology interconnects with the outer depending on how the species fits its niche. Fish bodies swim in the water. When we change our environment, the consequences of this change become a selective pressure, which influences our bodies. For example, adults developed a tolerance for drinking milk after we domesticated cows.
Suppose a species of bird preferred to breed with red individuals, red would become common on this species. In social species, our social Nature will perform a kind of natural selection. Those who fit the social norms attract mates for reproduction. Our social behavior arose while our ancestors lived in a niche favoring social cooperation. Civilization will create new social customs, which promote the success of the wrong individuals. In a few thousand years, the civilized could lose our social instincts. Imagine people who can not love. Are these people?
Mind, self, intention, and consciousness all seem to happen in the brain. These processes extend beyond the brain because how we feel a stimulus affects how we respond, and our response affects how we feel the stimulus. The brain stores the responses that tell your skin how to react. The skin then feels the results of the reaction, and the mind learns from feelings and changes how it responds to the outside world. This process creates our personality. If the part of the brain that stores this process gets damaged, the body might still hold old memories, but family members would notice personality differences as if another person is living in the body (Damasio, 1994).
Where does a video game happen? Does it happen in the computer or the mind of a player? The question becomes even more complicated if the game has more than one player and more than one server. Where is the sensation when you touch something? Is it on your hand or in your mind? If the mind runs encoded inside the interaction with your skin, perhaps the mind grows to fit a particular skin. Therefore, you can’t transfer someone to a new body by moving their brain because the person is the whole body. The end product of a brain in a new body would not be all of the original person.
I suspect the process does not end at the skin because we interact with the world. Perhaps some of the mind is encoded outside your head. The mind may be as difficult to locate as a video game, but it has a home, and we need to find that place. A video game happens due to rules that hold it together. We exist due to the evolutionary adaptations that motivate us.
Section 6: Long live the New Flesh
(Conjecture) 11
Essentialism is the belief that we are something. I Agree and take the idea further. We also need something to be that something. When a population is removed from its natural niche, traits sustained by the niche can become unnecessary. Domesticated animals lived for generations protected from natural selective pressures and now lack the strengths of their wild ancestors. Since technology allows us to live in a protected environment where people no longer experience natural selection in the same way as our ancestors, genetic changes that would have prevented reproduction now pass to future generations. The science fiction writer Dougal Dixon portrays a future where bodies are falling apart (Weintraud, 1982). This might not happen if future technicians are able to restore original humans. They will likely have records of old gene sequences, and samples of original human cells should still be available thousands of years from now. The exact consequences of removing ourselves from natural selection remain to be seen. Limiting medical technology would let natural selection kill some of us, which is a horrible solution. Fortunately, genetic change happens slowly. We have centuries to think of a better solution to this issue.
Selective breeding programs will only work if the project isolates a population for dozens of generations, and such a project will take centuries. Fortunately, no current institution could set up such a project. We can modify the genetic code, and engineers can build factories for growing modified people. Such technology could eliminate genetic diseases and create a future where modified people live longer, are smarter, and have better health. Before you start such a program, consider what a technological civilization could do when people can also get altered for political agendas, economic goals, and entertainment.
Do you assume that people you consider normal are what humans are naturally supposed to be? You could be wrong. Such misinformation about people has been used against people, and people have gone to extremes to eliminate people who do not fit the norms. A Nazi Doctor named Konrad Lorenz wanted to improve humans with a program called eugenics (Brüne, 2007). The Nazis considered themselves superior. Biology does not support the idea of a master race since all modern races are so similar that any perceived differences are more imagination than fact.
“The reason for the survival of these recurrent determinist theories is that they consistently tend to provide a genetic justification of the status quo and of existing privileges for certain groups according to class, race or sex.” (Allen, 1975)
My socialist professors equated essentialism with conservativism and the far right. Similar professors hated the idea that we are something so much that they attacked the biologist Edward O. Wilson for writing about our biology (Fisher, 1994). I agree that false ideas about human nature allow us to imagine the wrong places for people, but the claim that we have no Nature is also false. I once thought that my mind could be anything. People who think that way disregard the way our biological Nature will only find completion within the natural limits of its natural environment. Knowing what people need may help us discover where we belong, yet I’ve searched scientific journals for information about how evolution molded our psychology and only found controversies. We have no idea what Nature did to us. In the search for our right place or places, scientists will need to perform numerous studies since we have layers. The quest to discover what we are will take centuries. This research should be limited to observation; we should not manipulate people.
Is genetic engineering a risk worth taking? Consider the “gain of function data studies” supported by Dr. Fauci.
“Along with support for this research comes a responsibility to ensure that the information is used for good. Safeguarding against the potential accidental release or deliberate misuse of laboratory pathogens is imperative. The engineered viruses developed in the ferret experiments are maintained in high-security laboratories.” (Fauci, 2011)
Back then, you might have thought there was little chance of one of these pathogens spreading to the population because they would never do such experiments at an unsafe lab in China. Now we know our top experts were willing to take these insane risks. They removed pathogens from their natural environment, and even the unmodified germs are dangerous if they leave the lab. When something goes wrong, we can not depend on secretive agencies to tell the public what they have been doing. Genetic projects can affect the whole world. They need to be visible. We must not allow experts such as Fauci to redefine words to pretend nothing happened.
Gain of function research on people would be a disaster. A gene affects the results of other genes in complicated ways (Greshko, 2019). We might never understand the full internal ecology of our species, and genetic engineering could have unexpected results that remain unknown until the altered people have been alive for generations. We could upset the internal ecology of individuals, resulting in horrible lives, with people unable to live as people. Consequently, laws that were set up to serve our needs would become unnecessary if we eliminated those needs. For example, a creature that can not feel happiness would not need a right to have happiness.
I do not think eugenics would work since no artificial program will replace Nature. Nature made us, and only Nature keeps us natural. If civilization ever changes us, we will no longer live as earthlings. In the same way, a toy poodle can’t live like one of its wolf ancestors. Domestication and selective breeding changed them. When domestication permanently changes us, our place in the natural cycle will stop. Fortunately, today, people are still biologically similar to our ancestors and can return to the wild.
Suppose someday our natural parts get replaced by artificial components. In that case, people will depend on technology to survive and become a domesticated breed who cannot live without artificial protection and can never return to Nature. Imagine if people discovered we should have returned to Nature after it was too late. The people after people would be almost all prostheses, and more dead than alive. Have you ever seen the figures in paintings by Giger? Someday, our last natural genes will end up stored in a seed bank; civilization wins. Should we have a conservation effort to preserve some natural humans?
A few centuries ago, farmers comprised a large percentage of the population, while most people today do not understand how to grow crops. A marriage of science with engineering built the gadgets that allowed the nonfarmers to prosper. This developing technology required facts. In modernist philosophy, facts were valued. The modern age needs men of science. Feminine people now attend universities and take courses in social studies, where they learn how to build safe spaces for the fragile to call home. We still need a few nerds to keep the gadgets running even when most people are free to become helpless promoters of social causes. Even truth gets changed to fit the socialist narrative in this postmodern age where biology is no longer considered real. Only a primitive who wants a brutal way of life would need facts. The matriarchy will smother people with safety until our minds end up twisted since the new mother cannot bring us the same happiness as the old natural mother. A culture of perverted fashions will become the norm.
We have the choice to be ourselves or be something else. The choices we make now will influence the future. Transhumanists write about improving people, but technology could affect us in ways we can not yet imagine. We have only begun this journey down the path of Aphrodite, and the great universal plan still has a lot in store for us. In a vision, I saw life thousands of years in the future. Our social Nature had become a dominant selective pressure. No one planned this change, yet it produced a breed of person more person than me.
Unfortunately, most opinions about human Nature have never been verified. Even respected scholars, such as Jared Diamond and Steven Pinker make assumptions and insert opinions in their writings about our nature. We need more research to confirm or refute these opinions about our Nature. Until we get the facts, everything written about our Nature should be considered unreliable. And we might never get the facts.
Page Chapter 8
Sources
Allen, Elizabeth et al. “Against ‘Sociobiology'”. Letter to New York Review (13 November 1975).
Aristotle. Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation. 2 volumes. Edited by Jonathan Barnes. Princeton University Press, 1984.
Brown, Mackenzie. The Devi Gita: The Song of the Goddess. State University of New York, 1998.
Brüne, Martin. “On human self-domestication, psychiatry, and eugenics.” Philos Ethics Humanit Med 2:21 (5 October 2007).
Cameron, Tom C., et al. “Eco-Evolutionary Dynamics in Response to Selection on Life-History.” Ecology Letters, vol. 16, no. 6 (2013) pp. 754-763.
Carson, Rachel. Silent Spring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1962.
Carson, Rachel. The Sense of Wonder. New York: Joanna Cotler Books, 1965.
Cheng, Ze, et al. “A Genome-Wide Comparison of Recent Chimpanzee and Human Segmental Duplications.” Nature, vol. 437 (1 September 2005) pp. 88-93.
Damasio, Antonio. Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. New York: Avon Books, 1994.
Darwin, Charles. Charles Darwin’s Notebooks, 1836-1844. Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Darwin, Charles. Voyage of the Beagle. 2nd ed. London: John Murray, 1845.
Darwin, Charles. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. London: John Murray 1859.
Dawkins, Richard. The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press, 1976.
Dixon, Dougal. MAN after MAN, An Anthropology of the Future. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1990.
Dobzhansky, Theodosius. Genetics and the Origin of Species. New York: Columbia University Press, 1937.
Eaton, S. Bovn, and M. Konner. “Paleolithic nutrition: A consideration of its nature and current implications.” New England Journal of Medicine, vol 312, no. 5 (31 January 1985) pp. 283-9.
Eldredge, Niles and S. J. Gould. “Punctuated Equilibria: an Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism.” Models in Paleobiology. Edited by T.J.M. Schopf. San Francisco: Freeman Cooper, (1972) pp. 82-115.
Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels. Dir. Robert Carter. Creation Ministries International, 2014. Film.
Expelled. Dir. Nathan Frankowski. Rocky Mountain Pictures, 2008. Film.
Fauci, Anthony. A flu virus risk worth taking. Washington Post: (30 December 2011).
Fisher, Helen. “‘Wilson,’ They Said, ‘Your All Wet!'” New York Times, 16 October 1994.
Forbes, Stephen. The Lake as a Microcosm. Bulletin of the Scientific Association, Peoria: Illinois (1887) pp. 77-87.
Gould, Stephen Jay, and Elisabeth S. Vrba. “Exaptation-a Missing Term in the Science of Form.” Paleobiology, vol. 8, no. 1 (1982) pp. 4-15.
Greshko, Michael. “First gene-edited babies may be at risk of early death.” National Geographic, 3 June 2019.
Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kampf, 1925. Translated by James Murphy. New York: Reynal & Hitchcock, 1939.
Hutton, James. “Concerning the System of the Earth, its Duration, and Stability.” Abstract read in the Royal Society of Edinburgh, (1785).
Isaak, Mark. “What is Creationism.” The Talk Origins Archive (2000). http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html
Kropotkin, Peter. Mutual aid: A factor of evolution. New York: McClure Phillips, 1902.
Lucretius. On the Nature of Things. Translated by Martin Ferguson Smith. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 2001.
Lyell, Charles. Principles of Geology. 9th ed. Boston: little brown and company, 1853.
Mayr, Ernst. Systematics and the Origin of Species, from the Viewpoint of a Zoologist. New York: Columbia University Press, 1942.
Mayr, Ernst. What Evolution Is. New York: Basic Books, 2002.
Muhammad. Qur’an. Translated by Abdullah Yusuf Ali. Lahore, Pakistan, 1934.
Prothero, Donald R. Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters. Columbia University Press, 2007.
Scott, Eugenie C. “The Creation/Evolution Continuum.” Reports of the National Center for Science Education, vol. 19, no .4 (1999) pp. 16-17.
Shankara. Manisha Pancakam. Translated by Shri S. V. Ganesan. sanskritdocuments.org, 2012.
Smith, William. Strata identified by organized fossils. London: W. Arding, 1816.
Spencer, Herbert. The Principles of Biology, 2 vols. London: Williams and Norgate, 1864-1867.
Thewissen, J. G. M., et al. “From Land to Water: The Origin of Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises.” Evolution: Education and Outreach, vol 2, no. 2 (16 April 2009) pp. 272-288.
Thomas, Lewis. The Lives of a Cell: Notes of a Biology Watcher. New York: Viking Press, 1974.
Teilhard, Pierre. The Phenomenon of Man, 1955. Translated by Bernard Wall. London: Collins Sons & Co., 1959.
Watts, Alan. The Way of Zen. New York: Pantheon Books, 1957.
Weintraud, Pamela. “Visions Of Man Evolved.” Omni Magazine, November 1982.
Wilson, Edward. Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, Twenty-Fifth Anniversary Edition. Harvard University Press, 2000.