WWW.HUBERT-BRUNE.DE

 

Occidental culture

T H E   F A L S E   S E L E C T I O N   P R I N C I P L E


Humans can live without any natural environment, because they can live in an artificial environment, which is made by themselves. They can live on their own “absolute islands”- thus: without any natural environment. If you live in an artificial environment like the ISS, the natural environment is even deadly for you. An astronaut is immediately dead after leaving the ISS (artificial environment) without any other artificial environment (at least the astronaut suit). Humans who go through our solar system by their spaceship without any contact to the planet Earth can survive as long as they are in their self-made environment. During this time (which can be a very long time in principle) all living beings that live in this environment evolve because of a man-made environment. So this anthropogenic environment causes the adaptations of all living beings who live in it. They are selected by humans. In other words: Darwin’s selection principle is false.


Interest (=> will) is the most important thing (perhaps it is really Kant's „Ding an sich“ - “thing in itself” / “thing as such”). A good example is the “sexual selection” that I would prefer to call reproductive interests when it comes to get ressources (including offspring / children), namely either by (a) dominance or by (b) will to appeal. If a female can't reproduce herself and doesn't want a male or children, because she is kidded - for example - by feminism or other nihilisms, then she is no longer part of the evolution. End.

Who benefits from that?


In any case:

One has to have electric transmitter, for example: nerves.

Without logic consciousness makes no sense because there must be a construction of a logical relationship for the consciousness, even also when it is merely an imagination. Without logic language makes also no sense. But what about logic? Does logic make sense without consciousness? No. Does logic make sense without language? Probably yes. A very primitive bacterium somehow “knows” what to do in order to survive, but probably does not need a language (note: language does not necessarily always mean „human language“, but also “language for all beings”).

Another consideration:

Luxury.

If we consider the principle „luxury“, we come to other results: in that case namely the language came perhaps first because the sense behind it was simply the luxury from which other phenomena arose, e.g. logic. So the grunt (as an example) has only a meaning behind it because of the luxury of grunts.

Referring to the German scientist Paul Alsberg (cp. „Das Menschheitsrätsel“, 1922) the German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk once said (in: Geo - Wissen, September 1998, S. 43-47): “The human beings are descended from the throw” (translated by me) and “human beings have no coat / fur / hide / pett anymore because they are luxury beings” (translated by me), no beings of adaptation to their environment (cp. Darwin and Darwinism), but on the contrary: beings of alienation, of insulation (cp. isles and islands). Human language, human sexuality, human emotions ... etc. are possibly caused by luxury. But what about language in general then?


Relative reproductive interest because of the relative free will of living beings.

There is probably no selection but reproductive interest.

So we probably have (1) variation, (2) reproductive interest (instead of selection), and (3) reproduction as the three principles of evolution.

Who or what selects? God? The nature? The environment? That would mean very passive actors in evolution. The reproductive interest means at least partly active actors in evolution.

A reproductive interest is part of the will (and therefore also of the nature, environment), and because of the fact that living beings have nofree will” but a relative free will the reproductive interest is merely a relative reproductive interest.

So I don’t deny the principle selection but I partly ignore it because no one knows who or what really selects.


The creator of the universe - in premodern times there was no doubt that it was God - is sometimes also called “designer”.


The luxury is a very special phenomenon, especially for human beings. Human beings are luxury beings. They make their artificial island of luxury in the sea of nature. Evolution is not just about adaptation to nature, but also about distancing from nature, thus about the luxury islands.

For human beings luxury is not the exception but the rule.

The so-called “revolutions” are also and especially a part of the luxury. They are a special kind of luxury for they occur because the so-called “revolutionary” want the power and thus the greatest possible luxury gratis, without any work, without any effort, ... and so on.


The nature is full of violence, full of cruelness, full of abominations, and any and every living being is equipped with the will to live, the will to power. Even then, if we really want to take responsibility for nature, we could not do it, because we are also living beings. So the human promise of “responsibility fort the nature” is a lie. Having said that, we should not be surprised about that lie.

Schopenhauer was the earlier and the better “Darwin”. A half century before Darwin Schopenhauer explained philosophically, especially metphysically, how the nature works. Accordig to Schopenhauer the cause is the “will”, the „thing as such“ is the will. A half century later Darwin said that the cause of evolution would be the natural selection. Darwin was a theologian, and thus his statement has a theological aspect because of the question: “what or who really selects?”. However, Schopenhauer was the discoverer or founder of evolution.

We don’t know the first cause; we can believe in a so-called „unmoved mover“(Aristoteles) or in a so-called “thing as such” (Kant) which became later the “will” (Schopenhauer); we can also believe in coincidence and its following “selection” (Darwin); but the latter is the most imperfect one of those four explanations how development and/or evolution work.

We don’t need to say that Darwin was totally wrong, but we should be allowed to say that he was partly wrong, in any case more wrong than Schopenhauer. We also don't need to consequently negate the nature because it is so cruel (and it is very cruel!). Because of that we can faith in Nietzsche and his affirmation of all development (thus also evolution and history), but also not too much!


Darwinistically we evolved from the apes, okay, but Anti-Darwinistically, thus culturally, we evolved from the throw(ing) (**|**|**|**|**|**).


Humans’ pleasure and replication are already separated. So humans are now a species between animals (humans) and (humans,) machines or gods, not far away from (those) machines between humans and gods.


If someone says that “natural selection disproves God”, then that one merely says by using other words, how important it is to have not only a natural science burt also a spiritual or moral science, or philosophy.


Darwinism can explain many things but not all because it is the trial and the error to explain biological development by demographic and economic developments (compare: Thomas R. Malthus). And that does not work completely. There is something like a „missing link“ between biology on the one side and demography and economy on the other side. The evolution of the species does not only function by adaptation or fitting but also by dissociation or distancing.

The Darwinian evolution theory consists of three prnicples: (1) heredity (inheritance, descent), (2) variation, (3) selection; and just the selection which is the most characteristic principle of the Darwinian evolution theory is at least partly false.


There are flaws or at least one flaw in the Darwinian evolution theory: it is just the „natural selection“ which is partly false. And if it is partly false, then it is scientifically falsified. Therefore the Darwinians or Darwinists are eager and eagerer to find new declarations. So now they have not only the so-called „natural selection“ but also the so-called „sexual selection“, the so-called „kin selection“, and other so-called „selections“, even a so-called „social selection“, but honestly: a social selection which is not under the „control“ of the natural selection is already the prove that the natural selection can't be the only kind of selection, and that means that the natural selection as one of the three priciples of Darwinism is at least partly false. .... And if it is partly false, then it is scientifically falsified. .... (See above) ....

If there is a social selection which is temporarily independend of the natural selection - and there is one -, then the natural selection is temporarily not at work in that case, so it can be tricked. If the natural selection can be tricked - and it can, namely by humans -, then it is not that natural selection that Darwin meant. So in reality the natural selection is merely a part of other selections of the evolution theory, although the natural selection is the main selection because there is a hierarchy among the selections. And poetically said: the selectional“ „chief“ does not always „see“ everything and anything.

Darwin said, the fittest have more children than the others; so the unfittest die out. But that is not always true for humans. Social selection can be positive (eugenics) and negative (dysgenics), so it can select in the way that natural selection does and also in the reverse way: the unfittest have more children than the others; so the fittest die out.


The use of tools that do not belong to the own body are alrerady a prestage of luxury; the use of language, if it is close to the value of the human language, as well; games do all mammals have (maybe it is a pre-prestage of luxury). B.t.w.: Luxury can be measured by the degree of insulation. The more living beings are able to live on an own „island“ (meant as a metaphor!), the more they are luxury beings. Or, in other words, the more living beings are able to behave against the Darwinistic evolution, the more they are luxury beings. Insulations give those beings a relative (!) independence of adaptation to nature. The adaptation to nature has not vanished but has been added by dissociation of nature. And the only living being that has achieved this independence in a sufficient extent is the human being.

The question is how we value this relative (!) independence. This relative independence is caused by insulation or dissociation of nature with the main effect: luxury. And this insulation is (a) natuarlly caused by the relatively huge brain and (b) culturally caused by the huge consciousness, awareness, knowkedge, language of human beings.


Whether „alpha males and their mates get the first resources in almost any specie“ (**) or not is obviously not important for luxury beings. Are Occidental humans alpha males and their mates? Do they have the most descendants? No! The reverse is true: They have the least descendants. Do the humans with the most descendants (thus currently the Black humans in Africa) get the first resources? No!

Humans do not completely fit in the scheme of the Darwinistic evolution theory!


In Europe, especially in West and West-Central Europe the average winter-temperature is often higher than +2° Celsius (35.6° Fahrenheit) - caused by the Gulf Stream.

**

The natural cause of the relative (!) independence of human beings is their brain, and the cultural cause or reason of the relative (!) independence of human beings is their huge consciousness, awareness, knowkedge, language. So we owe our relative independence (relative free will) to our brain.

The development of our brain is almost a miracle, a wonder.


The main aspect is the insulation (dissociation of nature) which leads to luxury and is naturally caused by the brain. So we have (1) the brain, (2) the insulation (dissociation of nature), (3) the luxury and also the self-consciousness with its epiphenomenon egoism and many other features, but it is more the luxury that leads to the self-consciousness than it is the self-consciousness that leads to luxury. Some animals have self-consciousness in almost the degree that human children in the age of 1 to 2 years have, but these animals do not have luxury in the degree that human children in the age of 1 to 2 years have. And human children become egoistic in that typical human way (you said: „extreme“) after that age, usually when they are older than 2 years. Luxury is more a communal than a personal matter.The human development is more a communal than a personal („individual“) development. The human development is more a cultural than a natural development, because the natural development of the humans is more (about 98%; see above) an animal development than a human development.

Naturally you need a relative large and a very complex brain, if you want to become a human being, but then, when that brain exists, your further development is more a cultural than a natural development. The huge consciousness (with its accordingly huge self-consciousness), the huge knowledge, the huge and complex language, ... were naturally caused by the brain but would be totally useless, if their development were merely a natural development. The humans are humans very much more because of their cultural development than because of their natural development. Naturally humans are 98%-animals, but culturally humans are 98%-humans.


Naturally humans are 98%-animals, but culturally humans are 98%-humans.


Like I said (**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**): Human beings are luxury beings.

Evolution is not just about adaptation to nature, to environment, but also about distancing from nature, from environment, thus about the „luxury islands“.

Human beings are the only living beings that can disassociate themselves from nature in such a dimension that they do not completely have to adapt themselves to nature, to their natural environment. They can destroy the nature just for fun. Other living beings can also have a little bit luxury, but their luxury is always embedded in their immediate nature, their natural environment. They are not able to overcome their dependence of nature. They remain living creatures in the sense of Darwinism: those that are successful have the most descendants, and those that are not successful have the less or no descendants and die out. Luxury beings are the only living beings that can show also the opposite direction: being successful and having less or no descendants (children) and beeing unsuccessful and having the most descendants (children). This two cases would immediately lead to extinction, if they were completely embedded in nature, in natural environment. In the case of human beings it does not lead to extinction, if they are in situations of independence of nature; they often are in such situations, and then It depends on human decisions whether a group of human beings or even all human beings die out or not. Humans have two natures: (1) the real nature which all other living beings also have, (2) their own nature as their culture(s) which is (are) much independend of the real nature.

So when I say „human nature is human culture/s“, then I mean that - in a pure natural sense - humans are 98%-animals; so in this sense they have a 98%-animal nature and merely a 2%-human nature, but this 2% are their culture/s. And in a pure cultural sense this relation is inversely proportional.

If humans are humans to 100%, then merely to 2% because of their nature; but to 98% because of their culture/s!


Human beings are group-living animals - just like pack animals. Since the human beings came into the world - whenever their „birth“ was - they have been being such group-living animals (naturally) and group-living humans (culturally). So it is very difficult for them to not differentiate themselves from others, especially from other group-living animals (naturally) and group-living humans (culturally). They can not give up their attitude of „we-are-not-them“, „we-do-not-want-to-be-like-them“, „we-are-against-them“, „we-fight-against-them“ and so on.

If such a group becomes too large, then it becomes less controllable; if such a group becomes too small, then it also becomes less controllable, because it can easily be conquered /captured by a foreign group. Now, „put 1 and 1 together“ and think of the current Occicental culture which is too large because of its economic restraints (i.e. expansion) and too small because of its individualism, extreme egoism. So you have a too large group with too much too small subgroups as one phenomenon. This group can very easily be conquered /captured by a foreign group.

Cecil Rhodes

Cultures, empires, nations and other large societies are too large; but if there are already different cultures, empires, nations and other large societies, then they also have already changed their strategy in order to defend themselves. Ideally a human group should consist of not more than about 100 members, but the history of the last 6000 years shows which strategy more and more humans chose in order to defend their groups: some groups became large (too large!), many groups remained small (in an oriiginally ideal sense which became a disadvantage), and many of this many groups got conquered / captured by the large groups. And each time when this large groups became „civilisations“ with economic restraints (see above) - „expansion is everything“ (Cecil Rhodes) -, then the small groups becamne less and less. So today we have some very large groups and some very small groups, and one of the very large (very much too large) groups is a group of individualsm, thus exists of too much very too small subgroups. That's dangerous. Another very large group which is not a group of individualism behaves like every large group which has not too much very too small subgrous, thus wants to expand and to prevent individualism. That's dangerous. too. - So the Occident has many strategic problems: enemies inside (the very too small subgroups) and outside (foreign groups), economic restraints (i.e. expansion) which strengthen those enemies, .... The West is both very too large and very too small (because of too much individualism), and that means tendentious weakness, thus "feed" for those groups which are strong, large, and intelligent enough to conquere / capture it.

The more a group grows the more strategies are needed to control this group. If a group has its enemies both outside (foreign groups) and inside (i.e. its own subgroups and parts of foreign groups) of itself, then this group is tendentially weak and destroys itself from inside (demographic facts are included - of course), so that this group's enemies just have to await their best chance.


Please compare (**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**): Human beings are luxury beings.


The word „progress“ is a bit problematic, because the development is spiral cyclic, not simply linear or even exponential. So the so-called „human grogress“ is merely in our thoughts and not the real development, but we have to keep the process in motion, and therefore we need such thoughts.


And hedonism leads i.a. to more lies and hypocrisy, to any kind of socialism, to any knd of anti-socialism, to any knd of facsism, to any knd of anti-fascism, to any knd of feminism, to any knd of anti-feminism, just to demise.

Hedonism is one of the attributes of modernity (its main attribute is - by the way - any kind of exaggerated mobilisation).

„Isms“ are always extreme / unhealthy forms of decadence / demise. So i.e. hedonism and decadence have very much to do with each other.

**

The last one is „homo hedonisticus“.


The antagonist of the hedonism will not vanish or sublate in a synthesis as long as the hedonism itself will not vanish or sublate in a synthesis. Either both vanish or sublate in a synthesis or no one of them.


There are many aspects which refer to the human reproduction: biological differentiation (for example: pregnancy), other differentiations, for example in the sense of specialisation or division of labor (for example: homework versus other works, gathering versus hunting, ... and so on ....), ... and so on ....


The evolution of the human beings implies the differentiations / specialisations. If there had not been such a specialisation, there would never have been any human being.

When these human differentiations / specialisations will vanish, then the human beings will vanish. That's clear.

Males and females should be different in order to prevent the extinction of homo sapiens. Without their differentiations / specialisations they would never have become humans and will never survive.


Human beings are very specific living beings: animal-not-wannabes on the one side and god-wannabes on the other side. Humans are pretty much animals, but do not want to be animals, and they are not pretty much god(s), but want to be god(s). Humans are not able to be real animals and not able to be real god(s) - they are between the two, so a human being means a being between an animal and a god.


The Ancient Romans said to someone who was as presumptuous as you seem to be: „Remember that you are a mortal being“.

Gods are no mortal beings - this belongs to the definition of „god(s)“.


Some mllion years humans (including some ancestors of homo sapiens) lived together with wild animals. Since about 6000 years humans have been living together - more or less - with pets and other harmless animals and not or hardly with wild animals. You personally have never lived together with wild animals but merely with pets and other harmless animals.


Humans are just not really perfect.


Since the date when humans became „modern“ - whenever it was - they have been following the idea that „something“ should do the work for them, but they have never been considering that that also implies the possibility of their complete replacement by this „something“. Human beings as luxury beings have been considering mostly the comfort but rarely the danger of this development.

Who of the humans is really able to decide in place of every and any human being, especially those of the future?
I answer: No one of the humans. In that case the humans play „God“


The purpose / goal / sense of life could be to fulfill / accomplish / achieve what was set in the beginning of it.


Evolution is an own-dynamic, self-organised process, and according to the systemic-evolution-theory its three principles are (1) variation, (2) reproduction (according to Darwinism: heredity), (3) reproduction interest (according to the Darwinism: selection [but that is partly false]). Self-preservation means preservation of the competence during the current own life. Variation (=> 1) means that there are and must be several units (often called „individuals“)because of the mutations, the variances in the genetic code. Reproduction (=> 2) means preservation of the competence beyond the own life (by having offspring [children]). Reproduction interest (=> 3) means the interest in the reproduction (the example homo sapiens shows that this interest can be non-existent or even negative). Can machines be or are they already part of this own-dynamic, self-organised process which we call „evolution“?

There has to be a decision, yes, and that means that there has to be an interest, a reproduction interest. Like I said (**) ....


A being does not have to be a living being when it comes to evolution. Non-living beings can evolve if they fulfill the three evolution principles (variation, reproduction, reproduction interest) or others (for example: growers, breeders, Raisers, stockmen) „help“ them, so that they can evolve. So cultured cellphones can evolve - similarly to all living beings, regardless wether they are wild or bred like e.g. potatoes and sheep dogs. But that does not mean that cellphones are living beings. Non-living beings like cellphones can - nonetheless - be part of the evolution, if the three evolution principles (variation, reproduction, reproduction interest) are fulfilled.


I do not „consider any change in the entity as an evolution“. I also do not „consider any change in the entity as an evolution, irrespective of how it is happening“


Evolution refers not merely to living beings but to other beings as well, if the three evolution princples are fulfilled (**) .

Please do not confuse „evolution“ with „life“.


„Untroubled existence“ (**) is a loose concept. However, the reality shows us almost always the opposite side of that what you call „our need is untroubled existence“ (**).

If humans have less troubles than they usually have, then they invent troubles. Metaphorically said humans live on an „island of luxury“, surrounded by an „ocean of non-luxury and less-luxury“.

Each culture is embedded in nature.

If it is not false that humans are naturally „98%-animals“ and „2%-humans“ but culturally „98%-humans“ and „2%-animals“, then it is easy to find out that they are not able to leave all troubles behind them („trouble equals strength“) and that they are nonetheless able to sublimate troubles because of their culture.

So generally human troubles do not vanish.

See also: ** **


1) The prestage of the human luxury beings was the upright walking which led to the possibility of using hands in many other ways than walking which led to a more voluminous brain with very much more capacity which led to the birth of the luxury being.

2) The „birth“ of the human luxury beings was the use of fire which was associated with the use of language.

3) The „youth“ of the human luxury beings was the sapientisation.

4) The „adulthood“ of the human luxury beings began when they were left alone, thus with the Neanderthal extinction (since then there has been being merely one species of the humans).

4a) The „early adulthood“ of the human luxury beings: from the Neanderthal extinction to the transition (the so-called „Neolithic Revolution“) to the agriculture.

4b) The „middle adulthood“ of the human luxury beings: from the agriculture to that probable date in the future when machines will take over (**|**).

4c) The „late adulthood“ of the human luxury beings: from the probable date in the future when machines will have taken over to the death of the last human.

I was speaking of „reproduction interests“, and („reproduction interest“ implcates to choose to reproduce or replicate and to choose to not reproduce or replicate).


An own interest in reproduction or replication implies something like a simple stimulus-response mechanism or even a consciousness. All cells reproduce or replicate themselves, and the consciousness, if there is one, is able to influence the cells, to suppress the interest in reproduction or replication, to prevent the reproduction or replication (humans are an example for this kind of suppressing and preventing).


There are two levels of interest: (a) a kind of stimulus-sesponse mechanism as an interest, and (b) a conscious interest. With „human help“ I meant the help by using the human consciousness (=> b) not the human stimulus-sesponse mechanism (=> a [for example in the human cells]).


The abilities of human beings are too complex, so if there are, for example, two neighborly human groups (e.g. „X“ and „Y“) and the human group „X“ does „x“ and the human group „Y“ does „y“, then it is very much probable that one of this two human groups will sooner or later change its doing, unless these two groups are isolated from each other. Huamn beings have far more possibilities of doing or behaving, far more capabilities or skills than e.g. ants. Ants are great specialists - but they do always the same.


Evolution takes place, if its three prnciples are fulfilled, regardless how (**).


Evolving beings do not need to be independent in order to be part (namely a dependent part) of the evolution. Pets, for example, evolved and evolve because of the help of the humans.


Evolution is more natural than cultural, wheras history is more cultural than natural. It is a difference - often even a huge difference - whether living beings like the human beings develop naturally or culturally. It is a difference whether the brain of the humans has grown or the constitutional state is established by the Occidental humans. Evolution is more important than history when it comes to naturally survive. Evolution came before history - the revers is not possible. At first you, for example, have to change from an animal to an human before you can change from an natural human with natural and cultural evolution to a cultural human with natural and cultural evolution and then to a cultural human with history, thus with natural and cultural evolution, and - now: of course - cultural history.


Information is very important - naturally and culturally (our current economy, for example, should be much more orientated towards Information than towards energy).


Humans can never be 100%-animals but „merely“ 98%-animals, and humans can never be gods but godwannabes, although no 100%-godwannabes but „merely“ 98%-godwannabes.


Humans are luxury beings; so if you want them to not have luxury, then you do nothing else than the rulers do: make the 1% of all humans (the rulers) richer and richer and the 99% of all humans poorer and poorer.

The „Brazilianisation“ of the world is a process of „3rd-world-isation“ which will lead to a tiny, crowded, and very ugly „islands“ of the 99% of all humans with a tiny luxury and to a huge, sparsely populated, and very beautiful „island“ of the 1% of all humans with a huge luxury.

The humans as the luxury beings are not able to stop the luxury itself - what they get, if they try to stop it, is an unfairer and unfairer distribution (allocation) of the luxury. So, for example, you can eschew luxury, of course, but that merely makes the distribution (allocation) of the luxury unfairer and unfairer, so that you consequently must eschew luxury, whereas the 1% of all humans can get more and more luxury, because your eschewal of luxury does not mean all humans’ eschewal of luxury but the increase of other humans' luxury. At last 99% of all humans will have to eschew about 99% of all luxury (wealth), whereas 1% of all humans will have that 99% of all luxury (wealth).


Humans are not perfect. They are not capable of being 100%-animals and also not capable of being gods.


The „natural selection“ is not God but merely one aspect of the natural development.


Evolution is not just about adaptation to nature, but also about distancing from nature.


Without speech (language) human beings would not have come into the world: „The »birth« of the human luxury beings was the use of fire which was associated with the use of language.“ **

Why do humans have their language?

1) Language is a very much elaborated form of communication (information system) - there is an interdependence between language and communication (information system).
2) Language serves and supports thinking - there is an interdependence between language and thinking.
1 + 2) Language is a cultural tool - there is an interdependence between language and culture.

Without language humans would almost exclusively be like animals: (1) they would not speak but merely communicate like animals; (2) they could not have philosophy and other elaborated systems of thinking; (1 + 2) they would not have their own cultural tool, the typical human tool for culture.

For example:

If you are capable of using fire, then you are powerful and can defend yourself against all animals, sit at your bonfire and talk with other hunters about the hunt, about the past and the future, thus you have more leisure, more luxury; and this gives you and your culture a push in all directions, especially in spritual / intellectual directions, and then a feedback from all those directions.

But nevertheless: the human nature is not only the human language but the whole human culture; and merely the rest of about 2% is a pure natural aspect of the human nature (these 2% are not really few - as we know, especially from genetics).


Human beings are human beings mainly (about 98%) because of their culture/s. Do you (**) want them to completely return to nature, to completely become animals?

You should not be surprised if someone asks you whether you want the humans to completely return to nature, to completely become animals, because you refer to generalities like nature.

Why do you think that there has to be a better ethical theory than the one that is presently being taught in classrooms (of the US, I guess, right?)?

Life in a negative sense of valuation is not only about suffering but also about death. Humans want to be immortal - like gods.


Children develop and learn to be like adults. The older a child the more similar to an adult.

**


If children are capable of living authentically and adults are not capable of living authentically anymore, then the difference of both is because of development and learning, ubringing and education, thus because of natural and cultural processes which cause that adult humans are not capable of living authentically anymore.


We can say that an „authentic human life“ means a „life according to the human's nature“, whereas an „unauthentic life“ means a „life according to the human's culture/s“.
In other words: Humans need their culture/s to not live according to their nature and need their nature to not live according to their culture/s.
So if „humans are humans because of about 2% of their nature and because of about 98% of their culture/s“ (**), then they have merely a chance of about 2% to live authentically.


Thesis:

The Darwinistic selection principle is false, unless human beings were not included in that theory.

Darwin's selection principle means that successful living beings have more offspring than the unsuccessful living beings and live on, whereas unsuccessful living beings have less offspring than the successful living beings and die out. But in the case of the human beings this selection principle can be reversed: successful human beings have less offspring than the unsuccessful human beings and die out, whereas unsuccessful living beings have more offspring than the successful living beings and live on. The human culture/s allow/s to circumvent the Darwinistic selection principle.


Darwin's selection principle of his theory of evolution itself is an equivocation. It even contains a contradiction, because the humans do do not completely fit it. On the one side humans fit Darwin's selection principle of his theory of evolution when it comes to human nature, but on the other side humans do not fit Darwin's selection principle of his theory of evolution when it comes to human culture/s respectively to the modern era/s of human culture/s.


Your ideological (modern religious) „statement“ (**) is meaningless, because your false god Darwin was partly wrong, regardless whether it is hard for an Darwinistic theist like you to believe it (by the way: Darwin was a theist too - a pantheist).

When it became obvious that the „natural selection“ was partly false, the „sexual selection“ was invented. When it became obvious that the „sexual selection“ was also partly false, the „kin selection“ was invented. When it became obvious that the „kin selection“ was also partly false, the „social selection“ was invented. And so on, and so on .... The „natural selection“ is - more or less - contradicted by the other „selections“, especially and completely by the „social selection“. The Darwinistic selection principle is merely a farce.

The theologist Darwin was a Malthusian, and Malthus was an economist.

In nature (in nature!) fitness or success is measured by reproduction. Living beings that have the most offspring are the „fittest“, thus are most successfull (because you can merely be most successful, if you are the „fittest“). Success is the consequence of fitness. The success follows the fitness. So when it comes to nature it is absolutely correct to say that successful living beings live on, because they have more offspring than the unsuccessful living beings, whereas successful living beings die out, because they have no offspring or less offspring than the unsuccessful living beings. But when it come to humans, especially to modern humans culture/s, it is not correct to say that, because modern humans are fit, thus successful, when they have no offspring or less offspring than those humans who are not fit, thus unseccessful.

The said „social selection“ contains the possibility of selecting against the Darwinistic selection principle. And this happened and happens. Thus it was and is a fact.


„The Darwin principle of evolution has only been a part of what has been altering the nature of life, animal and human. The principle of filtering the strong in and the weak out is entirely situationally dependent. Given the exact same competitive creatures in a different environmental situation, the opposite set could succeed instead.“ (**). This definitely means that the selection principle of Darwin, the Darwinans, and the Darwinianists is false.

„Strength and weakness are not simple concepts when it comes to actual life.“ (**). The „Political Correctness“ wants us to speak of „fitness“.

„So it all gets very complicated and from one era to another can almost completely change. But there is one aspect that can never change. And that is which ever behaves in a manner that is more anentropic, survives longer. But then ensuring which behavior that really is can be complicated. So I cannot say that the principle is entirely true nor entirely false. It is partially true and partially false. It is not a »holy«, stand-alone principle and is often reversed. And the intentional effort to go along with it, completely defeats it.“ (**). Partially true and partially false scientifically means false, because it has to be regarded as false, if merely one part of a theory is false. It is the theorist who has to provide a correct theory.

What is really very much questionable and partially not true is the selection principle - not more. Darwin’s theory of evolution is based on three principles: (1) variation, (2) heredity, (3) selection.


Those who claim to be „atheists“ are antitheists, or theists, or both (that's possible), and in this case Darwin is their false god. There are many of those false gods - as you know; but the main problem are not the false gods themselves but those stupid ideologists (modern-religious zealots) who believe in them.


Not he whole science (**) but merely its „theorist ... has to provide a correct theory“ (see above). The theorist must have the honest claim to provide a correct theory. Otherwise science would choke. Scientists have to do their jobs seriously, that means in the case of theorists to provide a correct theory, and a correct theory means correct according to the current knowledge about logic and observation/experimentation. Referred to Darwinisms scientists know or could know that the Darwinistic selection principle is partly false, and then they have to scrap or to correct the whole theory. Maybe that I did not choose the most adequate translation of my thoughts, but it was no mistake. Science consists of observation/experimentation as praxis and of theory, and the theorists do not have less responsibility than the practicians (observers/experimenters). Probably one can rescue the other two principles of the Darwinistic theory of evolution but not its selection principle, if humans are included in it.

Darwin's selection principle has not much to do with science in general but with a relatively small part of a scientific theory, if it really is a scientific theory. But the theory is as important as the praxis. If there were no kind of falsification in science, then all theories of the past would still be valid. Many theories are valid, although they are partlially false. So the Ptolemaic system could also be correct, because it is not totally incorrect. But that is not the way how science works. Ironically but not accidentally science works like Darwinism, Social-Darwinism, so to say. So if one says that Darwin's selection principle is partly false, then this one will get a problem with some powerful people, but that does not mean that this one is wrong. The real reason why some theories are scrapped has more to do with power than with science itself.

Many other theories are also merely partly false and regarded as being totally false, but some currently valid theories are regarded as being correct, although they are partly false as well.

A theory is falsified not only then, if a theory is false, but also then, if only one single part of a theory is false.


Technology is an applied science and belongs more to the praxis side of science than to the theory side of science. There have been many examples in the history of science and technology that have showed how a theory can be strongly influenced by technology and/or scientifiic praxis (obsevations/experimentations): in some cases a theory got approved, in some cases a theory got scrapped (discarded). Allegedly some geological theories got approved by the landing on the Moon because of some rocks that were brought from the Moon to the Earth, whereas other geological theories got scrapped (discarded) by it because of the same rocks. Both science and technology and again both scientific praxis and scientific theory influence each other.

Dariwn's selection principle insofar as it refers to humans (!) has not led to any technological (!) success but merely to more belief in it.

Regarding a theory as false, although merely a small part of it is false, has often led to more science success than a conservative defence of it. And false theories are usually not „dead“ theories, if science is not „dead“.

But, please, do not forget:

A theory is falsified not only then, if a theory is false, but also then, if only one single part of a theory is false.


Creationists are often but do not have to be religious, Darwinists are much more religious, namely modern-religious, thus ideological.


I do not want to destroy the whole Darwinistic theory. What I want is to find out what happens to that theory without one of its three principles, because that one principles is false, if humans are included in it.


Darwin was a theologist. If you do not believe it, go and google it and get that your false god Darwin was a theologist and a theist, eaxctly a „pantheist“, and pantheists are often confused with atheists, although pantheists are theists and there are almost no atheists. Also often confused with atheists are antitheists. And a new religion in modern times can be correctly called a modern religion, thus an ideology, of course with false gods, thus idols.

Darwin was no atheist, Marx was no atheist, all babies are no atheists


I used the word „success“ instead of „fitness“ just in order to rescue the Darwinistic theory, because the concept of „fItness“ is problematic. Those humans who are „fit“ have less offspring than those humans who are „unfit“. You can easily observe and prove this as a fact.


In a human cultural environment idiot criminals can be punished or not - thus: it depends on the human cultural (especially political) environment whether criminal idiots proliferate or not. This idiot criminals can be punished by death and do not proliferate but die out, and the same idiot criminals can be revered as heroes and do not die out but proliferate.

You can easily observe this.


Human cultures can insure that only the strong do not survive.


Natur and culture are not really a dichotomy, because culture is embedded in nature.


Genes and memes do not work in the same way. So Richard Dawkins' meme theorie is false too.


Darwin's selection principle is partly false. Therefore the „natural selection“ was „extended“ by the „sexual selection“, because the „natural selection“ had partly failed; then the „sexual selection“ was „extended“ by the „kin selection“, because the „seuxal selection“ had partly failed; then the „kin selection“ was „extended“ by the „social selection“, because the „kin selection“ had partly failed; ... and so on, one day the „social selection“ will be „extended“ by the „godly selection“ (again), because the „social selection“ will have partly failed.

Who selects according to the Darwinistic selection principle?
Who is the breeder according to the Darwinistic selection principle?

1) According to the „natural selection“ the breeder is the nature.
2) According to the „sexual selection“ the breeder are the females.
3) According to the „kin selection“ the breeder are the relatives.
4) According to the „social selection“ the breeder is the social state.

These just keep getting funnier.


And even if the „different types of selection“ are „different mechanisms of selection“: they contradict each other, especially the „natural selection“ and the „social selection“. A social state can and does decide against the nature, the so-called „natural selection“, and also against the „sexual selection“ and the „kin selection“, ... and so on.

In almost all cases the „social selection“ and the „natural selection“ are diametrically opposed.

The „socal selection“ just allows the „social state“ as the breeder to select whomever it wants to be selected - so: these people will die, those people will live just because of the decision of the „social state“.


Darwin knew nothing about genetics.

Do you not know that there are the „sexual selection“, the „kin selection“, and especially the „social selection“ as well? At the latest when we are talking about „social selection“: the term „fitness“ has already changed - often in its opposed meaning. So I did not change the term, but the Darwinists themselves did it. So the Darwinists themselves equivocate.


According to Darwin the fittest have more offspring and live on, while the unfittest have less and at last no offspring and die out. According to the „social selection“ - thus to the „social state“ - a decision of just the opposite is possible and happens in reality every day: the unfittest live on, while the fittest die out. If Darwin's selection principle was not false, the „social selection“ could and would not be possible.


It is hard for modern believers when they notice their idols are as dead as their ideologies.


Another Darwinistic fairy tale: When Darwin wrote his books every single word he used had a „specific meaning“ and differed „from the colloquial usage“. Today there is nobody - except the Darwinists of course - who is capable of understanding a single word Darwin used in his books.


Have you never heard of Anti-Darwinism or any Darwinistic criticism?

News (examples):
- Individuals are not „blind“ or absolutely dependent when it comes to the framework conditions of nature.
- The so-called „social selection“ contradicts the so-called „natural selection“ in many aspects.
- The immunity to any criticism indicates that Darwinism is a modern religious system.
- David Stove's book „Darwinian Fairytales“.
- Darwinism as an „Universal Darwinism“.
- Darwinism as an „Ultra Darwinism“.
- Darwinism explains NOTHING.

You push me in the role of an Anti-Darwinist, although I am not an Anti-Darwinist - but also not an Darwinist.

Darwinism is a system that makes humans dependent like pets. It is no accident that Darwinism and Marxism, Nietzscheanism, Freudianism have they have roughly the same age and are so much similar when it comes to speak about humans as absolutely dependent pets. Those isms have to do with compulsion systems, with dogmatism, with religion, but not with science.

**

Humans are not absolutely free, but they are relatively free. They do not depend on their environment like other living beings. Humans have the possibility to trick the nature. They are luxury beings. Their culture is a huge „island“ in the „ocean“ as nature. If they were not relatively free, then they could and would not be capable of destroying their environment, the whole globe, and meanwhile also the outer space, could and would not be capable of bringing every living being in an absoluetly foreign environment, could and would not be capable of having a technolgy that makes them more than demigods.

Humans do not absolutely depend on economic or fatalistic or unconscious restraints. They are relatively free. Humans are not pets, although they educate themselves as if they were pets.


There are also or even exclusively cultural reasons, especially economical and social ("social selection", "social state") reasons.


The senses can already be used before the birth: (1) sense of touch at the age of about 2 months after the fertilisation; (2) sense of balance at the age of about 2 till some more months after the fertilisation; (3) sense of taste at the age of about 3 months after the fertilisation; (4) sense of smell at the age of about 5 months after the fertilisation; (5) sense of hearing at the age of about 6 months after the fertilisation; (6) sense of sight at the age of about 9 months after the fertilisation.


If we assume that Darwin's theory of evolution is not false and that „less offspring can be fine“ (**), then having less offspring can merely be fine in a cultural sense and perhaps for a very short time (!) also in a natural sense but not in the sense of Darwin's theory of evolution, especially his „selection principle“. So according to Darwin's theory of evolution having less offspring is always a disadvantage, because it leads to extinction. According to Darwin's „selection principle“ the living beings with less offspring die out because of their unfitness and the fitness of the living beings with more offspring. That is the main point of Darwin's „selection principle“. Darwin's theory of evolution refers to developments in the long run - otherwise it would not be accepted as a theory of evolution but „merely“ as a theory of breeding - and by the way: the theory of breeding is very much older than Darwin's theory of evolution.

Cultures or societies often contradict nature. The so-called „social selection“ is the selection of some rulers who decide against nature just because of their own interests - e.g. money, thus power - just in order to remain powerful. The „social selection“ can lead to the extinction of all who are involved in the „social selection“, and in a global society of humans all humans are involved in that „social selection“. Look what the rulers do: they destroy the human's environment, the whole globe, they sterilise the other humans (by poison and other means) and at last probably themselves too, they murder other living beings, ... and so on, ... and so on ..., just for money, thus power. If this human beings were nothing else than natural, thus living beings that completely depend on nature, then they could not do such nonsense. Humans are relativeley free (not absoluetly free - because they are not gods), so they can decide and act against nature, and they do decide and act against nature.

This „social selection“ is mostly directed against the „natural selection“, against nature at all, because those who select, want to exploit and to control anything and everything, thus also nature, want to wield power over anything and everything, thus also over nature.

Humans are capable to destroy all living beings on our planet. According to Darwin's „selection principle“ this means that the species homo sapiens is the fittest species of all times while most of all other species are the unfittest species of all times, just because of the fact that homo sapiens is capable of replacing most of all other species. But in addition the species homo sapiens is capable of deciding and acting against nature and the so-called „natural selection“. Instead of „fit“ one can also say „capable“, „competent“, or „successful“.


It is totally obvious that (a) that the „natural selection“ is at least partly false, (b) that the „sexual selection“ is at least partly false and was invented because of the partly false „natural selection“ , although they already contradict each other, (c) that the „kin selection“ is at least partly false and was invented because of the partly false „natural selection“ and the partly false „sexual selection“, although they already contradict each other, and (d) that the „social selection“ is at least partly false and was invented because of partly false „natural selection“ , the partly false „sexual selection“ , and the partly false the „kin selection“ , although they all contradict each other and a contradicted by the „social selection“ . We are talking about fitness. And when the fittest die out, and the unfittest live on, then you have no right to speak of a „survival of the fittest“ . The whole theory is false then.


No other living being than the human being is capable of circumventing the Darwinistic selection principle.


Every human has a self-interest, a drive to be recognised, a will to live - you may also call it a „will to power“.


All mechanisms of the Darwinistic „selection principle“ and all human's „selections“ (for example the „social selection“) do not coincide. Humans are luxury beings. They are too wealthy; they are too rich; so they have their own „selection principle“; they have, for example, their „social selection“. Culture is embedded in nature; the „social selection“ is embedded in the „natural selection“; culture fights nature; the „social selection“ contradicts the „natural selection“.


Evolutionary fitness is not an independent category of „fitness“.


Humans have a relatively free will. They do not as much depend on nature (=> Darwin) as other living beings do; they do not as much depend on economy as a living basis (=> Marx) as other living beings do; they do not as much depend on fate /destiny (=> Nietzsche) as other living beings do; they do not as much depend on „the unconscious“ (=> Freud) as other living beings do. Humans are relatively free because of their high developed brains, because high developed brains mean a relatively high intelligence, thus also relatively high culture/s, and that means a relative indepencence of nature.


The Darwinism is more an sociological/economical than a biological theory. No surprise to me, because Darwin was a Malthusianist, and Malthus was an economist.


When Darwinists talk about Darwinism, then they always talk about sociological and economical aspects.


I am saying that the „social selection“ (you may also call it the „human/cultural selection“ or the „social state selection“), can and does often contradict the „natural selection“, so that the „fittest“ humans have less and at last no offspring and die out, whereas the „unfittest“ have more offspring and at last the only offspring and survive (this you may call „survning of the unfittest“). Therefore Darwin's „selection principle“ must be false, at least partly false.


Afterwards it is always easy to say said that those who die out are not the fittest, but that does not always prove or disprove the real fitness.

What did, for example, Pol Pot do? He eliminated all intelligent humans in his country, because intelligence was „antisocialistic“, thus not allowed in his „socialistic“ country. Were these humans really „not the fittest“ (in your terms)? Intelligence is a sign of fitness, although not the only one. Pol Pot was one of many politicians who decided against the so-called „natural selection“ by operating their own selection. According to them the people they murdered were not „fit“ in the sense that they were not the „fitted“.


The Darwinistic „fitness“ concept is problematic and thus almost useless.


In many aspects the Neanderthals were fitter than all other species of the genus „homo“, but in spite of that fact the Neanderthatls died out.


The Darwinists and nobody else have to prove or disprove, if they want their theory to be accepted. If the Darwinists want their theory to be accepted, then it is up to them to prove or to disprove. And if it is not possible to prove or to disprove a theory, then this theory has nothing to do with science.


If there is fitness, then there must be indicators of fitness, otherwise the concept of „fitness“ can never be taken seriously.

The excuse of the Darwinists is, for example, that „fitness is more than fitness“. So they do not want to be taken seriously.


One can only say after some facts that this or that living being „fitted“. There are some indicators of fitness, as I already said, but in some cases (for example in the case of the human „social selection“) this indicators can also be used as if they were indicadors of unfitness.

The Darwinistic „fitness“ concept is problematic, the Darwinistic „selection principle“ is partly false, and that includes the possibility of being totally false but also being partly right. I would like to save the right parts of that theory, because I think that it is going to be completely eliminated, if nobody will have eliminated its false parts in order to save its right parts.


Laws are like the instructional parts of any dogmatism and made for dictatorships. I do not care whether some people want to name them „laws“, because (at least to me) laws are superordinated rules and should not have anything to do with science, otherwise science would become a religion (and - unfortunately - it has already partly become a religion).

The accent lies on the term „is up to Darwinists“ not on the word „what“. If I want to convince you, then it is up to me to prove my statements or to disprove their negation.

Concerning your „what“ I already said several times: (1) „selection“, (2) „fitness“.

During the period of Realism and Naturalism (radical realism) almost everything was related to nature, based on nature - it was a reaction to the previous period: Idealism and Romantic.


„You can say that we are the fittest of the Homo genus because we are the only ones left. This is after the fact because all the other ones are dead.“ (**). One can say it, but that does not necessarily prove „our“ fitness or disprove „our“ unfitness. So it is nonsensical to say it as if it were something like the truth or a law (see above).

If you have won a game, then that fact does not necessarily prove your fitness or disprove your unfitness. You may have had much luck or/and help.


Survival is no sufficient indicator of fitness.


Humans do not as much depend on nature as animals do. Humans are relatively free. So they can partly live against their nature. They do not have to completely live according to nature. If a man wants to be a woman, then he can choose to medically cut his penis. Men have penises, women have vaginas. This is a knowledge that a 2½ years old child already has.


One would have to get after the „perpetuation itself“ (**) in order to get the „knowledge of «the fittest«“; but it is not possible to get after the „perpetuation itself“; thus according to your own words it is not possible to know anything about the „fittest“; and that means, for example, Darwin's „survival of the fittest“ is nonsense according to your own words.


There are many selections, for example: natural selcetion, sexual selection, kin selection, social selection ....


We select. Of course we do. Duh!


The »selectors« contradict it, they »select« against the »natural selection« (cp.: »handicap« - it can also be interpreted in the opposite way as it is by Darwinists).


Humans have always »selected« (more appropriate is the word »breeded«) humans.


The transition from animals to humans is an important boundary mark, because no animal and no other living being except the human beings are capable to live against the so-called »natural selection«, for example by their own »selections« (»social state« as »social selection« and so on and so forth).


The „social state“ as the selector according to the „social selection“ does „select“ against the Darwinistic „selection principle“, thus against the „natural selection“.


Nobody said that humans are independent of nature. Knowing me, you should know that I never said that humans are absolutely free, but that I always say that humans are relatively free. They can do something against nature, they fight gainst nature, they destroy nature, and they „select“ against the „natural selection“. But this does not mean that they are at last more powerful than nature. Humans are no gods but want to be (like) gods.


The „sexual selection“ and the „social selection“ are different types of selection. Animals have no politics that can destroy the whole planet or eleminate some other animals just because of their social status or their color of skin, hair, eyes and so on and so forth.


There is no other living being that is capable of acting against nature in a threatening extent. Only human beings are capable of doing that. In that case the difference between humans and animals is more than huge. Humans are the only creatures on this planet that can be so much threatening that they even accept to murder 99% of them or to completely die out.


The humans are the only species that is capable of designing their own replacement as a species and thus their own extinction.


Evolution is true, but the Darwinistic selection principle is false!


The Darwinists may repeat their errors about the „selection principle“ and the definition of „fitness“ as often as they want to: they do not get more true by repeating them. „Survival determines who is fittest“ is no definition that explains what „the fittest“ means, what „fitness“ means. „Survival as in perpetuation“ is merely a formula of a prayer and has nothing to do with the question what „fitness“ means in reality, because in order to know which living being is „the fittest“, thus „determined by the survival as in perpetuation“ (?), you have to wait until the „end of the perpetuation“ which is impossible, an oxymoron.

It is impossible to save the Darwinistic selection principle, because the fabricated exceptions of the rule, the „natural selection“, contradict that rule. At last the Darwinists have merely contradictional exceptions of the rule they contradict. And please: What is nature according to the Darwinists? It is another word for God. So the Darwinists are pantheists.

No wonder, because it was the time of naturalism when Darwin published his theory. Naturalism is based on a teleological definition of „nature“. To naturalists like Darwin and his Darwinists (especially: Spencer and Haeckel) nature is God and God is nature. So when the Darwinists say that the „nature selects“ they mean „God selects“. The Darwinists are pantheists.

I am sorry, but this likeable theory is false.


All living beings - especially the human beings - are beings of trying, copying, training (learning), changing (varying, modifying, ... dying). If they were not, they would be not more than genetically programmed beings. So living beings and their doings are always surrounded by variations. So if one is commanded to do „x“ and does „x“ without any variation, then there is no cultural change of doing „x“. During almost the whole Stone Age, many doings happened without any cultural variation resp. with the cultural command of preventing any natural and cultural variation - as far as it is possible, of course. The opposite has been becoming true since the beginning of the Neolithic Revolution, especially since the beginning of the European Industrial Revolution. Variation leads to change (development, evolution, history), and doing the variation means trying.

Modernity means much, probably too much trying. So modern humans should not try too much any more, because they have already changed the world too much. In other words: modern humans should become unmodern again, more genealogical again, more traditional again, more conservative again. If they will not do this, then they will die out. Since the beginning of the Neolithic Revolution, especially since the beginning of the European Industrial Revolution, the humans have been changing the world too much, and the price will probably be the extinction of the humans, if they will not stop changing the world too much. So again: do not try too much, because your offspring will have to pay the price for your trials, your trials as your errors.


Humans are not really capable of being progressive, of being liberal, of being equal, of being fraternal. This is only possible in a spiritual sense of a sphere like a culture. But first of all, humans are natural beings, and nature is not progressive, not liberal, not equal, not fraternal. So being progressive, being liberal, being equal, being fraternal jsut means being ideological (religious in a modern sense) - not more and not less.

By the way: liberalism and egalitarianism contradict each other. They are an oxymoron, a contradiction.


Darwinism is the trial to interpret the nature only economically - by competition, by a false selection principle (**|**) as if living beings were selected like goods, articles, products.


Bild
Not being allowed to compete is not competition but a possible consequence of competition. My example was that 99% are forbidden to compete. Your (**) response is that this non-competition „is competition“. That is not possible. Competition and non-competition are never the same. It is like saying „truth is lie“ or „lie is truth“. So you are wrong.

What you mean is the culturally based competition like techno-creditisms (formerly known as „capitalism“), but the naturally based competition will as long as living beings exist not disappear.

And by the way: Sex is a relatively young phenomenon of evolution and also a good example in order to explain what competition means. If you want to please somebody, then you are already a competitor, and sex is also and a special guarantor for that fact. You are saying (in your signature): „Sex is the fundamental principle of Creation.“ That is also not possible, because sex is a relatively young phenomenon of evolution. So the fundamental principle of creation must be an older one.


Disassociation from nature is luxury.


Most of all living beings, especially all older species (thus the huge majority of all living beings) are not capable of having sex. They live without any sex or something like sex.


The tragedy of the commons means an evolutionary suicide.


It seems as if the far greatest invention of nature - the human brain - would be nothing but a priori doomed experiment.


Well, , it is a high and - for the actors (!) - risky investment of nature or God, in other words: almost a waste, in any case a luxury thing.


The r-strategy and the k-strategy have not primarily to do with selection or even with the sexual selection. Primarily they have to do with reproduction. They are reproduction strategies. So the English wording „r/k selection“ or even „r/k sexual selection“ is misleading.

R- und K-Strategen
Ordinate (y-axis): Quantity of the survivors.
Abscissa (x-axis): Achieved age in % terms of the maximal lifespan.


Sex is not necessary for reproduction. There are many living beings which have no sex and nonetheless offspring. They reproduce themselves without sex, and they are very successful without sex.

The sexless reproduction is much older than the sexual reproduction.


Evolution is all about self-preservation.

Self-Preservation


A disadvantage can later become an advantage then (and only then), if (and only if) the environment changes in a way that leads to the maladaptation-adaptation change. So the maladaptation can become an adaptation, more exactly: a postadaptation. A postadaptation does not mean that there was no maladaptation; the reverse is true: a postadaptation means that there was a maladaptation that has later become an adaptation due to the change of the environment.


Information is serving self-preservation. Without self-preservation or, more exactly, without any interest in self-preservation information would be useless.


Humans are capable of destroying their environment on purpose, thus willfully, consciously, but other living beings are not capable of doing that in the same way.

The „stage“ of evolution consists of the evolutionary „actors“ (here: living beings) and the evolutionary „scenery“ (environment). My thesis is that the „actor“ homo sapiens has been destroying his „scenery“ for meanwhile about 10000 years. Since then (the „Neolithic Revolution“ [**]) the humans have been affording the luxury of the partial dissociation of environment, and that means partial independence of adaptation because of culture (thus: intelligence; biologically said: brain).

By the word „dissociation“ I mean the „avoidance of adaptation“.


Homo sapiens is the only species that is relatively free of having to be compatible with the environment and can even destroy it. The environment of the very modern homo sapiens is the whole world.


Beavers do not willfully destroy their environment.

If a beaver really destroyed its environment like humans do, then it had to have the same intelligence, it had to know what „destroying of environment“ means, it had to be as cynical as humans are.

Beavers are not capable of destroying their environment on purpose, thus willfully, consciously. They know absolutely nothing about destroyimg of the environment, nozthing about ecological destruction ... and so on.


I say that man can partly dissociate himself from evoluton and from environment - which means: man is capable of avoiding total adaptation.


Most of all ever living beings died out. According to the Darwinists they must have been both fit and unfit. They nust have been fit, because they have been well adapted over a long time (offspring), and they must have been unfit as well, because they died out.

This contradiction can only be solved, if the Darwinists give up their ideological (thus modern religious) interpretation of the terms „fit“ and „unfit“ and accept the right meaning of them.


Living beings are living in an environment, human beings, who are living beings too, are living in the world, which means that they do not merely live in an environment but in the world, and they destroy their environment, if they want to.


Homo sapiens has been playing God or, in the words of the selection priciple, the selector of the own species, of their environment, of other species, of the whole world. Many other living beings have become extinct just because of the human beings. These other living beings had not become extinct, if they would not have been negatively selected by the selector homo sapiens. Human beings are not like all other living beings. The human ecologlogical or/and social selection is a political selection and contradicts the natural selection, the sexual selection, the kin selection, ... and so on and so forth. It contradicts the concept of adaptation and fitness, because it can and does make out of well adapted and fit living beings bad adapted (maladapted) an unfit living beings, out of bad adapted (maldapted) and unfit living beings well adapted an fit living beings. Homo sapiens can and does select positively (eugenically) and negatively (dysgenically).

So we can rightly say that homo sapiens is a godwannabe. Human beings are naturally more like animals and culturally more like gods. But unfortunately they are not capable of being both or/and each of both in a complete way. Homo sapiens is naturally not capable of being a 100%-animal and is culturally not capable of being a 100%-god. That is the fateful dilemma of homo sapiens.


Homo sapiens can and does select positively (eugenically) and negatively (dysgenically).

Homo sapiens has been playing God or, in the words of the selection priciple, the selector of the own species, of their environment, of other species, of the whole world. Many other living beings have become extinct just because of the human beings. These other living beings had not become extinct, if they would not have been negatively selected by the selector homo sapiens. Human beings are not like all other living beings. Their ecologlogical or/and social selection is a political selection and contradicts the natural selection, the sexual selection, the kin selection, ... and so on and so forth. It contradicts the concept of adaptation and fitness, because it can and does make out of well adapted and fit living beings bad adapted (maladapted) an unfit living beings, out of bad adapted (maldapted) and unfit living beings well adapted (maladapted) an fit living beings.

This politics - as a political selection - has been existing since the beginning of the urbanisation, because urbanisation means an increasing density of towns, cities, megacities and an increasing danger of loss of control because of the increasing number of humans in those towns, cities, megacities. Today this is a problem of almost the whole globe. This danger of loss of control must be and has been replaced or compensated by a new kind of control. The so-called „(second) industrial revolution“ was a machine revolution and led to a huge techno-creditism, to more wealth, to more human workers, later to less human workers, thus to more unemployment because of the nonetheless increasing human population. Considering this situation: what would you do, if you were one of the rulers?


The very first group of human beings had at least one moral law: being a member of the group. Leaving the group was only possible by becomig the foe / enemy of the group. This often meant the death of that foe / enemy. Each member of the group knew this moral law, its breach, the comsequences of this breach, thus the punishment. So the very first human group was already moral, although in a primitive sense.

Moral has to do with knowlewdge of it or of something that is like moral or law and its consequences like punishment.

The first moral is a means of surviving: one’s surviving depends on the group’s surviving. Leaving the group can lead to a new group and new morals, of course, but that does not change the meaning of the first moral law: means of surviving.

By the way: The main problem that modern humans have with morality has not to do with this first moral law or other laws of the primitive morality. It has to do with the fact that modern humans are not capable of acting and reacting according to the consequences of the facts that humans created by inventing things, especially technological things. In other words: Humans have a problem with living on the same level that they have reached technologically - the human nature is always far behind the human spirit (including moral), because the human brain is made for surving, at least primarily. The first moral law has to do with surviving. But the modern humans have created moral systems that have not much or even nothing to with surving.

Homo sapiens is a species that has reached a stage of development of a huge difference between nature and culture.


Humans are not absolutely free, they are relatively free. in other words: relatively unfree. If the humans were free, then humans could and would for example live however they want to, as long as they want to, decide whatever they want to ... and so on and so forth. In reality humans sooner or later realize that they have to accept facts like illness and death or consequences like punishment (jail or other isolations), if they did not behave according to their environment, to the law, the moral system of their group.


According to the natural selection the fit species as the well or even best adapted species has enough offspring, thus survives, whereas the unfit species as the badly or even worst adapted or maldapted species has not enough or even no offspring and dies out. Political selection means that „social“ politics can artificially make out of unfit humans as the badly or worst adapted or maladapted humans fit humans as the well or best adapted humans, so that they can have enough offspring, thus survive, and it also can artificially make out the of fit humans as the well or best adapted humans the badly or worst adapted or maladapted humans, so that they have not enough or even no offspring and die out. So natural selection and political (social) selection contradict each other.

What humans culturally create or select is, if you compare it with what nature „creates“ or „selects“, artificial (cultural), although every culture is based on nature. Humans are capable of dissociating from nature, which does not mean that they are completely free from nature, but it means that they are relatively free from nature, thus also from natural selection.

The development of the human brain led to a huge intelligence and skills that made an isolation process possible, so that the humans could become relatively free from nature, thus also from natural selection.

Nature causes anti-nature (culture).

Culture is the artificial antipode of nature. In other words: Culture is the antithesis of the thesis nature. Guess what the synthesis is.


I call this „safe zone“ (**) „isolation“ or „island“, „an island in an ocean named »nature«“. If the humans would survive only according to the natural selection, then today there would be no 7 billion humans but approximately 0.7 million humans (0.01% of the current number of humans).


The intelligent humans have an insufficient number of offspring (often even no single child) and are going to die out, whereas the unintelligent humans have a sufficient number of offspring (often even eight children per woman) and are going to survive. This is based on political/social selection - not on natural selection. Intelligence is an evolutionary advantage and can only become a disadvantage by political/social selection. The political/social selection contradicts the natural selection.


I am not saying that the political/social selection has nothing to do with the natural selection. I am merely saying that the political/social selection contradicts the natural selection, although it is embedded in natural selection. This is what I have been saying for a very long time and with many of my posts in several threads (you may read them). If a thing contradicts another thing, then this does not necessarily mean that the contradicting thing is outside of the contradicted thing. The relation of this things can be a hyperonym/hyponym, a superordination/subordination, set/subset relation. I am also saying that political/social selection works within the boundaries of natural selection. There are many selections that contradict natural selection but are nonetheless part of it.

Maybe the following charts depict the relations properly:

N.-P. N.-P.
N: Natural selection.
P: Political selection.
N: Natural selection.
S: Sexual selection.
K: Kin selection.
P: Political selection.
N.-S.-K.-P.
N: Natural selection. S: Sexual selection. K: Kin selection. P: Political selection.

As long as all these „islands“ (in the charts: P, K, S or S-K-P [there are more than shown in this charts]) will exist and will contradict their „ocean“ (in the charts: N) they will also have their own order within their own boundaries.

The everyday lives of the humans, if they are healthy and not somehow disabled, are more surrounded by their human environmant than by their natural environment. If asked where they live, they would answer with words that clearly indicate that their way of life is mainly surrounded by an artificial (cultural) environment, although this is completely embedded in a natural environment. This is comparable with the geocentric and the heliocentric point of view. In everyday lives of the humans the geocentric interpretation is more important than the heliocentric interpretation of the movements in the solar system. In an everyday life it is more important to know for example when the sun „goes down“ and not when the rotation of the planet Earth has reached the corresponding „position“ -, although both informations refer to the same issue. The former information is important for surviving and the organization of the daily life, the latter information is merely important for science/philosophy and some other aspects (except those that belong to the former information) and has only indirectly but not directly to do with surviving and the organization of the daily life.

Humans are mainly selected by humans, although they are natural. Most of the currently living 7.4 billion humans live because of relatively few other humans (and most of this relatively few humans are already dead), and those humans who were and are not allowed to live did or do not live also because of that relatively few other humans. Without human's technology (especially in medicine, hygiene, ... and so on and so forth) there would currently be merely about 1 billion humans; without human's selecting politics there would currently be about 10 billion humans or another number of humans (depending on the respective kind of the alternative politics). In addition, many living beings have become extinct because of humans, and many other living beings do live just becasue of humans. The natural selection, although the basal selection or God as the natural selector would have nothing to do, if the humans were capable of selecting like the natural selector - who- or whatever this may be -, and they are not but try to be in their typical way.


Wild tribes have indeed less but very much stronger social constructs than „city tribes“.


The „missing link“ is the human culture, the human brain, the human intelligence, strictly speaking: the technologically applied intelligence.


We have our genetic program, our self-preservation, our instincts, our drives, our reproduction (dis)interest, our desires, our will, and - of course - our culture and technology, based on our intelligence, which is mainly (70-80%) determined by our genetic program. So when problems and conflicts of any kind occur, we have to solve them, i.e by finding a balance in order to make life stable - would you agree if someone called this „health“?


Back to the 98% nature that humans have lost, because they have transfered it to human culture. Humans have merely 2% nature, so to say.

Humans are capable of stand-off, of alienation , of dissociation from nature.

Our first ancestors were those first humans who began the transfer (see above).


Humans have always had more choices than other living beings - and the increasingly intrusive ads are also and especially, as I interpret it, an issue of total control.


The ISS is such an „absolute island“. There is no natural environment inside the ISS, everything is human-made, thus artificial (cultural), even the air that the humans breathe. So the environment inside the ISS is an absolutely artificial (cultural) environment. The natural environment is completely outside the ISS. If there were a natural environment inside the ISS, then the humans who are inside the ISS would immediately die.

N., P.

Absolute Insel (Beispiel: ISS)

There are more than this human-made „islands“, some are absolute, for example spaceships or the ISS, the others are relative, for example the atmospheric „islands“:

Atmosphärische Inseln 
Atmosphärische Inseln

All of these „islands“ are human-made and - either absolutely or relatively - isolated from nature.

Hallig Südfall

As long as all these „islands“ will exist and will contradict their „ocean“ nature they will also have their own order within their own boundaries. If you replace the natural environment by an artificial (cultural) environment, then you have created an artificial isolation of natural selection - either absolutely or relaitively.

If you live in an artificial environment like the ISS, the natural environment is even deadly for you. An astronaut is immediately dead after leaving the ISS (artificial environment) without any other artificial environment (at least the astronaut suit).


Life resists entropy. Otherwise it would not be capable of self-preservation and would decay, thus die. Self-preservation means preservation of the competences during the actual life, whereas reproduction means preservation of the competences beypond the own life. There are three evolution principles: (1) variation, (2) reproduction, (3) reproduction interest. Living beings get recources out of their environment in order to reproduce their competences by the resources of the environment, thus to preserve (conserve) and renew their competences. So they strive to reproduce their competences.

According to this the meaning of life is the avoidance of the loss of the competences.

If you have the impression that you are not needed anymore, then you have the impression of the loss of your competences.

Note: „Competences“ means more than„fitness“, it is more like „capital“, „power“, „acceptance“, „appreceation“.

„Competences“ are like „abilities“, „skills“, „talents“, „social prospects“ ... and so on. Some are passed on through DNA. Some are taught, trained, or conditioned.

They are based on information.

There are many different information memories (storages), two of them are biological (genetical and neurological) - genes and memes (short-term and long-term) -, all others are cultural (artificial) like all culturally made things, for example books / libraries, pictures, photographs, audiotapes, videotapes, memories of computer, robots, androids.


If you consider this, especially the tendency of each organism (living being) and each super-organism to avoid the loss of competences, then many current problems, also and especially the feminism or the plunder and destruction of our planet, can be understood and explained in an easier way.

It is a systemic evolution theory or philosophy.


If one cell of a living being (or a human being as a „cell“ of a super-organism) does not work rightly, then it will almost certainly not cause the death of that living being. But if the living being (like a super-organism) as a whole does not work rightly, then this living being as a whole will almost certainly die soon, so each cell of that living being (like each human being of a super-organism) too.


If you asked a wolf whether it makes sense to have offspring and this wolf could speak, what would the wolf answer?
If you asked a dog whether it makes sense to have offspring and this dog could speak, what would the dog answer?


Human beings are more free than all other living beings, but human beings are nevertheless not absolutely free, they are relatively free.


Culture is the successful or/and unsuccessful implementation of the trial to escape from nature.


Learning by experiencing a catastrophe is one of the most effective kinds of learning, because this means an effect where human nature and human culture are again very close to each other at this moment of experiencing a catastrophe.


I can guarantee you, that, genetically resp. biologically, the „birth“ of the „I“ is the fertilization.


Genetically (biologically) there is indeed individuality. When the fertilization has happened, then the recombination takes place, and the result is never the same result that your parents got at their fertilizations. Everyone’s genetic code is indeed inidividual. Each genetic code is an indivdual one.

Evolution is based on variation (mutation included), reproduction, and reproduction interest (formerly known as „selection“). No genetic code is the gentic code of the parents, othrwise there would be no eveolution.

Each genetic code and thus each genetic program is an individual one. That does not contradict the fact that the roots are the genetic codes of the parents. So they have to do with the genetic code of each of their children, of course, but they are not the same.

We all have parents - father and mother -, and their genetic codes influence our genetic codes, but that does not mean that they are the same. And if something is not the same, then it is different, regardless how much, it is different. Our genetic codes are different from the genetic codes of our parents because of the genetic recombination.

We are kin to our parents, and even more to our siblings, but we are not them.


It is not only linguistically but also genetically/biologically right to differentiate between „I“ and „we“.


The child in a womb, regardless whether this child is a zygote, an embryo, or a fetus, is an „I“, a living being, one living being. This child and the mother are two different organisms, two different living systems, two different living beings. If, for example, the blood of the mother comes in direct contact with the blood of the child in her womb, then there is a very high probability that the child or the mother or both will die because of that fact. How we know this? We know this because of medicine/biology/genetics.

If we want to talk about environmental influences, then we have to leave the „I“, because we have to know what the environment is and does and how it influences the „I“. Then we can also use all the other prepositions. And then we can also talk about ecology, economy, sociology, psychology ... and so on.

It is no linguistical accident that we have the prepoition „I“ and call it the „first person“. That there is something in our body that says „I“ is also no accident. So it would not be a mistake to philosophically talk about an „I“ too, and the history of philosophy has clearly shown that the „I“ is not only a matter of linguistics and biology/genetics/medicine but also of philosophy. It is just logical.

Nobody can deny this.


No living being is capable of living without self-preservation. Life is self-preservation.


Self-preservation is primarily and thus also meaningfully significant. Otherwise there would be no evolution.


There is natural environment, and there is cultural environment.


Two things are required: (1) something like a sense for perceiving, (2) something like a nerve system for interpreting what is perceived.


Do you believe in an anthropogenic greenhouse effect?

There is an unadapted minority within the silent majority, and sometimes this unadapted people are even the majority. It depends on how the times are, how the respective situation is.

With regard to the belief in an anthropogenic greenhouse effect, there is a vocal minority and a silent minority behind the vocal minority, and this two want the majority to believe in an anthropogenic greenhouse effect as if it should become a part of their new religion - other parts of tis new religion are: globalism (although it mainly contradicts the anthropogenic greenhouse effect) feminism, system of guilt complex (guilty conscience, thus: guiltism [does that word exist already?]), ... and so on. The question is whether it is already a majority or still a minority that believes in an anthropogenic greenhouse effect. The number of that believers still increases.

Cities like that are abnormal, but they exist. They are architectural facts of human history.

Like I said: Humans are not made for big cities or cities at all but for thorps, villages; because they are living beings of relatively small groups (like packs, prides, flocks, herds).

Therefore:

Homicide rate per 100,000 inhabitants in 2012 (#### 0-1, #### 1-2, #### 2-5, #### 5-10, #### 10-20, #### >20):

Intentional Homicide Rate


Humans are capable of both adaptation and non-adaptation. Humans can dissociate from nature, can fight against nature. The more culture/civilization humans have, the more anti-natural they are.


Humans are the only species that really fights against the nature. But when it comes to accusing humans to be responsible for the greenhouse effect, we must also say that there is much money in play. The greenhouse effect is not automatically anthropogenic, because it is a natural effect by definition and caused by the sun and some other cosmic effects. So the question ist whether humans are really capable of causing a greenhouse effect. It is no question that humans are ecological destroyers, that they destroy their natural environment, but it remains a question whether the greenhouse effect is caused by them, in other words: whether the anthropogenic greenhouse effect is a criminal fact or a criminal fake (caused by some certain humans who make much money out of it) or both.

Note: The money that is payed as a fine (=> penance) by the polluters (=> sinners) goes to the „eco-popes“, the banksters.


Peter Sloterdijk wrote:

„Die Reichen sind gegenwärtig noch eine Klasse und keine Spezies, aber könnten es werden, wenn man nicht aufpaßt.“ ** ** ** **
Translation:
The rich (the richest and most powerful are meant) are currently still a class and not a species, but could become it, if one does not care.

Source: Cicero; Januar 2009, S. 118. **


Life is the resistance to or struggle against entropy, and culture is the resistance to or struggle against anarchy. Both can merely be temporarily successful.


Humans can live without any natural environment, because they can live in an artificial environment which is made by themselves. They can live on their own „absolute islands“ - thus: without any natural environment.

If you live in an artificial environment like the ISS, the natural environment is even deadly for you. An astronaut is immediately dead after leaving the ISS (artificial environment) without any other artificial environment (at least the astronaut suit).


Soon it will be possible to carry the zygote, the embryo, and the fetus in an extrauterine way. Then we will have totally arrived at the point of the more insecure, the more primitve reproduction again. We will no longer need any intrauterine thing then.

The natural womb as the realization of the the natural idea to lay the egg into the inside of the body will have become obsolete. There will be no natural birth any longer, since the natural uterus will not be needed any longer. Humans will not be needed any longer - their natural reproduction will be replaced by genetic engineering and artificial „wombs“, their economical production will be replaced by machines and perhaps by artificial humans (cyborgs) .... So humans will either become artificial humans or die out.


- New Robot Reproduces on Its Own.
- Self-replicating nanobots.
- Self-replicating nanobots.


If a theory has merely a tiny error, then it is allowed to say that this theory is falsified.

Also: It is not the selection principle as such that makes the Darwinistic selection principle false. What makes it false is its premise. The premise of the Darwinistic selection principle is that the evolutionary process of all living beings is caused by their environemnt, so that all living beings are forced to adaptation by their environment. The word „all“ is false, as the example of homo sapiens has proven, because homo sapiens is capable of having an own environment (you may call it an „artificial environment“), thus of overcoming the natural environment, and so, consequently, homo sapiens is also capable of selecting. So there is an human selection (you may also call it „political selection“ or „social selection“ or „artificial selection“) as well. Humans are capable of killing almost all living beings. If they die out because of the human selection, then (attention: tautology!) it is caused by the human selection, regardless whether there is also a natural selection or not. So in other words: I am not saying that there is no natural selection. I am saying that there are other selections that contradict the natural selection.


Living beings like the human beings who are capable of living in an artificial environment have, if they do it, nothing to do with the natural environment, at least as long as they live in their own artficial environment.

Humans who go through our solar system by their spaceship without any contact to the planet Earth can survive as long as they are in their self-made environment. During this time (which can be a very long time in principle) all living beings that live in this environment evolve because of a man-made environment. So this anthropogenic environment causes the adaptations of all living beings who live in it. They are selected by humans.


The Darwinistic selection principle is false, at least in many cases and especially in the case of the human beings.


Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling said that nature casts up its eyes in the human being. So I am saying that culture casts up its eyes in the current phase of the Occidental culture, which means the trend to transhuman beings.


Homunculus

MEPHISTOPHELES :  Was gibt es denn? // WAGNER (leiser) :  Es wird ein Mensch gemacht.
....
WAGNER :  So muß der Mensch mit seinen großen Gaben // Doch künftig höher’n, höher’n Ursprung haben.
....
HOMUNCULUS (in der Phiole zu Wagner) :  Nun, Väterchen! wie steht’s? es war kein Scherz // Komm, drücke mich recht zärtlich an dein Herz.
....
WAGNER (betrübt) :  Am Ende hängen wir doch ab // Von Kreaturen, die wir machten.“ - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust (II), S. 114, 115 und 122.
Translation:
MEPHISTOPHELES :  What is happening? // WAGNER (quieter) :  A man is being made.
....
WAGNER :  So man with his great skills shall have // To have a higher, higher origin in the future.
....
HOMUNCULUS (in the phial to Wagner) :  Well, Daddy! how’s things? it was no joke // Come, press close to my heart tenderly.
....
WAGNER (saddened) :  In the end, we do depend // On creatures that we made.“ - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust (II), p. 114, 115 and 122.


Humans regulate or intervene. That shows clearly that the natural selection can be circumvented, and that the free market has never existed in human history (but only a relatively free market).

Humans are both natural and cultural („artificial“). Humans are partly their own selectors, also the selectors of pets and many other living beings, and they can survive in very extreme and artificial environments, thus in environments that are not natural.

As for the relatively free market or relatively unfree market, humans have always had rules („laws“) in order to regulate their markets.

If you want to have a „capitalistic“ system, you need rules; if you want to have an „anti-capitalistic“ system, you need rules.

We are the only species that is capable of being relatively independent of natural selection. We can live without any natural environment and can determine that e.g. the unfit survive and the fit do not survive.

Humans have invented machines that will perhaps take over sooner or later. Machines are artificial, an invention of humans, so they are not natural, not even as natural as humans or their culture. **

The number of human offspring is partly determined by humans (by their technology, their artificial practice and their social policy), whereas the number of all other living beings is determined by nature. If the number of human offspring was regulated only by nature, then the current number of the humans would be merely one billion or one million or even less.

Intelligence (**) is an advantage and can lead to a culture that circumvents nature successfully. Note that intelligence is one advantage of many advantages. So there are other advantages too.

It depends on what advantage is the one that is chosen/selected. In the case of humans it is the intelligence. Bodily said: it is our brain that made us so successful. We do not have other physical features that have made us as successful as the brain has done. If we lose this advantage, we will immediately lose other features too and will perhaps get extinct.

I am arguing that the circumvention is cultural/artificial in the sense that culture is like an „»island« in the »ocean« nature“. This means that nature is indeed the more powerful one, but as long as the „island“ will exist for itself and the „ocean“ will not become chaotic (cause accidents and so on), this „island“ will have and defend its own rules („laws“).


We should consider at least two realms:
1) A natural/physical/chemical realm. This is what I have called „the ocean »nature«“.
2) A cultural/artificial/spiritual realm. This is what I have called „the »island« in the ocean »nature«“.

Examples:
1) Planets belong to the natural/physical/chemical realm.
2) Thoughts as such belong to the cultural/artificial/spiritual realm.


The human culture as such is unnatural. Humans have created their culture. The human culture is like the „island in the ocean“, and the ocean is not like the island. The „island“ culture resists the „ocean“ nature as long as possible. So do humans.

This „island“ (=> culture) can be so isolated that it is just deadly to connect with the „ocean“ (=> nature). Think of the astronauts, the ISS and other „islands“.

Nächstes Bild

Absolute Insel (Beispiel: ISS)



Biophysicists have commented that living things function on negative entropy. According to them, life is a member of the class of phenomena that are open or continuous systems able to decrease their internal entropy at the expense of substances or free energy taken in from the environment and subsequently rejected in a degraded form.

„Negative entropy“ can also be interpreted as „negative chaos“.


If there is an universe, there can, but doesn't have to be a planet too.
If there is an ocean, there can, but doesn't have to be an island too.

Smaller systems have their own rules. Not all, but most of this rules are subordinated to the larger system. The not subordinated rules of the smaller system temporarily circumvent, resist, contradict the rules of its superordinated larger system. That’s evident and can be observed almost everywhere.


We should have both a realistic and an idealistic interpretation of evolution. Power is always present, but love is not. So, it is more necessary to support, to demand, to premote love. How should we do this? - [1] By practising love; [2] by enlighten others and clarifying what love means; (3) by fighting all enemies of love (how? => [1] and [2]).

You can find the most lack of love in materialistic/hedonistic times where the individual coolness is a fashion and mostly nothing else than hidden weakness because of the lack of love.


No consideration of antagonism between power and love!

Loveable people can be powerful, powerful people can be loveable.

But there are many (too many?) people who have diceded upon only one of the two.


The ecological catastrophe is merely one of some more options for the end of humans and many other living creatures.
Other options are, for instance, military catastrophes, technical/scientifical research catastrophes, natural catastrophes.

But all these catastophes will not mean the „end of the world“ (**) and not mean the end of this planet either; but they will just mean huge catastrophes for humans and many other living creatures.


|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|

- Register -

 

  Occidental culture