DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Geopolitics
*****************************************************
#Post#: 13114--------------------------------------------------
Re: Power Structures in Human Society: Pros and Cons Part 1
By: AGelbert Date: August 5, 2019, 1:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Agelbert NOTE: Originally published in 2013. I am reposting it
now because it even more applicable today than in 2013. [img
width=40]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418202709.png[/img]<br
/>
[center][font=times new roman]Sexual Dimorphism, PowerStructures
and Environmental Consequences of Human
Behaviors[/font][/center]
[center]Why the 1% is responsible for more than 80% of
humanity's carbon footprint and why Homo sapiens is doomed
unless the 1% lead the way in a sustainable life style.[/center]
By A. G. Gelbert
Today humanity faces the fact that the parasitic relationship of
Homo sapiens with the biosphere is depleting the resources
hitherto relied on to maintain a standard of living somewhere
above that of other earthly hominids like the chimps or gorillas
that are, unlike us, engaged in a symbiotic relationship with
the biosphere. The chimps engage in rather brutal wars with
other chimp tribes where the victors set about to kill and eat
very young chimps of the vanquished tribe. This is clearly a
strategy to gain some advantage by killing off the offspring of
the competition. It cannot be, in and of itself, considered
morally wrong or evil behavior.
Dominance behavior and territoriality between same sex and
opposite sexes also can be filed under the category of
"successful behavior characteristics" for species perpetuation.
Behavior that appears on the surface to have no species
perpetuation purpose (like male chimps humping less dominant
males or sexually mature adolescent seals, locked out of mating
by bulls with huge harems, violently thrashing, and often
killing, small seal pups that stray into their area) are a
function of hormone biochemistry, not good or evil.
Some scientists might say this is just Darwinian behavior to
winnow out the less flexible, less intelligent or weaker members
of a species. I don't agree. I believe it is a downside of
hormones that distracts species from more productive behavior
but unfortunately cannot be avoided if you are going to
guarantee the survival of a species by programming in strong sex
drives.
I repeat, excessive aggression or same sex sexual activity as a
dominance display is a downside to the "strong sex drive"
successful species perpetuation characteristic. This "downside",
when combined with a large brain capable of advanced tool
making, can cause the destruction of other species through
rampant predation and poisoning of life form resources in the
biosphere.
The Darwinian mindset accepts competition among species in the
biosphere, where species routinely engage in fighting and
killing each other for a piece of the resource pie, as a
requirement for the survival of the fittest. Based on this
assumption, all species alive today are the pinnacle of
evolution.
Really? How does a meteor impact fit into this "survival of the
fittest" meme? It doesn't. Why? Because any multicellular
organism can easily be wiped out by random, brute force, natural
catastrophes like a meteor impact or extensive volcanism.
Darwinists are quite willing to accept the random nature of the
initial creation of single celled life on earth (even though the
latest advances in science show that any cell is an
incredibility and irreducibly complex piece of biomachinery that
absolutely [I]HAS[/I] to have several parts working in unison or
none of them work at all) but refuse to accept that the present
multispecies survival is just as random.
It's more like "survival of the luckiest" than "survival of the
fittest". From a strictly Darwinian perspective, the
extremophiles are the real pinnacle of evolution because of
their ability to survive just about anyhting that is thrown at
them. There is a type of Archaebacteria that can live in an
almost 32% salt concentration called halophiles. Halophiles can
be found anywhere with a concentration of salt five times
greater than the salt concentration of the ocean, such as the
Great Salt Lake in Utah, Owens Lake in California, the Dead Sea,
and in evaporation ponds.
[center][img
width=440]
HTML http://microbewiki.kenyon.edu/images/thumb/2/2c/C27x14halophiles.jpg/150px-C27x14halophiles.jpg[/img]<br
/>[/center]
[center][img
width=440]
HTML http://img.springerimages.com/Images/SpringerBooks/BSE=5898/BOK=978-1-4020-9212-1/PRT=8/MediaObjects/THUMB_978-1-4020-9212-1_8_Part_Fig2-108_HTML.jpg[/img][/center]
[center]Carbon assimilation by Halococcus salifodinae, an
archaebacterial [/center]
If you want to talk about survival of the fittest, look at this
humble organism: Halococcus is able to survive in its
high-saline habitat by preventing the dehydration of its
cytoplasm. To do this they use a solute which is either found in
their cell structure or is drawn from the external environment.
Special chlorine pumps allow the organisms to retain chloride to
maintain osmotic balance with the salinity of their habitat. The
cells are cocci, 0.6-1.5 micrometres long with sulfated
polysaccharide walls.
The cells are organtrophic, using amino acids, organic acids, or
carbohydrates for energy. In some cases they are also able to
photosynthesize.
[center][img
width=340]
HTML http://www.sciencephoto.com/image/13212/350wm/B2440039-Halococcus_archaea,_SEM-SPL.jpg[/img][/center]
[center]Halococcus archaea[/center]
This primitive life form is organtrophic AND, not or, in some
cases, photosynthetic!
Now that's what I call a life form able to handle just about any
catastrophe thrown at it.
The more complex a life form becomes, the less flexible,
adaptable and the more fragile it becomes. That is why I think
the Darwinian approach to species interaction in the biosphere
severely understates the fragility of "higher" organisms. Just
as a type of fungus can infect the brain of an ant species to
climb before it dies and thereby aid in fungal sporulation, it
is not beyond the realm of possibility that the symbiotic
bacteria that constitute a high percentage of the human genes
(we cannot metabolize our food without them so they are an
inseparable part of being a human) actually drove our evolution
to simply to aid in the spread of the bacteria. No, I don't
believe that for a second but it shows that Darwinian "logic"
can be used to claim the exact opposite of what the Darwinians
claim is the "fittest" species.
Laugh if you want, but which is a higher organism, the fungus or
the ant?
[center][img
width=350]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-070718144834.png[/img][/center]
A recent article in "The Scientist" explored the possibility
that human evolution (evolution, of course, must include human
intelligent development of advanced tool making for war,
transportation and food resource exploitation) can be explained
as bacteria driven. We may be a mobile expression of symbiotic
bacteria trying to spread all over the biosphere by ensuring
their human hosts do whatever it takes to blanket the planet for
God and bacteria (not necessarily in that order ;D)!
[quote]It is estimated that there are 100 times as many
microbial genes as human genes associated with our bodies. Taken
together, these microbial communities are known as the human
microbiome.[/quote]
[quote]These findings have the potential to change the landscape
of medicine. And they also have important philosophical and
ethical implications.
A key premise of some microbiome researchers is that the human
genome coevolved with the genomes of countless microbial
species. If this is the case, it raises deep questions about our
understanding of what it really means to be human.[/quote]
[quote]If the microbiome, on a species level, coevolved with the
human genome and, on an individual level, is a unique and
enduring component of biological identity, then the microbiome
may need to be thought of more as “a part of us” than as a part
of the environment.[/quote]
[quote]More important in the context of ethical considerations
is the possibility that if the adult microbiome is indeed
relatively stable, then such early childhood manipulations of
the microbiome may be used to engineer permanent changes that
will be with the child throughout life. There is thus the
potential that an infant’s microbiome may be “programmable” for
optimal health and other traits.[sup]2[sup] [/quote]
The article assumes WE are the ones that could engage in the
"programming". It doesn't mention WHO EXACTLY was doing all that
"programming" during our alleged evolution.
There is a greater quantity of microbial genes than what are
considered "human" genes but it's really just one package. Genes
drive genetics and evolutionary traits, do they not? I made a
big joke about it in the article comments: [quote]Perhaps the
scientific nomenclature for "us versus them" organism energy
transfer relationships need to be expanded upon; terms such as
parasitic, commensal, symbiotic, etc. don't address the fact
that the 'them' is really a part of "us". Pregnant women don't
think of their future children as parasites (which is what they
technically are - even the beefed up immune system the future
moms get is a function of that short lived organism, the
placenta).
Perhaps we are just some giant "pre-frontal cortex" type of
ambulatory appendage which exists for the purpose of spreading
bacterial colonies. :(
Oh, the irony of self-awareness and tool making intelligence
being an evolutionary device in the service of getting that
bacterial colony to vault over the edge of the giant petri dish
called Earth.
Can you picture the scientific community awarding [I]Escherichia
coli[/I] a PhD? [size=10pt]Dr. E Coli, you are the best part of
us!
We must now bow and scrape to the pinnacle of evolution, the
reigning king of Darwinian evolutionary competition, that fine
fecal fellow, Dr. Escherichia coli.
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-250718210558.gif[/quote]
Now some folks out there on Wall Street might take offense to
being outcompeted by Dr. E. coli. They might even say it's a
shitty deal! ;D Others will have no problem relegating Wall
Streeters and the rest of the 1% to the category of "lower life
forms" in comparison to gut bacteria even if the other 99% of
Homo sap are included.
A commenter named, Lee Davis was not amused by the implications
of research in the direction the article was pointing:
[quote]Absolutely. "Manage" the Earth's biodiversity at your own
peril. Destroy the rainforests at your own peril. Acidify the
ocean with CO2 at your own peril. I read "Science and Survival"
by Barry Commoner in 1964. Since then, human "management" of the
planet has continued apace, with little regard for long term
consequences. The only thing he called attention to that was
actually changed was the halt in atmospheric nuclear testing,
but we've managed to replace that pollution with the exhaust
from nuclear power plant meltdowns. Half-assed demigods we
certainly are, not playing with a full deck and with little
understanding of how the game is played. Of course, we THINK we
know it All now...and if we don't, our computing machines
certainly do. [/quote]
Click here for Part 2
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/geopolitics/power-structures-in-human-society-pros-and-cons-part-1/msg148/#msg148
1.
HTML http://the-scientist.com/2012/03/01/who-are-we-really/#comment-464838811
2.
HTML http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8393081.stm
3.
HTML http://www.scb.se/Pages/TableAndChart____104319.aspx
4.
HTML http://www.e3network.org/papers/Why_do_state_emissions_differ_so_widely.pdf
5.
HTML http://www.executivetravelmagazine.com/articles/flying-on-private-jets
6.
HTML http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/29/private-jets-green
7.
HTML http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/high_flyers
8.
HTML http://www.greendrinkschina.org/news/chinas-per-capita-carbon-emissions-solidly-reach-developed-nation-levels/
9.
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
10.
HTML http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
11.
HTML http://green.wikia.com/wiki/Carbon_Footprint_of_American_Cities
#Post#: 17376--------------------------------------------------
📢 Together we stand. Divided we fail.
By: AGelbert Date: March 14, 2022, 12:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center][img
width=640]
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-020818202036-1496620.jpeg[/img][/center]
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page