I have to solve the problem and I'm running out of time. You all are
part of a massive puzzle that I'm trying to unscramble and if I don't
then nasty things happen, but more and more it looks like if I do,
nasty things happen.

Part of the problem seems to be a natural conflict between evolution
and civilization.

Civilization makes it easier for more people to survive, while
evolution works best by killing off those who make stupid mistakes, so
there is a continual battle of evolution against stability, without
which humanity wouldn't exist as it would never have evolved.

Civilization makes it easier for more people to survive, while
evolution works best by killing off those who make stupid mistakes, so
there is a continual battle of evolution against stability, without
which humanity wouldn't exist as it would never have evolved.
We are still evolving, it is just the the environment in which we live

On Fri, 2 May 2008 21:54:20 -0700 (PDT), JSH <jst...@gmail.com> wrote:
Civilization makes it easier for more people to survive, while
evolution works best by killing off those who make stupid mistakes, so
there is a continual battle of evolution against stability, without
which humanity wouldn't exist as it would never have evolved.

We are still evolving, it is just the the environment in which we live
have changed, so the selection pressures are changing.

For example, in the West there is a selection pressure to be able to
cross roads safely - getting killed crossing a road reduces your
chances of passing on your genes to the next generation.

rossum

I have to solve the problem and I'm running out of time. You all are
part of a massive puzzle that I'm trying to unscramble and if I don't
then nasty things happen, but more and more it looks like if I do,
nasty things happen.

Part of the problem seems to be a natural conflict between evolution
and civilization.

Civilization makes it easier for more people to survive, while
evolution works best by killing off those who make stupid mistakes, so
there is a continual battle of evolution against stability, without
which humanity wouldn't exist as it would never have evolved.

Counter pressure against evolution seems to explain people like George
W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

Their mistakes somehow don't matter. It has little impact on their
survivability, but in a situation where mistakes don't matter, then
negative memes can flourish until they reach a catastrophic tipping
point, and stupidity once again causes death, and then evolution kicks
in again with a vengeance.

Rising autism rates in the US may simply be the counter-force against
evolution as humanity devolves slightly until stupidity reaches a
level that civilization can no longer keep most people alive, which is
where we are rapidly going.

So the answer may be that there is no solution but to wait, as
inevitably as stupid people, like modern mathematicians keeping a one
hundred plus year old error in place so that they can play at doing
math, by controlling the world push, it to the brink, at which time
necessarily there will be this huge die-off as evolution re-asserts
itself.

Like how many of you really understand global warming?

My guess is that roughly 90% of you do NOT.

That probably is about a critical level above which humanity's
devolution will be steep enough that it will no longer be able to
maintain civilization at the level necessary to maintain stupid people
like George W. Bush, or modern "pure math" mathematicians, where we're
seeing critical pressure as hunger strikes much of the world.

But that can't be the full answer. And when is the critical point?
It has to be within the next 10 years.

But is it possible for a 90% die-off rate? If so, then most of the
people alive today will not be alive in 10 years, as evolution breaks
the civilization barrier and once again forces forward development of
the human race, and puts a negative on stupidity so that failure means
death.

James Harris

On May 2, 9:54 pm, JSH<jst... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
I have to solve the problem and I'm running out of time. You all are
part of a massive puzzle that I'm trying to unscramble and if I don't
then nasty things happen, but more and more it looks like if I do,
nasty things happen.

Part of the problem seems to be a natural conflict between evolution
and civilization.

Civilization makes it easier for more people to survive, while
evolution works best by killing off those who make stupid mistakes, so
there is a continual battle of evolution against stability, without
which humanity wouldn't exist as it would never have evolved.


So evolution is the natural force antagonistic to civilization, and
seeks to topple it.

And it is an irresistible force while civilization is a movable
object.

The balance cannot be maintained as a species devolves when
evolutionary pressures are removed until it loses the ability to
maintain against those pressure whatever its solution.

Humanity has the solution of civilization so wrapped in the solution
must be the key for evolution to re-assert, so we have a world now
which is oddly tranquil in the face of global warming, well, because
it's not "smart" enough to fully understand what's happening.

Which is evolution asserting itself to beat the solution of
civilization.

Or maybe I need more brainstorming but I think I'm closing in on the
answer, and it's not pretty.


James Harris