The New Age of Thought and Self-Reflection

This is what happens when they legalize marijuana.

a reply to: ManyMasks

If one doesn't know that they know nothing:
Does that make them a know-nothing know-it-all ?

Asking because: don't know... LoL !

a reply to: Nothin
I think the point of the quote is that if you settle on a truth there's no further need for investigation.
Scientists don't state facts they offer hypotheses.

Then when you take into account just how inaccurate history has been found to be and with new discoveries constantly changing how wee see and shape the world, what's true today can be false tomorrow.

a reply to: ManyMasks

Looks like we're singin' the same tune.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: whereislogic
What if the statement read:
The only fact known is there is nothing to know.

Still sounds a bit contradictory to me. Cause the logical consequence if there is nothing to know is that there is nothing known*, and that would contradict the first claim about the only fact supposedly known. (*: unless the situation was different in the past, but I know how you feel about the past, present and future; plus I don't think it would remove the contradiction, cause the claim about what is supposedly "known" is a claim about the present and the claim about there supposedly being nothing to know is about the present and future potential, so I can't really make the statement work from a logical standpoint even if I assume a scenario where the situation was different in the past)

Anyway, even if it's not logically contradictory, the claim implies that there is no way for us to know whether or not the claim is true. Which is a very convenient philosophy/idea if one wants to promote (and possibly even sell) their own large collection of unverifiable philosophies/ideas and supposed human 'wisdom' (selling or marketing themselves as being worthy of listening to, getting attention can be financially profitable to some people, if not socially at least, being admired as wise and at the same time intellectually humble and/or openminded and getting some satisfaction out of that, professional philosophers and gurus have made a career out of it). Empty or worthless speeches most of the times (in terms of real enlightenment, real knowledge, real wisdom, real understanding, real insight, etc.; you get the picture; see 1 Timothy 6:20 again).

Remember a claim is "an assertion of the truth of something, typically one that is disputed or in doubt." (definition from google) So one may wonder what is the point of making an assertion of the supposed truth of something, when what is being claimed/asserted already implies that regarding the claim itself it cannot be known whether or not it's true, thus it cannot be ascertained? If the argument and claim/assertion already is that it cannot be ascertained whether or not it itself is true, why would one self-defeatingly assert it as if it is (true)? To me the reason or point seems to be related to the notion of using intentional vagueness to facilitate in projecting an air of wisdom and intellectual humility* that isn't really there in the person making such claims** (the original claim I responded to included and the usual set of agnostic arguments and alternate expressions of the Agnostic Code that I'm thinking about now as well because I'm reminded of them because of the original claim I responded to). *: maybe a hint of openmindedness (especially if you consider ManyMasks comment); **: even though the desire for humility and openmindedness may be there, there is such a thing as a false sense of humility, and practiced publicists, philosophers, gurus and teachers are quite efficient at promoting and nurturing it in their targets (those they are trying to impress and those whose ears they want to tickle as per 2 Timothy 4:3,4)

I know that the behaviour of projecting an air of intellectual humility and openmindedness is heavily promoted in this system of things (society, the media, science, philosophy, religion, etc.), using as tools these kind of 'agnostic'* claims and phrases as proposed ways for people to express and project that air, but it all kind of gets hollow when the claims include self-defeating statements about what other people supposedly can or cannot know (in your example), and that consequently nudge people further into the quickmire of agnostic philosophies when they see any merit in them (both examples, yours and the original contradiction I responded to, which also has that effect, but more indirectly, indicated by the use of the term "a clever guy" by ManyMasks and the accompanying perception he has about that contradictory claim). (*: or rooted in the favoritism or popularity of agnostic philosophies, philosophies and phrases born out of being drawn towards agnosticism by a desire to have one's ears tickled; to give the beholder the idea that they are actually being intellectually humble and openminded if they accept that way of looking at things. In the media they like to depict those who do not see this way of looking at things as either intellectually humble or openminded, as fanatics, dangerous, closedminded and morally inferior to those supposed 'superior' characters depicted that do accept or favor this kind of agnostically-styled way of looking at things. For details about how that works and why they are doing that check out the article in my signature, my comment is getting too long)

Sorry for all the sidenotes and footnotes, felt like I needed to further clarify some details.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

oooooo, now that is awesome.

Maybe for the longest time we have had to think about survival. Everyday survival where it appeared the world was going to end or not even survive until the next season. Survival before electricity and the ability to store food long term. Survival before the industrial revolution that allowed remote segments of the planet to exist beyond bare sustenance.

Maybe are finally at the point where we can dare to look beyond profits at all costs. A point we can view capitalism as something that is holding humanity back, but understand realities need and not immediately embrace socialism but benefits of both systems. A point where the most important question is 'does this serve the community and society' before considerations of milking the hell out of the ignorant and naive. Maybe even having a populace that will turn their backs on needless paper pushing and predatory businesses.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: PublicOpinion
.......
Self centered thought is destructive.

.......

What happens if your self centeredness is focused solely on karma? On being kind to those you come into contact with? On not being dishonest to yourself by speaking falsely?

I am selfish, very very selfish. Almost all of my actions anymore are filtered through the lens of karma. I am very protective of how I act and how I treat others, not wanting to tarnish this realities score keeping of cause and effect. I try to not even care about what others think anymore because their interests usually don't align with my own.

Even if karma isn't real I wonder what would produce a more kind and considerate populace that tries not to infringe on the rights of others? One that existed on the ideals of karma or one that existed on the ideals of modern religion?

There is a world right before our eyes that has all of the evidence of how one of those systems turns out.

Is that bad?

originally posted by: ClovenSky
...
Even if karma isn't real I wonder what would produce a more kind and considerate populace that tries not to infringe on the rights of others? One that existed on the ideals of karma or one that existed on the ideals of modern religion?

There is a world right before our eyes that has all of the evidence of how one of those systems turns out.
...

Not sure which one of those systems you were referring to. Also seeing that they often overlap. For example, Hinduism and Buddhism are very much based "on the ideals of karma" (as you put it) and New Age is a term applied to a range of spiritual or religious beliefs and practices that developed in Western nations during the 1970s, including those involving the subject of karma. Hence it is a modern religion that incorporates many religious beliefs, practices and philosophies from Buddhism and Hinduism, including "the ideals of karma". We also have evidence from Myanmar how such a system based on the ideals of karma (and Buddhism) "turns out". The persecution of a minority group of muslims by buddhists (including soldiers and public officials) in that country, instigated by the hatred incited by Buddhist monks for decades, is quite telling regarding how such a system "turns out" (and what's lurking beneath the surface and pretense of tolerance and peace, the marketing jacket of Buddhism and New Age philosophies and its philosophies concerning karma, or "the ideals of karma" as you put it).

I guess there are those who prefer to see Buddhism and New Age religious beliefs and practices as not being a religion. But that would not be an honest, accurate and appropiate usage of the word "religion".

Religion

Definition: A form of worship. It includes a system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices; these may be personal, or they may be advocated by an organization. Usually religion involves belief in God or in a number of gods; or it treats humans, objects, desires, or forces as objects of worship. Much religion is based on human study of nature; there is also revealed religion. There is true religion and false.
...

Source: Religion (Reasoning From the Scriptures)

Hypocrites galore.

Some historical context (between brackets is mine):

Buddhism and Politics

Like Judaism and professed Christianity, Buddhism has not limited itself to religious activities but has helped mold political thought and behavior as well. “The first fusion of Buddhism and political action came during the reign of [King] Asoka,” says author Jerrold Schecter. The political activism of Buddhism continues to our day. In the latter part of 1987, 27 Tibetan Buddhist monks were arrested in Lhasa for taking part in anti-Chinese demonstrations. And the involvement of Buddhism in the Vietnam war of the 1960’s caused Schecter to conclude: “The peaceful path of the Middle Way has been twisted into the new violence of street demonstrations. . . . Buddhism in Asia is a faith in flames.”

Dissatisfied with the deplorable political, economic, social, and moral conditions of the Western world, some people turn to Eastern religions, including Buddhism, for explanations [see New Age Movement]. But can “a faith in flames” provide the answers? If you apply Emerson’s criterion that “the test of a religion . . . is the number of things it can explain,” how do you rate Gautama’s enlightenment? Would some of the other Asiatic religions “In Search of the Right Way” do better? For an answer, read our next installment.

Source: Religion’s Future in View of Its Past; Part 8—c. 563 B.C.E. onward—An Enlightenment That Promised Liberation (Awake!—1989)
Next installment: Part 9​—551 B.C.E. onward​—The Oriental Search for the Right Way

For those interested but having trouble finding them: All 24 parts of "Religion’s Future in View of Its Past"

... A widely respected religious figure, Jesus Christ, indicated that false religion produces bad works, just as a “rotten tree produces worthless fruit.” (Matthew 7:15-17) What fruit does false religion yield?

False Religion . . .

▪ MEDDLES IN WAR AND POLITICS: “Across Asia and beyond,” says the journal Asiaweek, “power-hungry leaders are cynically manipulating people’s religious sentiments for their own needs.” As a result, the journal warns: “The world threatens to sink into madness.” A prominent religious leader in the United States declared: “You’ve got to kill the terrorists before the killing stops.” His solution? “Blow them all away in the name of the Lord.” By contrast, the Bible says: “If anyone makes the statement: ‘I love God,’ and yet is hating his brother, he is a liar.” (1 John 4:20) Jesus even said: “Continue to love your enemies.” (Matthew 5:44) How many religions can you think of whose members engage in war?
...

Source: The End of False Religion Is Near!

Maybe the question with the quicker answer is...which religions can you think of whose members do not and have never engaged in war (physical warfare that is)? Probably a much shorter list:

Song 141 Searching for Friends of Peace (playlist with context)

From the earlier article called "The End of False Religion Is Near!":

The book Holocaust Politics, published in 2001, says: “If more people practiced versions of what the Jehovah’s Witnesses preach and practice, the Holocaust could have been prevented and genocide would scourge the world no more.”

a reply to: whereislogic

What Is the New Age Movement? (Awake!—1994)

...
A Religion of Self

In her autobiographical film Out on a Limb, famous actress and New Age author Shirley MacLaine stands on a windswept beach with her arms outstretched and exclaims: “I am God! I am God!” Like her, many New Agers promote the search for a higher self and the idea of a god within. They teach that humans need only raise their consciousness to find their divinity.

Once this is accomplished, they claim, the reality of a universal interconnectedness becomes clear​—everything is god, and god is everything. This is by no means a new idea. Ancient religions of Mesopotamia and Egypt believed in the deity of animals, water, the wind, and the sky. More recently, Adolf Hitler allegedly encouraged others to embrace the “strong, heroic belief in God in Nature, God in our own people, in our destiny, in our blood.”

New Age culture is saturated with literature, seminars, and training programs dealing with self-​potential and self-​improvement. “Getting in touch with my inner self” is a popular logo. People are encouraged to try anything and everything that can help them unleash their own possibilities. As one writer put it in the magazine Wilson Quarterly, the “movement’s central teaching is ‘that it doesn’t matter what you believe as long as it works for you.’”

Margot Adler, a New Age guru, explains that many of the women who join women’s New Age movements do it “for reasons that are very personal. . . . They hate their bodies, they hate themselves. They come into these groups which basically say to you, ‘You’re the Goddess, you’re wonderful.’”

New York magazine describes one group’s quest for the higher self: “A woman intones, ‘We are the teachers of the New Dawn. We are the Ones.’ Other participants, wearing horned headdresses, feathered masks, and wispy gowns, dance through the forest, grunting and gesticulating, keening and moaning.”

Sanitized Occultism
...

Regarding the bolded part and since I referred to it before, 2 Timothy 4:3,4 warns:

3 For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* [Or “healthful; beneficial.”] teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* [Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”] 4 They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.

“There will also be false teachers among you.” “Also, they will greedily exploit you with counterfeit words. But their judgment, decided long ago, is not moving slowly, and their destruction is not sleeping.” “And because of them the way of the truth will be spoken of abusively.” (2 Peter 2:1-3, the key points)

“But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, betrayers, headstrong, puffed up with pride, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, having an appearance of godliness but proving false to its power; and from these turn away. From among these arise men who slyly work their way into households and captivate weak women loaded down with sins, led by various desires*, always learning and yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge of truth.” (2 Timothy 3:1-7) *: remember the expression “according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled” from 2 Timothy 4:3? Philosophical and religious propaganda is most efficient when telling people what they want/desire to hear, flattery being a main component for such deception (just like the Loverboys do it, sorry, that's a Dutch term for a pimp who pretends to be in love with a girl or young woman and makes her dependent on him in order to force her into prostitution; the term doesn't seem to be well recognized internationally, let me know if you know a shorter term for it in international English).

Flattery (Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1)

The act of pleasing by artful commendation; adulation; false, insincere, or excessive praise. It is usually done to gratify the self-love or vanity of the one flattered and is therefore damaging to him. Its motive is to gain favor or material benefits from another, to create a feeling of obligation toward the flatterer or to bring glory to him. Often it is designed to lead the other person into a trap. (Pr 29:5) The use of flattery is not evidence of the wisdom from above; it is of this world, being characterized by selfishness, the making of partial distinctions, and hypocrisy. (Jas 3:17) Insincerity, lying, adulating or glorifying men, and playing on the vanity of others are all displeasing to God.​—2Co 1:12; Ga 1:10; Eph 4:25; Col 3:9; Re 21:8.

A contrast of the Christian course with that of flattery is found in the apostle’s words at 1 Thessalonians 2:3-6: “For the exhortation we give does not arise from error or from uncleanness or with deceit, but, just as we have been proved by God as fit to be entrusted with the good news, so we speak, as pleasing, not men, but God, who makes proof of our hearts. In fact, at no time have we turned up either with flattering speech, (just as you know) or with a false front for covetousness, God is witness! Neither have we been seeking glory from men, no, either from you or from others, though we could be an expensive burden as apostles of Christ.”

While the use of flattery may appear to be the gainful course, the Bible points out that “he that is reproving a man will afterward find more favor than he will that is flattering with his tongue.” (Pr 28:23) When a person employs flattery to gain advantage over another person, it is the opposite of love. A hater may resort to flattery but will eventually have his deceptiveness roll back on him like a stone.​—Pr 26:24-28.

Flattery employs smooth talk in order to beguile its victim. The expressions “flattery,” “smooth tongue (lip, or words)” (Ps 5:9; 12:2, 3; Da 11:32), “smoothness” (Pr 7:21; Da 11:34, ftn), and “double-faced” (Eze 12:24, ftn) are translations of the Hebrew root word cha·laqʹ or related words. In every Bible instance cited, the motive of the smooth talker is bad.

...

The Manipulation of Information (Awake!—2000)

...
Playing on the Emotions
...
Some propagandists play on pride. ...

and self-love or vanity as discussed before. Playing on the characteristics of the market described at 2 Timothy 3:1-7 and 4:3,4. Much like the media does it to increase viewer ratings by tickling the ears of whatever audience they are targeting. A media that incidentally contains much promotion of New Age religious beliefs/philosophies and practices. And mythology (false stories) as knowledge, truth, wisdom, insight, understanding and/or (spiritual) enlightenment.

Knowledge (gnoʹsis) is put in a very favorable light in the Christian Greek Scriptures. However, not all that men may call “knowledge” is to be sought, because philosophies and views exist that are “falsely called ‘knowledge.’” (1Ti 6:20)

Source: Knowledge (Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 2)

a reply to: whereislogic
Have you ever heard of the 'Self' with a chapital S?
www.actualized.org...

a reply to: ClovenSky
Did you listen to the David Bohm talk?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Yes.

originally posted by: whereislogic

... A widely respected religious figure, Jesus Christ, indicated that false religion produces bad works, just as a “rotten tree produces worthless fruit.” (Matthew 7:15-17) What fruit does false religion yield?

False Religion . . .

▪ MEDDLES IN WAR AND POLITICS: “Across Asia and beyond,” says the journal Asiaweek, “power-hungry leaders are cynically manipulating people’s religious sentiments for their own needs.” As a result, the journal warns: “The world threatens to sink into madness.” A prominent religious leader in the United States declared: “You’ve got to kill the terrorists before the killing stops.” His solution? “Blow them all away in the name of the Lord.” By contrast, the Bible says: “If anyone makes the statement: ‘I love God,’ and yet is hating his brother, he is a liar.” (1 John 4:20) Jesus even said: “Continue to love your enemies.” (Matthew 5:44) How many religions can you think of whose members engage in war?
...

Source: The End of False Religion Is Near!

Maybe the question with the quicker answer is...which religions can you think of whose members do not and have never engaged in war (physical warfare that is)? Probably a much shorter list:
...

Or whose members do not do military service. 2 Corinthians 10:3:

For though we walk in the flesh, we do not wage warfare* according to what we are in the flesh. [*: “We do not wage warfare.” Lit., “we are not doing military service.” Gr., ou . . . stra·teu·oʹme·tha; Lat., non . . . mi·li·taʹmus.]

Why Don’t Jehovah’s Witnesses Go to War?

For the following reasons, Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t go to war:

1. Obedience to God. The Bible says that God’s servants would “beat their swords into plowshares” and not “learn war anymore.”—Isaiah 2:4.

2. Obedience to Jesus. The apostle Peter was told by Jesus: “Return your sword to its place, for all those who take the sword will perish by the sword.” (Matthew 26:52) Jesus thus showed that his followers would not take up weapons of warfare.

Jesus’ disciples obey his command to be “no part of the world” by remaining strictly neutral in political matters. (John 17:16) They do not protest against military actions or interfere with those who choose to serve in the armed forces.

3. Love for others. Jesus commanded his disciples to “love one another.” (John 13:34, 35) They would thus form an international brotherhood in which no member would ever wage war against his brother or sister.—1 John 3:10-12.

4. The example of early Christians. The Encyclopedia of Religion and War states: “The earliest followers of Jesus rejected war and military service,” recognizing those practices as “incompatible with the love ethic of Jesus and the injunction to love one’s enemies.” Likewise, German theologian Peter Meinhold said of those early disciples of Jesus: “Being a Christian and a soldier was considered irreconcilable.”
...

...
Those Known as Early Christians. Early Christians refused to serve in the Roman army, in both the legions and auxilia, considering such service as wholly incompatible with the teachings of Christianity. Says Justin Martyr, of the second century C.E., in his “Dialogue With Trypho, a Jew” (CX): “We who were filled with war, and mutual slaughter, and every wickedness, have each through the whole earth changed our warlike weapons,​—our swords into ploughshares, and our spears into implements of tillage.” (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, p. 254) In his treatise “The Chaplet, or De Corona” (XI), when discussing “whether warfare is proper at all for Christians,” Tertullian (c. 200 C.E.) argued from Scripture the unlawfulness even of a military life itself, concluding, “I banish from us the military life.”​—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1957, Vol. III, pp. 99, 100.

“A careful review of all the information available goes to show that, until the time of Marcus Aurelius [121-180 C.E.], no Christian became a soldier; and no soldier, after becoming a Christian, remained in military service.” (The Rise of Christianity, by E. W. Barnes, 1947, p. 333) “It will be seen presently that the evidence for the existence of a single Christian soldier between 60 and about 165 A.D. is exceedingly slight; . . . up to the reign of Marcus Aurelius at least, no Christian would become a soldier after his baptism.” (The Early Church and the World, by C. J. Cadoux, 1955, pp. 275, 276) “In the second century, Christianity . . . had affirmed the incompatibility of military service with Christianity.” (A Short History of Rome, by G. Ferrero and C. Barbagallo, 1919, p. 382) “The behavior of the Christians was very different from that of the Romans. . . . Since Christ had preached peace, they refused to become soldiers.” (Our World Through the Ages, by N. Platt and M. J. Drummond, 1961, p. 125) “The first Christians thought it was wrong to fight, and would not serve in the army even when the Empire needed soldiers.” (The New World’s Foundations in the Old, by R. and W. M. West, 1929, p. 131) “The Christians . . . shrank from public office and military service.” (Editorial introduction to “Persecution of the Christians in Gaul, A.D. 177,” in The Great Events by Famous Historians, edited by R. Johnson, 1905, Vol. III, p. 246) “While they [the Christians] inculcated the maxims of passive obedience, they refused to take any active part in the civil administration or the military defence of the empire. . . . It was impossible that the Christians, without renouncing a more sacred duty, could assume the character of soldiers, of magistrates, or of princes.”​—The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, by Edward Gibbon, Vol. I, p. 416.
...

Source: Army (Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1)

In the video below it is claimed that "of the main religions however, Jainism prioritizes peace and non-violence more so than any other" (3:13), yet the true face and 'fruit' of Jainism is shown in the army recruitment video below that, courtesy of Jain University (yes, that's an educational institution connected to Jainism).The millions of Christians organized as a group, an international brotherhood, that actually do not do military service exactly as described by Paul at 2 Corinthians 10:3, are not even mentioned by name at all in the 1st video.


If you watched the last video, you may recognize something:

...
Slogans and Symbols

Slogans are vague statements that are typically used to express positions or goals. Because of their vagueness, they are easy to agree with.

For example, in times of national crisis or conflict, demagogues may use such slogans as “My country, right or wrong,” “Fatherland, Religion, Family,” or “Freedom or Death.” But do most people carefully analyze the real issues involved in the crisis or conflict? Or do they just accept what they are told?
...

Source: The Manipulation of Information (Awake!—2000)

Also checkout some of my commentary on nationalism here and here.

a reply to: Blue Shift

Nothin happened, literally.



Thank you all for the replies, it's been an inspiration already. Still trying to figure out how to translate all that into word salad tho. Keep em coming!

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: Blue Shift

Nothin happened, literally.

Thank you all for the replies, it's been an inspiration already. Still trying to figure out how to translate all that into word salad tho. Keep em coming!

Who what when there now ?



Have enjoyed this thread, and it kinda feels like we're scratching at a humongous, infinitely black, impenetrable dam: yet that we have somehow all glimpsed that it's structure does finally have cracks.

We lay with our ear on the rails, barely a sound, nor a vibration, but... There is somehow a sense, of a barely perceptible rumbling, a foreboding...

So how awesome could we make this 'place' ?

Are we talking: People 2.0 ?
Earth 2.0 ?

Do we not love to hate the corporations, those embodiments of anti-humanistic behavior ?

Howze aboutz we learn from them, and reorganize ourselves to put humanity first, smartly, and beautifully ?
In a way so as to give them time to adjust, and to not put a target on our backs ?

You know: a fair shake for everything and everybody ?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: ClovenSky
Did you listen to the David Bohm talk?

I did. I am not ready to tread down the path of the Illusionary Self. I can appreciate what they are trying to convey but I think it is only half of it. I think the self or ego also has 2 sides, 2 wolfs and it depends on which side you choose to develop. I can understand their reluctance to build a bad sense of self, but they ignore the other half. The wonderful half. There is a way to build a mental image of what this matrix is and have it supple and flexible.

a reply to: ClovenSky

Which wolf is the biggest.... The one you feed.

Aye there is much more than just the ego/narrator steering this ship

Bumping this with that and the other thing:

But before proceeding it is necessary to note why Marcuse is a revolutionary at all, to show the basis of such hopes as he had for changing and improving society. Briefly, Marcuse believes that the productive capacities of modern technology finally make it possible to eradicate scarcity and the misery it produces. (This is, of course, a conventional Marxist belief but one which is also held by many social theorists of whatever political orientation.) Even more optimistically, he believes that violence, ignorance and general ugliness can now be eliminated along with scarcity. In short, "All the material and intellectual forces which could be put to work for the realization of a free society are at hand." Or, as he likes to state it, utopia is at hand.

www.marcuse.org...

In this video, world-renowned linguist and dissident Noam Chomsky speaks with Fabian Scheidler, author of the book “The End of the Megamachine. A Brief History of a Failing Civilization” (www.end-of-the-megamachine.com...). The conversation, moderated by Nermeen Shaikh, focuses on the destructive forces that are threatening human survival and the future of life on earth.