It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Subtle Evolutions

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 05:47 PM

The type of attenuation (mental concern) practiced by the upper class is different then the type of attenuation practiced by the lower and middle classes. This in turn can cause different neurotransmitter/hormonal ratios in a given individual and over generations...will affect the inclinations of the bodies glands to release in response to certain environmental stimulii.....

So it may actually be true to say that there are "non-humans" walking the Earth.....provided an actual, technical definition of human was decided upon and "non-human" included a give or take three percent difference in certain physiological inclinations as evidenced through electro chemical ratios (a difficult ascertation to make, considering we don't really have a way to measure the 'electro' part of the electro-chemical; it is relevant if you consider the frequency of neuronal firing in response to any given situation can determine the amount of manifested responses, or potential responses, prior to the actual response)

The above is a posted response to a thread regarding David Icke………a subject in and of itself I find amusing on slow days.

But I have gotten to thinking about his assertion that an evolved reptilian species is walking the earth.

A little background……..I do my own thought process regarding extravagant claims……..I am an adherence to the idea that the best way to present a lie is to incorporate the truth. So when pondering anything, I attempt to find out what exactly can be truthful within the presentation……and thus, we arrive here at the purpose of this thread…..

If evolution is to be assumed, and I think that the evidence is there, however disjointed it may be, then we can state that the human organism will continually react to it’s environment and will pass on the cumulative genetic signature to the offspring. Kind of a basic assertion…….the genetic information used to comprise a new organism can only be a result of the previous organism’s experience. Physical features, such as color of hair and eyes, height and bone structure are observable traits that support genetic precedence………but what about mental attributes?

So I thought about it……in today’s economic structure, indeed the concept can actually be applied throughout modern human’s evolution, the type of concerns and thoughts practiced by those the upper class are going to be different then the concerns and thought processes of the lower class….obviously. One group will be concerned with how to spend their money; the other will be concerned with where their money is coming next. The difference is stress. If the lower class is going to spend their time making the money in order to satisfy the real world needs they have incurred, then their attitude/personality/mood is going to be consistent with their incurred stress. Likewise, if the upper class operates devoid of this day to day stress; i.e. secure in their day to day routine; then their attitude and/personality/mood will correlate…..

Which brings us to the question of what exactly is stress and how is it represented on a physiological level? What hormones and neurotransmitters are consistent with these admittedly very general scenarios?

The problem I see is obvious…….there are many variables that comprise the day to day reactions of people from all sides of the spectrum. But the generalization made would kind of be consistent across the board.

The point is this……….if a human spends most of his time adhering to a specific economic structure, and performs all action to satisfy the given obligations, then the mind and body will evolve to be more inclined to this regiment. The genetic information/memory will then be passed on with these inclinations. Without this omnipresent stress, the chemical make-up that eventually comprises the genetic memory will be different……….

I concede that there are different types of stress. Like I said, there are many different variables that affect the attenuation of an individual….however, the economic pressure incurred by those without money seems to be the most consistent one…… doesn’t go away unless active measures are taken to upgrade one’s economic status, which is a difficult endeavor in itself……….

I present this thread in the interest of encountering thoughts and opinions regarding the subject…….What do you think? Can economics influence the genetic make-up of future individuals? Keep in mind that economic status does influence the action of a given individual…..

[edit on 8-3-2006 by MemoryShock]

[edit on 8-3-2006 by MemoryShock]

posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 02:26 AM
Really interesting thread, but I'm going to have to mull it over for a bit. In the meantime, here's some interesting tidbits I dug up for the occasion.

An article about a relatively new theory on the early evolutionary advantages of trade, craft, and commerce. The power of symbolic thinking is mentioned in passing, which I also found interesting...

Here's a wiki page giving a good overview of some of the various meanings symbolized by the serpent through time. This is probably useful information if we're going to try to analyze the symbolism used by Icke, and separate the layers of intended and unintended meaning.

Here's something on Enki, or EA, which I think has some info pertaining to the current discussion, or it may not - depends entirely on which direction this discussion goes in.

Anyhoo, I think the idea that human beings have evolved markedly different methods of survival has a lot of merit. There are predators and there are prey items, this has always been my perception of the world. The question on the table, if I understand it correctly, is whether or not these behaviors are evolved and physiological, or learned and pyschological.

Well, I shouldn't say the question on the table, because really it's just one amongst several. This is deep water we're treading into with this discussion, because it incorporates a whole lot of systems and different interactions, it's pretty boggling honestly. In trying to think about the issue I found myself spread thin, unable to keep all the balls in the air long enough to observe any meaningful patterns.

Here's another coal for the fire. It's about reptillian marketting.

It doesn't work on everyone, but it works on the vast majority of certain groups, mothers for example.

One last tidbit. An interesting article, maybe more illuminating than it appears, even.

I really gotta think some more about this over the next couple of days, see if I can keep my balls in the air.

(How's that for adaptation?!)

posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 03:09 AM

Originally posted byWyrdeOne
This is deep water we're treading into with this discussion, because it incorporates a whole lot of systems and different interactions, it's pretty boggling honestly


Your links have provided several different directions to follow........which is what I was looking for.....I'll have a response up soon.....I would liike a chance to wade through it all and soak up the info before I continue.....

posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 12:15 PM

Can economics influence the genetic make-up of future individuals?

Well, certainly. Anything that becomes a factor in an organism's environment will eventually have an effect on that organism. But with human beings there are a lot of different changes that have been made in the past 40,000 years, at least, and it's difficult to guess exactly what will be the result of those changes. In the past 150 years, for instance, we've gotten relatively good at keeping people healthier than they have been in the past. Particularly babies who in times past would have died off because of some fatal flaw, like a bad heart. Now they can live and breed and weaken the general population. That's a eugenics observation.

I still think that the biggest change our economic situation will bring to the human species is our rapid extermination. Not from anything "bad" such as war or disease, but from our own ability to gather resources and experiment. I really think that within 10,000 years (maybe as quickly as 1,000 years) we will have evolved from an organic species into an intelligent mechanical species. Along the way, we will experiment with our own genetics enough to modify our physical bodies to the point where we won't really be humans anymore, anyway.

And the change is a direct result of our ability to create symbols and use things like coins and money (now in electronic form) to represent our labor. That's economics. We can gather and rearrange our money, our resources, to solve problems no single individual hominid could ever solve. And as a result, we're going to cleverly work ourselves out of existence.

All of our noblest virtues - love, imagination, intelligence, kindness, wisdom, etc. - will soon be the death of us.

posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 02:02 PM
Awesome links, Wyrde......especially the last two......and maybe as a result I have been able to more specifically hone in on my thesis point......which is....Can economic class and all the variables that usually stem as a result affect the brain on such a level that the evolution as manifested in future offspring affect the inclination of the offspring to think more with the 'reptilian' side of the brainand, likewise, the higher cognitive functions?

I am already fairly sure that stimulii encountered everyday can affect the mood and attiude, and thusly cognitive function in a given individual, but this is a short term affect....I have alot of my support for this topic already with meat and caffiene regarding cortisol production and may just post it here rather than start a new thread.....I even ran into a study claiming to have found Omega 3's effect on mood and personality....which I'll edit in...

But I am curious if long-term affects will result in humans that attenuate differently......kind of analagous to the Neanderthal link, you provided Wyrde.......but rather than 'modern human' migrating to the location of the 'Neanderthal', the 'modern human' will have arisen from the ranks of Neanderthal due to different application of the same environment......does that make sense?

Thanks for the reply Enkidu....

[edit on 9-3-2006 by MemoryShock]

posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 02:31 AM

Originally posted by MemoryShock
..and maybe as a result I have been able to more specifically hone in on my thesis point......which is....Can economic class and all the variables that usually stem as a result affect the brain on such a level that the evolution as manifested in future offspring affect the inclination of the offspring to think more with the 'reptilian' side of the brainand, likewise, the higher cognitive functions?

I would actually like to retract this statement.......I thought some more on it and it is highly over simplified.......the main idea is present, however certain factors are excluded.....such as having the capacity for mental and subsequent physical function beyond the physiological inclination.....though I believe that having an inclination in most cases will tend to form the reality.......keep in mind that the 'subsequent physical function' is highly important as the inclined mental function will dictate this; the applied theory for the idea I am presenting is akin to the eugenic distinctions of "A Brave New WQorld" by Aldous Huxley.......

*sigh*....many factors.........Within the week, as time allows, I'll try and post my support for the short term affects I mentioned earlier, i.e. the Omega-3 article link. It is relevant to show the initial base work for this particular idea (thread topic) to help provide a more specific framework in which to operate.....I just have an excuse, er, little time.....

[edit on 15-3-2006 by MemoryShock]

posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 12:39 PM
A recent study that agrees with the thesis of this thread...

Cal Study: Poor Kids Lack Brain Development

Linked for relevance.

new topics

top topics


log in