At the Brink of Civilisation

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 10:15 AM
reply to post by camain

Everyone has power, and our colective weakness is not utilizing our individual strengths, it is buying into a system, thinking we are just a vote, just a wage, just a pension. And this, up to now has been done out of ignorance. Now that we live in the information age, where everyone soon will know, let's see how this pans out...

The universe is made of energy, power is everywhere.

As for eugenics, I guess my problem with it is that it tries to fix something that really is not broken.

posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 11:45 AM
reply to post by Zepherian

Unfortunately, emotions(especially love, which is obviously serotonin), social urges, and perception seem to be mostly chemical in origin. Take, for example, testosterone. When I increase my testosterone levels my body language, facial expression, and voice tone radically change(suggesting changes in brain activation), and I become more aggressive, more assertive, and can't stop thinking about women, machines, and building things. I want to interact with women sexually and compete with other men, usually physically through sport or combat.

When I increase my serotonin levels, I feel feelings of love, empathy, peace, and bliss for all things, though people most especially. Studies have shown that romantic love is the result of serotonin.

Love is chemical, and is known for causing irrational, obsessive behavior. Masculinity is chemical(though healthy. High testosterone levels are very healthy in men).

I've had psychic experiences so I have no doubt that there is more to consciousness but simple emotions, as expressed by all mammals, are just chemicals and chemical responses.

Acting out of love is essentially the same as doing something because you were stoned at the time. Both entail chemically distorted perception and behavior.

posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 11:52 AM
reply to post by Zepherian

Why don't you plug in and tune into that power to do something practical, like design and test a better agricultural system or power source? Do you expect the universe and others to provide for you or do you not intend to pull your own weight around in improving the world and your own life?

The human breeding system today is already broken and artificially influenced by society. Stupid and "hot"(i.e., willing to put out) are our emphasized breeding partners and breeding goals. All I'm doing is suggesting that we emphasize different goals and, while we're at it, seriously consider removing horrible genetic illnesses from the gene pool so that people who are influenced by serotonin and irrational feelings of empathy and love do not pass on horrible illnesses to future generations.

posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 01:36 PM

the girl of the venus project in zeitgeist was saying
"there is no human nature, there is human behavoir"

i'll add:

human behaviour is easily manipulable and corruptible.

and our leaders have even invented some sciences to excel in that (i have studied this bull#). and they do excel in that since a long while.

but it is not a thing that cannot be changed.
far from that.
consciousness is rising everywhere, slowly, slowly but surely.

mr proteïnman :
is it the protein creating the emotion or the emotion creating the protein?
meditate on that
(and try again dmt before you die)

ps: psychopath have no fear ? another fantasm of yours man: violence is purely fear and those are full of it, the fact is that they are to be put among the weakest in society in this regard : this individuals have totally surrender to their own personal and deepest fears. beside (i admit exceptions are, but very very few) it is a pathology to associate with media and advertising (cult of the desire and the ego - with which you seem very happy!).

[edit on 19-10-2008 by ::.mika.::]

posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 02:32 PM
Epinephrine: Love is not serotonin, serotonin is part of the chemical makeup of the body computer, as David Icke puts it, when we vibrate to the frequency of love. Love in the simplest way I can explain it is vibrating in tune with the energetic backdrop of reality. You're confusing an effect with the cause, a cause you do not yet understand, because you're mentally conditioned to see it as "hippy bull#" and indoctrinated by the classic and authoritarian theoretical education system to not accept it.

That is your barrier, not mine, you can tear it down whenever you want to and see things in their true colours. The truth is out there, as they say.

As for me not doing anything, how do you know what I have done? Don't waste your time with ad hominem, I intentionally leave information about myself scarce, because I want to focus on the idea and not the person. Besides, why reinvent the wheel? Want efficient agriculture? There's crop rotation, hemp and the secret life of plants (read the book). Want cheap energy? Well, there's hydrogen, wind, wave, tide, solar getting better each day... All that is done already, we just have to get over the bones of the english-american empire to get to it.

posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 04:12 PM

Originally posted by Epinephrine
Why should I care about billions of people around the world who have nothing worthwhile to contribute to society?

What exactly do you contribute to society?

And why do you use the word "society"? What you seem to describe is a few individuals that are the "best", and the rest that are the "scum" and should more or less be dealt with. That isn't a "society".

You are totally free to say that there is no tomorrow and that you would love to kill, rape, burn and pillage. It is a valid point of view and arguable (although despicable, inhumane and evil). But please do so clearly, and don't hide behind words like "society" and what not.

posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 04:49 PM

Originally posted by Gregarious
reply to post by Harman

We have enough oil here, now, to last us 1,000 years at current consumption, which, incidentally, is dropping fast.

Not true. The joys of the exponential function. Please see:

PS: Generally the consumption is increasing.

Well, strictly speaking, you might as well be correct (although I remember reading somewhere about hundreds of years and not a 1000). But what I am trying to say is that "at current consumption" is problematic. History, and the basic needs of our current economic system that needs constant growth, show that the trend is growth on growth on growth, which is exponential.
For example with a yearly increase of consumption of 7%, you won't run out in a 1000 years, but in 104.

[edit on 19-10-2008 by waterpie]

posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 04:55 PM

Originally posted by Pericle
Right now, even good people, willing to change this world, get into politics to do something about these problems, but when they get up there, these hidden (rich/powerful) faces emerge who corrupts them so that their initial good intentions are changed.

I think this is not correct. I don't think that (good) people get to the top and get corrupted. I think that the whole system is set up in such a way, that unless you get corrupted you can't begin advancing towards the top in the first place.

posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 05:15 PM

Originally posted by Epinephrine

Originally posted by DisgustedOne

"Less worthwhile people" ?????? I think a man is defined by how he views and treats others less fortunate than himself.

High levels of serotonin tend to cause feelings of joy and indiscriminate love. By preventing these chemical peaks I am able to see without chemically warped perceptions. I guess that defines me as clear-headed individual with an engineer's personality?

You cannot seriously believe that people have unlimited potential or that all humans have the same potential, can you? Basic, elementary biology states otherwise and biological beings cannot wisely build viewpoints of themselves or others as anything more than biological beings. Basing world views on emotions, "ethics", or any other standard but biology and rigorous studies of behavior is just an act of delusion.

[edit on 19-10-2008 by Epinephrine]

From the American Eugenics Website

The philosopher George Santayana said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." This adage is appropriate to our current rush into the "gene age," which has striking parallels to the eugenics movement of the early decades of the 20th century. Eugenics was, quite literally, an effort to breed better human beings – by encouraging the reproduction of people with "good" genes and discouraging those with "bad" genes. Eugenicists effectively lobbied for social legislation to keep racial and ethnic groups separate, to restrict immigration from southern and eastern Europe, and to sterilize people considered "genetically unfit." Elements of the American eugenics movement were models for the Nazis, whose radical adaptation of eugenics culminated in the Holocaust.

I thought I smelled something bad in your comments. The last world war was fought to rid us of this kind of thinking, but it seems we failed.

The question that you must answer, now, is who decides who has the good genes and who has the bad? You? Your minions? The world elites? Me? Yeah, how 'bout me? And if I decide or it is determined that yours are "bad", you OK with that?

Yeah, "Hiel Hitler"!

posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 06:36 PM

Originally posted by Mdv2
As long as there are humans there will be greed. Greed is a characteristic of almost every human being. Greed is the reason that we are living in a world that knows such social differences. And my friend, greed will never disappear as long as there are humans.

I'm sorry to have to slightly disagree with you there.

I have been led to believe ( correct me if I'm wrong) that the Australian Aboriginals walked this earth fro over 40000 years and in all that time did not appear to display overt greed.

I have for a long time held a great respect for the people, well at least what I knew of them which is not a huge ammount I must admit.

Here we have a people that lived in harmony with their enviroment, respecting all life both plant and animal but also the earth itself.

No rape pedophilia, genocide etc, no burglars drug addicts thieves or bankers. No religious dogma or even evil, no pesticides, kings or rulers.

In 40000 years they didn't once destroy their landscape or bring the animals and plants that they lived with to the point of extinction.

Were they happy ? Well it would seem so, they sang songs and created beautiful art that is saught after across the world, they danced made love and respected the family and were totally free in every way.

Then the white man came followed closely by religion, the rest is history albeit shameful and disgusting.

We've managed to rape and pillage through a mere few of thousand years, a blink of an eye compared to the Aboriginies. What is the likelyhood of our type making it to the grand old age of 40000 years ?

We now appear to stand on the edge of completely destroying ourselves and the home that we share. Was going to the moon or having a tv or new car really worth it, did we desperately need these things to make us complete?

Is this the 11th hour ?

posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 08:27 PM
You know the only way to realize this don't you?

I hate to say it...

One World Government and One World Economy.

Maybe the nwo, assuming it exists, actually has noble intentions?

posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 09:05 PM

Originally posted by DisgustedOne
I thought I smelled something bad in your comments.

Perhaps you were smelling agricultural science and animal husbandry? Or else conscious planning and preparation for children and the future instead of aimless wandering and a series of accidents, surely.

Hitler was a vegetarian but you don't see me accusing vegans or the soy industry of being neo-nazis.

Re: '___' - Being recommended chemical hallucinogens in order to understand that chemicals don't affect perception or behavior, specifically in ways that create emotions in mammals, is outright absurd and completely telling about the state of people who seem to believe that "love" has supernatural powers, which include the ability to solve all of the world's ills.

Re: Icke and "vibrating frequencies" - Icke is icky.

posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 09:09 PM
I've got some really great ideas that, if implimented would usher in a new age of utopia.
But, for anything actually meaningful to be done we first need to do something abuot the world leaders and people in power, like all the CEOs and generally the worlds rich who want to to ensure that world peace and freedom of the people is never within sight.
There are a lot of people who are doing things to fight against the ills of the world, but they are more than opposed by people who are or feel they are in power.
The worlds population needs to turn off TV and unit and make these issues our main focus, in everyones household, everyones dinner table conversations, everyones most thought about and talked about subject for many years without stopping until we have done all those things that fix all the broken bits of this world.
I don't think that's going to happen.

posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 09:24 PM

As for eugenics, I guess my problem with it is that it tries to fix something that really is not broken.

Really? My problem with it is its potential for misuse by those with less than noble intentions. With ideal leadership, I would certainly be all for it. To think that the human race as it is today is not "broken" is simply delusional. The vast majority of people on this earth simply lack the capacity to think at a higher level, coexist peacefully, and build a better world.

I am a long run fatalist precisely because the human race is broken.

posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 09:25 PM

Originally posted by Grumble
Three basic problems with these proposed solutions:

1) Money means nothing. Money is simply the way we establish prices in order to allow for the efficient distribution of resources. It is nothing more than numbers and pieces of paper. What matters is the underlying productive capacity. Do we actually have the productive capacity to accomplish these things? No, for two reasons. Take the world's GNP and divide it over the world's population, and you will find that even if we could somehow spread those resources equally, the cover would be very thin. Furthermore, the GNP we have depends upon the efficiency of markets to maximize output. If you were to force the world to build simple shelters, for instance, instead of allowing the markets to do their work, you would have a gross reallocation of production which would result in the misapplication of resources in inefficient ways, which would make everyone poorer.

2) There is no way to enforce it. There is no global authority to do this, and if there were, it would essentially be a world tyranny. Furthermore, history has shown that the larger an empire grows, the more unwieldy and inefficient it becomes. One world government would be a nightmare which would no doubt fail to distribute resources in the way you imagine.

3) People would not cooperate in making this happen. I will use myself as an example. I work very hard to give my family a nice standard of living. You would require all of us to work just as hard to still produce as much utility for the world to continue to function, but because I am on the wealthy end of the scale I would be required to allow much of that utility to be transfer to others around the world. Why would I continue to work so hard? Why would the most talented people on earth kill themselves with their labor in order to support a system which does not reward them? The truth is that we are individuals, and motivation matters.

What you propose is, in essence, communism. And that has been tried, and it has been an abject failure. I have gone around and around in my own head about this my entire adult life. I attained a degree in economics to learn about it. And despite my good intentions and sincere wish that we would achieve such a thing, I accept that it is impossible. You can either allow individuals to achieve and the intangible fruits of their achievements to benefit us all, or you can mire your nation or indeed the world in the soul-killing misery of universal poverty.

[edit on 18-10-2008 by Grumble]

Can anyone explain to me how any of the above can be overcome?

posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 12:05 AM
I see Eugenics has been brought up.

I have an opinion about that.

Basically, some people want to have a child or two.. to deny people the right to have a child is unjust.

I tentatively believe that everyone should be discouraged from having more than two children. But that's just my belief and I wouldn't push that.

I'm certainly against eugenics though. We don't need to breed the worlds population towards being smarter, what we need is to make sure that everyone has the chance to reach their potentials and to help people develop their sense of right and wrong while teaching the global consequences of corruption.
But I don't see that happening any time soon.

posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 12:13 AM
reply to post by Recouper

Maybe if the human population were bred for greater intelligence and ability to reason over the course of a few generations that could happen

posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 01:45 AM

Originally posted by Epinephrine
reply to post by Moegli

Actually, if you read some psychological literature you would know that it is absolutely possible to be devoid of emotions. Criminal psychopaths, for example, are notoriously devoid of emotion and fear. Also, are not monks of many religious traditions taught to control their emotions in order to think more clearly? Surely that's not out of fear.

From my viewpoint, emotion acts as an engine to free will. Without it you would not be compelled to do anything. What made you reply to my post? What makes cold blooded killers devoid of fear, relentlessly dish up terror?

I think the real fear lies in people who know only how to react emotionally. How could they possibly face themselves or learn to act without their automatic emotional responses?

It doesn't have to be one way or another. As a fact, a minority of Humans mentally function using both hemispheres of the brain. Doesn't mean they are smarter or use more brain power, it just combines the ability to think rationally with intuitive guidance. Sounds like an advantage to me.

Dealing with theoretical, improbable situations in order to coax some feeling out of me in an effort to prove me and my position that uncontrolled emotions leads to delusional ideas an viewpoints is grasping at straws(very emotional and flimsy ones at that). Besides, I find it very unlikely that anyone would find me in the lesser percentage of the population. And if they did, it would simple act as necessary to ensure my survival. What good would anger do?

I detect with my spidey senses that this particular paragraph is influenced by a teaspoon of suspicion, a sprinkle of frustration and a pinch of self righteousness. Unless you believe in a higher existence beyond this mortal coil, I sincerely doubt that if you were to face extermination, you would be as emotionally rigid (or absent) as you think you can.

Also when I mentioned anxiety in my last post, what made you think my opinion differs from

uncontrolled emotions leads to delusional ideas an viewpoints
? Were not so different after all.

[edit on 20-10-2008 by Moegli]

posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 02:52 AM
reply to post by The_Modulus

great post
very intelligent and thought out.

the sad thing is that most people will read this and go 'ohhh really', act alittle sad or mad.....then go on with their lives. on a lighter note....a few people will actually be touched and attempt to make a change.

namste to you the_modulus

posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 07:33 AM
reply to post by Epinephrine

If you don't like Icke there are plenty of alternative sources for the same subject. But to show how he really is not "icky", here's a nice youtube of this subject:

Puts things into another perspective when you can actually see them...

[edit on 20-10-2008 by Zepherian]

new topics
top topics
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum