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.


Are we evolving or devolving?

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 03:54 AM
I was rather charmed/bemused by Mike Dangerously's thread on whether or not life is really sacred - and thought this was an interesting aside possibly.

I find it curious that some portions of our species seem to be giving over to the more baser animal instincts we all are built with, while a whole other group seems to be wishfully and somewhat irrationally for pushing past these facts of nature and science to some sort of philosophical evolution or "enlightenment". Anyone here with a good grasp of or background in evolution - could you speak to this question. Is there any evidence (empirical) at all, that suggests that a form of "reverse" evolution is even plausible?

I remember reading a paper somewhere that suggested (one of likely hundreds of theories on the topic to be sure) that because we initially eliminated many of the "fight or flight" survival issues as a species as we evolved culturally, that we continue to create new "scenarios" of this type without necessarily being consciously aware of this - because we wouldn't know how to operate/function without the premise of "survive". Is it possible that the ultimate evolution for our species could be that we realize, ultimately, that we're moot (losing the most basic instinct of "survive")?

(For appropriate disclosure, I'd say that I fall largely into the latter category of wishful thinkers, but with an overly large dose of skepticism and doubt mixed in)

posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 04:04 AM
from what ive been given information about, our minds talking about "evolution" or evolving/devolving is not very relevant to people because its something said to be, "pure consciousness"

so many people say they dont believe in "death" and I applaud them. We were taught in highschool that "The law of conservation of energy states that the total amount of energy in a closed system remains constant. A consequence of this law is that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. The only thing that can happen with energy in a closed system is that it can change form, for instance kinetic energy can become thermal energy."

So since we all know this is true, why is everyone freaking out about "Dying" or whatever? Looks like fear to me, and we all know whos game THAT is, so why even bother?

We dont know what really comes next, but we cant expect there NOT to be consequences for our actions, even the actions we DIDNT make.

posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 04:06 AM
Evolution means nothing more then change. Its the survival of the fittest. Everything that comes along only stays if its fitting better or in other words maintaining a pre-existing harmony. Harmony is absolute, Chaos is partial.

What would "devolving" mean in this case?
The only thing I could think is that it would be something close to "stagnation".
But stagnation is really just a perspective, its caused by the blockage that can be the observant if unaware and not seeking.

I think in reality there is no such thing as stagnation or "devolution". Those are the pinnacle of the illusion of life. We are now discovering that matter is not solid or "fix" as we experience it all, its all moving at an incredible speed that our perception at this time is not capable of apprehending so we build a kind of "blockage" not to be overloaded or in energy terms have a short-circuit problem.

posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 12:28 PM
Evolving=building better ways for all to exist -medicine
devolving=building was to wipe our own selves entirely off the map-mega weapons
my input

posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 11:53 PM
I don't buy into eveolution but say it was true, then I would have to say we are de-evolving.

new topics

top topics

log in