x

[Age]

I'am sorry if you were disappointed with Prt 2, i honestly thought you would find it as good as Prt1.

I like the way you write. Your style of writing in Part 2 was no different than Part 1 so I was not dissapointed in that regard.

It is some of the things you say in your writings, which I was dissapointed in.

As i state in my introduction i believe that my theory will "unravel the first knot" of the mystery.

1. Would you believe in any thing if it were not true?
2. What is your actual theory, what is it supposedly explaining?
3. What mystery are you referring to?

I also realise that not everyone will like what i have written so ask readers to "ignore" the sections they disagree with (if possible).

If what you wrote is true, right, and correct, then why ask readers to "ignore" it. If some thing is true, then it would be better to not ignore it, correct?

If some of what you wrote is not true, wrong, or incorrect, then why?

I hope people will find some of it helpful in viewing the world with more understanding, and hope for the future, which is my only objective in publishing my work.

I think if you want to provide some thing truly helpful, then I suggest removing any and all thoughts/ideas about some separate messiah/leader, which others will follower.

I am very open for improving upon it, and look forward to receiving as much feedback as possible both good and bad, especially from both atheists and believers of all religions, and i mean this sincerely.

Although I might agree with say 10 to 30% of what you say, would you want me to tell what I find wrong with, and question, the other 70 to 90%?

This is what I want but you met not.

[jayjacobus]

If there is a new messiah, he will be completely different than the old one because everything is different now.

[The Woodster]

x

[jayjacobus]

I see what you think.

I think differently.

God is an abstraction in everyones' mind. What I mean is that thinking goes from nothing to holy, holy.

The main culprit is religion that sets the definition of god. So many definitions it boggles my mind.

If I want a simple, definition I can't get it. I must wade through mountains of texts and even larger mountains of interpretations.

Yet the abstraction of god is a good one (even if you are are an atheist).

It tells you about yourself and, if you pay attention to how the abstraction changes as you develop over time, you will see that you are growing psychologically

That may not be obvious, but it is actually true.

[Age]

Hi, thanks for your questions, in response i would like to explain myself a little better.

If this post is in response to me, then I would prefer that you just answered my questions, openly and honestly, instead. There is no need to explain yourself a little better, from your perspective only. Just answering my questions will help in explaining yourself a lot better, to me.

My theory is based upon the idea that basically the world, and mankind has gone wrong, due to an error evolution made.

Instead of making up some theory, based upon your own idea, which may or may not be correct anyway, and instead just explained what you meant by 'wrong', then we could move onto the question of 'How exactly could evolution make an error?'

How are you defining the word 'evolution' here?

Also, how could the 'world's go wrong? 'Wrong'relative to what exactly?

I can very easily see all adult human beings doing wrong, constantly and on a daily bases, and I understand fully why they do this, but I have not and do not see the 'world' doing any wrong, any time.

To me 'evolution' is just a process, of change. 'Evolution' is not some thing that knows right from wrong, no ever makes any decisions. So, I can not yet see how 'evolution' even could made an "error", let alone seeing it ever made an error any where.

By creating the survival instinct of greed, which saved the remaining 600 homo-sapiens from extinction, evolution inadvertently caused our downfall from the start.

What does the word 'greed'mean to you?

How was this supposed "greed gene" made?

If 'greed' is supposedly a 'survival instinct', created by evolution, then because evolution is infinite, in nature, AND there is some sort on 'intent and purpose'behind every thing, then the, I see as wrongly named, "greed gene" is needed and for a purpose.

If 'evolution' wanted human beings to survive, then what exactly for?

If there was an "error made", then that means means there is a 'right way'. If there is a 'right way', then there would be 'intentional purpose'. So, on the grand scheme of things every thing that happens would be for a reason.
The ineptly named "greed gene", created by evolution, would therefore be made purposely for a reason.

No matter what reason you want to give for the reason the "greed gene" came into existence, then the reason, for that reason you give, (I am thinking Ice Age), then would have also been intentionally created, by evolution.

The mistake was that once 'greed' was no longer necessary for survival, it was impossible to remove this instinct from our genes, along with all the other instincts/emotions that would also evolve.

But I know exactly how to greed rid of greed. Therefore, getting rid of greed is possible. Doing this, by the way, is very simple and easy to do as well.

By the way there is another perfectly good reason why greed came about into existence. Although greed was not necessary for human beings to keep existing greed is necessary for a much bigger reason than just human beings themselves.

I therefore believe if it had not been for this error, coupled with the ice-age, that mankind would have developed a whole lot different, and not been so war-like, and that our world would have been at peace.

Would you believe in some thing if it were not true, not right, not accurate, and/or not correct?

Also, if what you believe were not true, then would you want to hear it?

Most beliefs and philosophies base their ideas on attempting to explain this world in which we live, but my theory is that we should really base our beliefs on how the world should have become, and then things hopefully begin to look a little clearer.

To me, 'beliefs', themselves, are one of the reasons for human beings downfall.

How "should" the "world" have become? (I already know what your answer is and agree wholeheartedly with you. But think about the word 'should')

If the "world" "should" have become some thing, then obviously what is happening is what will make the "world" become what it "should" be, and eventually will be. The process of change is making it that way.

If there is a "should", then what is creating the "world", which is evolution, then evolution is doing the job that it should be doing.

If 'evolution' was created to make things the way they "should", then whatever created 'evolution'made it to do the job that it should do.

No matter which way we want to look at it, if there is a 'should', then there is an 'intent and purpose' behind it. The only thing with 'intentional purpose' behind it would be some conscious thing. Unless of course to can show otherwise.

At present it's like trying to theorise about the function of an inverted burnt out wreck of a car, if you've never seen one before, instead of theorising about it when it was still new in the showroom.

Okay.

If anyone ever attempts a theory about the mystery of the Meaning of Life, then it's impossible to ignore the question of God.

If you say so, but who and what, God's can very easily and simply explained, very quickly also. It is all very simple really.

What I mean by "ignoring the sections you disagree with" relates to anyone who reads this that has strong religious or atheist views. If for instance i declared "There is no God", then a lot of people would ignore all of it, where as if a declared the opposite no atheist would be interested. My theory also attempts to bridge the gap and appeal to both parties, by explaining that the answer can be interpreted two ways, either as the main goal of evolution and the emergence of intelligence, or as the Will of God and the plan for mankind.

Okay go ahead. Your previous writings did not bridge this gap.

Most people, i think, view the world as being chaotic, cruel and meaningless, and all life without purpose.
To me however, it all makes perfect sense, and my theory if true, hopefully can make other people view the world from a new perspective.

But your theory does not sound believeable yet.

Why did only the human beings in the northern hemisphere start becoming greedy in the Ice age?

And finally, yes i would like to hear your views, i value your feedback.

Instead of giving feedback on all of your "theory", there is quite a lot to feed back on, I have just given feedback on what you have written here instead.

[The Woodster]

x

[Age]

'How exactly could evolution make an error?'
How are you defining the word 'evolution' here?
Also, how could the 'world's go wrong? 'Wrong'relative to what exactly?
'Evolution' is not some thing that knows right from wrong, no ever makes any decisions. So, I can not yet see how 'evolution' even could make an "error", let alone seeing it ever made an error any where.
What does the word 'greed'mean to you?
How was this supposed "greed gene" made?
If 'greed' is supposedly a 'survival instinct',........it is needed... for a purpose.
If 'evolution' wanted human beings to survive, then what exactly for?

This is how I envisage evolution, and the new genes which are created and inherited in the process.

Why say "new" gene?

Either absolutely EVERY gene is created and inherited "in the process" called evolution, or only SOME. So, which one is it? Absolutely 'every' gene or only 'some' genes are created and inherited in the process called evolution?

If it is every, then I agree.
If, however, it is only some. Then I think you have some explaining to do.

Also why use the "and inherited" words in relation to evolution?

To me, during evolution absolutely every thing is created. Inherited is just the natural follow on effect of this natural evolving-creating process. Created AND inherited just go together naturally.

Evolution is the incredibly slow process whereby species acquire certain new attributes, which contribute towards it's continued survival.

"Slow" relative to what exactly?

And, "incredibly slow" relative to what?

Occasionally mutations occur which result in the offspring differing slightly from their parents.

To me, it is impossible for a parent to produce the exact same. If they could then they would be producing them self. Therefore, ALL offspring differ, naturally.

If the difference in this new generation gives them an advantage over the old, say makes them larger, then these new versions will be able to fend off any smaller males of their species when it comes to mating, and their chromosomes/genes will be passed onto their next generation of offspring. Eventually all the smaller males will fail to mate, and their inferior DNA/genes will be removed from the 'gene-pool'. All subsequent generations born will now be of the larger version, and a new gene will be created which controls the size of the newborn.

That, I would agree with, is the general consensus about how one part of evolution works.

(The example i give in my theory, is the evolution of horses, which evolved them from mice-sized animals 30 million yrs ago, to the present day animals. I also use the phrase "DNA" in my theory to refer collectively to D..acid, chromosomes and genes which may have led to some misunderstanding)
If for simplistic reasons we assume that all our bodily organs/parts etc have individual genes within our 23 pairs of chromosomes, eye-genes, ear-genes, skin-genes etc, which controls its development and growth. I'am now assuming that each emotion we possess also has a separate gene, which gives us the ability and capacity to feel love and compassion, for instance, something physical within our DNA which differentiates us from them that have, and those that have not.

Why would you assume such a thing?

What led you to make such an assumption?

What actual knowledge made you come up with an assumption like that?

Do you any any evidence or any thong that led you to assume that emotions have genes?

Are emotions even physical in nature?

Every emotion we possess evolved for a very specific reason, one that would help overcome difficulties, and improve our chances of survival.

Are you 100% sure?

The oldest emotion is fear, and its advantages are still useful in today's world, for every species of animal. Love and compassion will have evolved so that homo-sapiens cared for their mates and children, therefore increasing their chances of survival. As the "Love-gene" became more prevalent, homo-sapiens will have prospered. Pride and Generosity encouraged them to share any innovations with other tribes, again expanding their odds of survival, with the added bonus that this not only helped them individually, but also other members of their species. Envy and Lust will have evolved so that the strongest males were attracted to the best child-bearing females (the ones with large breasts and wide hips) therefore ensuring that the best possible examples of offspring were produced, and the "Envy and lust-genes" would be passed on to future generations. Each new emotion will have evolved gradually over many thousands of years, each one serving a specific purpose.

Are you sure these emotions are created and or evolve and are past on or could it be the case that the behaviors related to these emotions have always been in play/or have come into play, and THEN a name is created and given for an emotion for this behaviour. I think caring for and raising the younger ones might have been in existence since species have been around, but just calling this love and/or care came into existence later on.

Just because the word "love" was created, and then given, sometimes, to a particular behavior, that does not mean that a "love-gene" had suddenly nor slowly evolved into existence.

So far so good, none of these 'improvements' will have had any side-effects or consequences, except envy and lust which would lead to conflict between mating couples, but would not effect the species as a whole.

To me, this appears to be a very relative and subject point of view.

However, when evolution came to the development of emotions, it entered a whole new ball-game, the human-race presented it with a whole new concept, one never experienced by any other species throughout the entire 3 and a half billion years of life on Earth.

You will have to elaborate on this and explain exactly what you are talking about.

Just because you think the above emotions evolved only during human beings existence and only because of environmental influences like an "ice-age" does not detract from the fact that emotions AND behaviours associated with emotions were in existence well before human beings came into the picture. Or, are you suggesting that fear and fight or flight did not exist before human beings? And, what about envy and wanting to be as strong as another or lust and seeking out a particular partner for examples. Did these things not exist in species before, and not now, other than in human beings?

Evolutionary advancements now came with dire consequences,

Is there such a thing as evolutionary disadvancements?

Is evolution just a name given to a process?

Is that process just what happens naturally anyway?

Is "advancement" just a view held by an observer, which is just relative to that observer or observers?

What is "advancement" relative to exactly?

short-term fixes would now remain forever within our DNA, because the standard method of evolution no longer worked,

1. Are you still sure emotions are within DNA?
If so, then explain how they even could be.

2. What do you mean by 'standard' method of evolution?
How many methods of evolution is there? And, how do you separate the standard methods of evolution from the non-standard methods.

Also 'you' are a part of evolution. 'you' are not apart from, outside of, not separate from, evolution so how could you possibly know any difference?

'you' are a creation of evolution so could you even be aware of any other "method of" evolution?

these new emotional-genes could not be discarded like hairy-skin or monkey-tail-genes when no longer required, they were here to stay.

This is because:
You are yet to show how emotions are made up of any genetic make up.
In the scale of evolution itself you are yet to show what is "new" from "old"? How it is "new"? When the "new" actually came into existence? And,
If as you proposed earlier, Every emotion we possess evolved for a very specific reason, one that would help overcome difficulties, and improve our chances of survival. , then why would these emotions get discarded? If emotions exist, then every one of them is obviously neccessary to improve the chances of survival.

So far so good...

Not at all.

See how I write sentences with question marks at the end? You copied some of them. I write the sea clarifying questions, for clarification. So, if you just answered them directly, openly, and honestly, then it would help you to see the truth of things here.

Then came Greed, the evolutionary 'error' which i go on about, (and forms one of the foundation blocks of my overall theory) ....and spoilt everything.

But 'greed' was and is a necessity. To be able to live in the "world" in which you talk about, hitherto greed is necessary.

Now imagine Africa 190 thousand yrs ago. About ten thousand homo-sapiens are content, with plenty of food and water, all slowly evolving both physically and emotionally.

Does any thing not evolve?

Can any thing not evolve?

For at least 60,000 years up to about 50 years ago in the southern hemisphere human beings are contend with plenty of food and water, obviously evolving.

Over the next 70 thousand yrs however they had to endure a period of extended droughts and sudden climatic changes.

So before this period there were NO periods of extended droughts nor any sudden climatic changes?

How do you know when there were and wet not extended periods of drought? How do you define 'extended period' and 'drought'? Was a 'drought' 190,000 years ago defined the same way a 'drought' 2019 years after a human body was born is? How do you define 'sudden climatic change'?

[Age]

'How exactly could evolution make an error?'
How are you defining the word 'evolution' here?
Also, how could the 'world's go wrong? 'Wrong'relative to what exactly?
'Evolution' is not some thing that knows right from wrong, no ever makes any decisions. So, I can not yet see how 'evolution' even could make an "error", let alone seeing it ever made an error any where.
What does the word 'greed'mean to you?
How was this supposed "greed gene" made?
If 'greed' is supposedly a 'survival instinct',........it is needed... for a purpose.
If 'evolution' wanted human beings to survive, then what exactly for?

Many animals then, and still today, usually forage for food and water on a daily basis, and only eat and drink until their hunger and thirst is satiated.

That is basically the idea of life and living.

When the rivers ran dry, within days these animals soon perished, and also the predators which fed upon them. In order to survive, certain animals overcame this by evolving the ability to store food and water within their bodies, and became 'walking-larders' of fat and water. Elephants and camels being the best examples of this type of creature.

And, without exception, in order to survive EVERY animal evolves, according to the environment in which it lives.

Homo-sapiens too had to evolve,

What do you mean by "had to evolve".

ALL animals evolve. There is no such concept of "had to evolve", because there is no way any animal could exist without evolving.

ALL animals are evolving, that is just what happens.

and although most still had the emotional capacity to feel love, compassion and generosity, it now became necessary for them to become gluttons and hoarders of food. As the millennia passed, and the Rift Valley of Africa became drier, the survivors of the original 10 thousand homo-sapiens were severely depleted. The 600 survivors were therefore the fittest, greediest and most selfish of them all, and their continuing success relied on them having large quantities of possessions, food,water, fire-wood, and clothing, etc, and the will and courage to steal and kill others,to obtain more of these goods, which would greatly improve their chances of survival.

Considering the time distance between then and now your figures seem to be rather precise.

Are you able to explain where and how you got these figures from, especially considering how long ago you are talking about? Most people are not even able to accurately gauge the number of people at a rally or football game, to the accuracy you are proposing, and that is even when they, themselves, are there at the rally or game.

To hypothesis that at times of drought the human beings who are fitter, greedier, and more selfish survived better than the ones who were less fit, less greedy, and less selfish is not really hard to do. To make this hypothesis "is not rocket science", as some might say, but for the actual accuracy of this, how do you know what took, especially considering how long ago it was?

For them to have endured these 70 thousand yrs

What do you mean by "endured".

No animal, including the human animal, "endures" (or suffers patiently), when that is all they know. No animal, including the human animal, lives for more than 70 thousand years, so no animal knows any better nor any different than what they live through. Every animal, including the human animal, either adapts to the environment or dies out. It could also be argued that the only animal that "suffers patiently" regarding the environment is the human animal, and I would suggest that the only human animals that do this are the ones that know "better" or know differently or of differences, like the ones that know of human created material things but which themselves are not able to obtain.

There are still some human tribes who still just "live off the land". These peoples do not "endure" (suffer patiently), they, just like their human ancestors have for millions of years have just "lived off the land". These peoples, like all other animals, just lived with what they had. Besides 'enduring' or 'suffering' with a physical injury or ailment then "enduring" for what you do not have is not, I would suggest, some thing human beings would have done at all anytime in those 70 thousand years, let alone at all for those 70 thousand years.

they had evolved the survival instinct/emotion of Greed and Gluttony,

If some thing is an instinct already, then it does not evolve.

Absolutely EVERY animal has the instinct/(emotion?) to survive. For a living thing to have a survival instinct goes without saying.

'Greed', wanting more than is needed, and 'gluttony', excessive eating, are NOT survival instincts. They are just behaviors some human beings do. In the year this is written ALL adult human beings want more than they need, and, just about all adult beings eat to much. These are certainly not survival instincts/emotions. These individual behaviors are actually to the detriment of the survival of the human species, and to the life of all species on earth, if the actual truth be known.

Human beings have evolved to be greedy and glutton, but they are certainly not in anyway for survival.

If human beings were evolving to be greedy, in the times you are talking about, for their own personal self survival over others, then there would not be a human species left now. Adult human beings would have only cared about themselves and left their offspring to perish. The natural survival instinct of the species overrides 100% the survival instinct of an individual of a species. The survival instinct of the species is built within the genes and can not be overridden. Through evolution who and what the one and only true species will come about.

which undoubtedly saved them from extinction and served a valuable purpose; evolution therefore had triumphed once again, and the fittest had survived.

What do you mean by "evolution therefore triumphed once again"?

Do you think that evolution cares about one species over another?

Through the process of evolution and creation every thing is result of all the other proceeding things. What is HERE NOW is a result of the creating process of evolution. There is no thing evolution is competing against, so there is nothing evolution could therefore triumph over, once nor at all.

The human beings that are alive are because of the environment they live in, which was created through evolution. The human beings who are alive because they killed other human beings just because they are greedy and gluttonous is not because evolution has triumphed but just because those human beings learned to want and take more than they needed. If those human beings who killed other human beings had shared the food and water with the younger ones of the ones that were killed, then human beings could still be alive today. Whatever is alive is because of evolution, and not because evolution triumphed over any thing. If the "fitter" and more "stupid" ones had shared their food with the "weaker" but more "smarter" ones, then the human beings alive today, when this is written, might be far more smarter and far less greedy. We might all even be living in that "world" right now, in which you envision, and hope for the future.

Unfortunately this "short-term fix", which had evolved to protect and preserve them from the harsh conditions of Africa,

When you live with the environment, then there is no harsh conditions. It just is how it is. 'Harsh' is just a relative term. if you do not know any better, then it is not harsh. So, if you are talking in relation to a species for thousands of years then there is no harsh. Are you living, when this is written, in 'harsh' conditions with you televisions, computers, internet, airplanes, motor and electric vehicles, air conditioned and heated houses? If no, then just wait and see in 200 years time how 'harsh' and 'horrific' these times you are living in now really are.

'Harsh' is just a very relativistic term that has no real bearing on the truth of the situation.

Also, it was not a "short-term fix", which had evolved at all. Evolution is just the process of change so that what fits best with the "current" environment is past on generation-ally.

an evolutionary change which would not have naturally occurred otherwise, was with mankind forever, and would have disastrous results.

To me, you just appear to be scrambling to find and hold onto any thing, which fits in with your other idea of things.

All things change evolutionary. 'Change' is the process of evolution. This change happens naturally. It could not happen any other way. So to suggest that some thing occurred, which would not have happened naturally, to me, is just pure nonsense and absurd.

But maybe things could happen unnaturally. You will just need to provide some actual evidence of this first.

Evolution's inadvertent 'error' had now been made.

All things, which have evolved, (obviously because that is how evolution works), are not "errors" nor "unintentional". What came before, created what exists, now. This is just evolution at work. There is no inadvertent thing created through evolution.

Emotions, unlike physical adaptations, could never be altered or discarded, the error was the inability of Evolution's age old method to correctly and safely process emotions, and the inability to foresee the consequences of combining and mixing them, and the conflicting problems that this would create.

I therefore believe if it had not been for this 'error', coupled with the ice-age, that mankind would have developed a whole lot different, and not been so war-like, and that our world would have been at peace.

Would you 'believe' some thing if it were wrong, not true, and was not correct?

You have this belief therefore you are looking for things that will substantiate and support your belief.

Do you believe the "world" we live in now, when this is written, could be a much better place and we all could be living peacefully together now?

If so, then that is fine.

But the truth is we do not live like this now, which is also fine. The "world" in which you talk about will come into existence. Of course who would not want to be living in that "world" right now, but the "world" that exists NOW is perfect. The process of evolution is in perfect accordance where it is meant to be and what will be created will be.

There was no "error" made because greed was meant to come into play and is playing its perfect part in existence right now. Human beings best learn by their mistakes and the mistake they took by becoming greedy is so future generations do not have to live that way. They will have learned from past generations mistakes.

Obviously evolution can not detract from its path so every thing is in its perfect place right HERE right NOW.

Why do you say emotions can not be altered nor discarded?

I believe that the 600 survivors that inherited the "Greed-gene", of whom we are all descended, drastically altered the course of mankind, and led to our present horrendously violent world.

Obviously adult human beings are greedy, but this is not because of genes. Genetics can only affect the visible. Emotions (and thoughts) are not visible.

My section "The Last Ice-age" then attempts to show how the European tribes suffered even more hard-ship and trials, and how evolution created the psychopath and the tyrannical leader and his followers, as further adaptations in order to ensure these particular humans continued survival.

I know that is what your thoughts/writings attempt to show. I agree that what you show has a fair bit of truth in it. That is; if you remove the parts, which are obviously not able to be true. The fact that the peoples living in the more northern parts of earth, in those particular times, may have been more "not in line with love and peace towards "others"" may, as you say, be partly because of the ice-age and the less opportunities to obtain food and/or shelter. But, to me, the resulting effect of raping, pillaging, and murdering is not a result of genes but of just learned behavior only. These behaviors are certainly not just for survival only. Learned wrong behaviors are certainly and obviously not for the survival of the species human.

If we are all descends of these people and thus all have these "genes", then why are we not all like that. Why are some more peaceful than others are and vice-versa?

How "should" the "world" have become? (I already know what your answer is and agree wholeheartedly with you. But think about the word 'should')

Imagine a second Earth, identical in every way to our own, with evolution following the same path - up to 190 thousand yrs ago.
Only on this Earth homo-sapiens didn't have to endure 70 thousand yrs of drought, and the "Greed-gene" was never needed or evolved in mankind.

But you are under the belief that there is a "greed-gene". You have to prove there is one first BEFORE you can move onto any thing else you are writing here.

Because you believe that there is a 'greed-gene' that is why you are looking for things to substantiate it. Just prove there is a 'greed-gene' first, then what you are saying will fall into place. What you are saying does not prove that there is a 'greed-gene'. There is some truth in what you are saying, and, to me, it shows how and why some people became more greedy, and tyrannical than others did, and it helps in explaining and showing why some cultures are more greedy and selfish than others are. But this, to me, is not because of genetics. Quite simply, and obviously, genetics directly affect the physical, in other words the visible. Emotions (and thoughts) are not visible.

Also, IF the second earth is identical in every way to the first one with evolution following the same path, then HOW could be a divergence at any time?

On this idyllic world it's orbit never changed, and the northern hemisphere did not freeze over for 30 thousand years, and so the psychopath and the tyrannical leaders were never needed or evolved in mankind.

But it happened. It happened for a reason. It happened so that the truly peaceful loving, pollution and stress free "world" can come about. Without the so called psychopath and tyrannical people/leaders of the "world" today, when this is written, then the "world" in which ALL people once wanted to live in would not come into fruition.

Evolution can not divert from its path. Evolution is on the one and only path it is going in now.

Human beings can change the path that they are going in now, but evolution can not and will not.

The reason human beings are so slow to change is because that is exactly how evolution has set it up. The more wrong and mistakes human beings do and make, then the more that they have to learn from.

Human beings will learn that the right way, in order to create that "world" that they all want to live in, is very simply and easily achieved just by listening. So, the more years human beings do not listen, like they are doing in the era of when this is written, then the more they will discover and learn the importance of listening.

Imagine that this second Earth was how things could and should have been.

But EVERY thing is how things could and should have been.

Just because you and me might like some thing to be right now, does not mean that it could nor should have been that way right now.

Some things take time, and some times the better things in Life come to those that wait.

No thing could be different than it is now, and therefore no thing should be different that how it is now.

Sure, what you and me know "should" be a better place and "world" to live right now, when this is written, does not mean that it could be nor should be. Adult human beings still have some more things to learn before things will be how they will be anyway.

What is meant to be, will be.

Imagine the changes in mankind's development and history, imagine that no societies were ever built upon greed and conquest.

If that is how it were now, then human beings would eventual become greedy and conquestual. Human beings need to make mistakes in order to learn best. Human beings learn much better and quicker through experience, than they do by just being told.

Human beings as a whole had to become greedy, psychopathic, tyrannical, et cetera, et cetera, to best learn and understand what is actually wrong, from what is right. Human beings have to experience the worst to best learn how to not make the same mistakes.

You said to imagine the above. Remember human beings did once live in a truly peaceful and pollution free "world" with each other, and still societies came built upon greed and conquest. This is just the natural order of things. To live, once again, in a truly peaceful forever more "world", then greed and conquest had to come to be.

Imagine not even knowing or contemplating the concept of "war".

Human beings once did live just like that. Unfortunately war came to be. But fortunately this was for the greater good. The "world" does not just revolve the human beings in your day, but is a much greater picture. What is happening in "your day", when this is written, unfortunate but necessary. From the hardships will come the greater good.

Our world would undoubtedly have turned out better, and mankind would have fulfilled its destiny and purpose, of being the loving, compassionate, generous, benevolent protectors of the Earths sentient creatures and environment.

See, we both agree that the destiny and purpose of humankind is to be of loving, compassionate, et cetera creatures, we just agree on the time frame and the how it will come about.

You are thinking from the individual perspective of one human being expecting it to be now, when this is written, and wishing it had already happened.

Thinking from the collective perspective of ALL, then knowing it will happen and how creates an internal peacefulness, which is the actual beginning anyway.

The Earth should then have become a Heaven, and mankind should have become it's guardian Angels.

This will happen soon enough.

You, human beings, just need to learn how it will become.

Would you believe in some thing if it were not true, not right, not accurate, and/ not correct?
Also, if what you believe were not true, then would you want to hear it?

I'am not too sure what you are getting at. If proof exists that something i believe in is untrue, then yes i would like to hear it, i consider myself to be open to new ideas and knowledge, and my beliefs aren't unshakeable and set in stone.

That is great. But if some thing you believe in is untrue, then why are you believing in it in the first place?

The point I am getting at in 'believing' in any thing is Why do you do it?

Obviously if you are believing in some thing, then you are not as unshakable as you might think or hope you are.

I will ask again, Would you believe in some thing if it were not true, not right, not accurate, and/or not correct?

If the answer is No, then it MUST BE true, right, accurate, and/or correct. My point is you are not at all open.
If the answer is Yes, then why would you?

If a person has a belief, believes they know what is true, right, et cetera and/or assumes that they know what is true, right, et cetera, then they are not as open as they think they are nor would like to be.

[The Woodster]

x

[Sculptor]

Genes do not encode thoughts, or ideas. So your genes cannot be English, or African, or Chinese.
They absolutely DO make you greedy or hungry and a whole range of human desires and needs at the outset are inititated by our basic physical makeup and all that is genetic. Some are born to be more hungry, more sexual, or mothering.. ad inf
So to the idea genes don't make you greedy - false.

[The Woodster]

x

[Age]

Obviously adult human beings are greedy, but this is not because of genes. Genetics can only affect the visible. Emotions (and thoughts) are not visible.

Really?

The answer to this question all depends on how the word 'greed' and others are being perceived. From my perspective the answer is yes. But from your perspective the answer would obviously be no.

Do you mean they're just in our heads?

No I do not mean that at all.

Do you believe there is nothing physical about them?

I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing at all.

Also, I never said anything about there is nothing physical about thoughts and emotions. I chose the words that I actually used, for a specific reason.

I think this statement of yours explains a lot about our disagreements.

I thought that was obviously clear that it would not even need mentioning.

The reason behind our perceived "disagreement" I think you will find originated from the completely different definitions we are giving to the words we use, especially the word 'greed' here.

If I recall correctly I have already provided my definition, and if I am correct you do not even consciously know how you define that word exactly yet.

I understand fully why you have the views and beliefs you have, so there is no real disagreement to be had. I just questioned you on how you arrived at some of your "conclusions". When, and if, you answer them openly and honestly, then you will, hopefully, discover just how much you actually know from what you only think you know.

I'll reply to all your comments later.

Okay.

[Age]

Genes do not encode thoughts, or ideas. So your genes cannot be English, or African, or Chinese.
They absolutely DO make you greedy or hungry and a whole range of human desires and needs at the outset are inititated by our basic physical makeup and all that is genetic.

So when did greed come into existence?

Do genes only make human beings greedy or do genes affect other animals this way also?
If yes, then which other animals, and if only some animals, then why only those ones and not the other ones?

Some are born to be more hungry, more sexual, or mothering.. ad inf

And what actual evidence do you have for this claim?

So to the idea genes don't make you greedy - false.

Based upon what fact exactly?

[Age]

Genes do not encode thoughts, or ideas. So your genes cannot be English, or African, or Chinese.
They absolutely DO make you greedy or hungry and a whole range of human desires and needs at the outset are inititated by our basic physical makeup and all that is genetic. Some are born to be more hungry, more sexual, or mothering.. ad inf
So to the idea genes don't make you greedy - false.

Thank you!

I know that this is plainly obvious and does not need mentioning, but just to make it obviously clear, just because some one agrees with you, that does not make what is being proposed true nor right at all.

[Sculptor]

Genes do not encode thoughts, or ideas. So your genes cannot be English, or African, or Chinese.
They absolutely DO make you greedy or hungry and a whole range of human desires and needs at the outset are inititated by our basic physical makeup and all that is genetic.

So when did greed come into existence?

Do genes only make human beings greedy or do genes affect other animals this way also?
If yes, then which other animals, and if only some animals, then why only those ones and not the other ones?

Some are born to be more hungry, more sexual, or mothering.. ad inf

And what actual evidence do you have for this claim?

So to the idea genes don't make you greedy - false.

Based upon what fact exactly?

Greed is simply the urge to eat as much as you can, or until utterly satiated. This has powerful selective advantage. And it has been part of animal behaviour for millions of years.
Evolution is a balancing act, never perfect and always variable.
Evidence for these and many more variations in individuals are all around you. Just look.
Labrador dogs are notorious in that they will eat until they are sick or incapable of movement, whilst other breeds of dog are more fussy. Some dogs are born homosexual, whilst others are straight.

You can take it that "greed" is a pejorative and moralistic term. It is a judgement about the rightness or wrongness of a natural trait. The trait is natural, but the judgement is cultural.