why the noble evolutionist doesn't believe in stem cell research & how evolution is a religion
Life and death are concepts often thought of as polar opposites and rarely as one and the same, yet the latter viewpoint is fractally apparent in many situations we encounter in our day to day lives. Death is a part of life as, for lack of a more obvious metaphor, night is a part of the day. To the extent that each day must pass for the month and the year to progress, so must each life. Yet this is only our perception of human life, as an appropriated cadaver may fertilize a bountiful farm. Just as dead, digested grass may color our lawns and flower beds, might we also enliven our environment without embalming fluid or crematoriums? Physics tells us that energy is conserved and that matter is finite. When you expand to a broader frame of reference, the system you see is in equilibrium. Cause and effect are one and the same, though time propagates in only one direction. Native tribal peoples of the Americas used to believe that the spirit of the buffalo is in the meat of his you eat, the skin of his you wear, and the bones of his you build with. That buffalo is perceivably alive in the time he roams forever, and forever implied in the time that he is dead in tact with the tribe, nourishing their digestive systems, warming their bodies, sheltering their fires, and clubbing their competition. The buffalo lives forever in his time and his energy evolves into another form.
Man, too, must endure the same curse to live forever only in his time. Time-travel exists, though in one direction and at a constant rate. Somewhere out there is a metronome, and somewhere in here, I perceive it and translate it to a waveform reinforced by night and day, winter and summer, youth and wisdom. Somewhere in the living room a fly stops for a moment. Yet that moment is a much larger percentage of the fly's lifetime than it is of yours or mine. The life and death of a fly progresses to us like the life and death of a day. To a fly who knows apparent cycle other than that of flying and sitting unless he is lucky enough to survive longer, the day is lifetime, marked by bouts of wind, heat, light, and dark. The fly is also small and quick to react. It is not too far fetched, then, that the fly's interpretation of the metronome is more acute? That the way it perceives a 1/4 note subdivision seems like a 1/64 note to us? Our frames of reference are different and we do not know how the fly might sense its surroundings, but since it is small and light, might not being acutely quantized be related to the fly's quickness?
As the month is far outside of the scope of time for a fly, so is 30 generations for man. In recent spans we have discovered technologies that we might attempt to broaden our scope. Yet we have also discovered technologies that might stifle our progress. Prolonging an individual human's life has the potential to be a sink for natural resources and time that might be better spent. For every person who is not productive or actively helping society in one way or another, the resources to support a new human life that might better some aspect of life on a small scale disappears. This is not to say there is a certain age that would imply a lack of productivity, but rather that we should focus our efforts not on the sick, but on the healthy. The sick may still be able to procreate, and then we might focus efforts on the newborn, who may or may not turn out healthy, but at the very least has youth and the future ability to procreate.
Man is built so that man may create man (with no distinction being made between man and woman). If it has been these tools that got us to this point in evolution, is it not logical that these tools will get us further in evolution? If evolution relies primarily on reproduction, then would not the rate of reproduction directly affect the rate of evolution? Isn't it then counter-evolutionary to spend time researching stem cells and forcing everyone to have each and every child they might conceive? Wouldn't an investigation into the personal variants of when the right time to reproduce be more fitting?
how evolution is a religion coming soon. i'm going to bed now.
Man, too, must endure the same curse to live forever only in his time. Time-travel exists, though in one direction and at a constant rate. Somewhere out there is a metronome, and somewhere in here, I perceive it and translate it to a waveform reinforced by night and day, winter and summer, youth and wisdom. Somewhere in the living room a fly stops for a moment. Yet that moment is a much larger percentage of the fly's lifetime than it is of yours or mine. The life and death of a fly progresses to us like the life and death of a day. To a fly who knows apparent cycle other than that of flying and sitting unless he is lucky enough to survive longer, the day is lifetime, marked by bouts of wind, heat, light, and dark. The fly is also small and quick to react. It is not too far fetched, then, that the fly's interpretation of the metronome is more acute? That the way it perceives a 1/4 note subdivision seems like a 1/64 note to us? Our frames of reference are different and we do not know how the fly might sense its surroundings, but since it is small and light, might not being acutely quantized be related to the fly's quickness?
As the month is far outside of the scope of time for a fly, so is 30 generations for man. In recent spans we have discovered technologies that we might attempt to broaden our scope. Yet we have also discovered technologies that might stifle our progress. Prolonging an individual human's life has the potential to be a sink for natural resources and time that might be better spent. For every person who is not productive or actively helping society in one way or another, the resources to support a new human life that might better some aspect of life on a small scale disappears. This is not to say there is a certain age that would imply a lack of productivity, but rather that we should focus our efforts not on the sick, but on the healthy. The sick may still be able to procreate, and then we might focus efforts on the newborn, who may or may not turn out healthy, but at the very least has youth and the future ability to procreate.
Man is built so that man may create man (with no distinction being made between man and woman). If it has been these tools that got us to this point in evolution, is it not logical that these tools will get us further in evolution? If evolution relies primarily on reproduction, then would not the rate of reproduction directly affect the rate of evolution? Isn't it then counter-evolutionary to spend time researching stem cells and forcing everyone to have each and every child they might conceive? Wouldn't an investigation into the personal variants of when the right time to reproduce be more fitting?
how evolution is a religion coming soon. i'm going to bed now.