charles brough

A number of animals such as ants, jellyfish, sponges, slime mold slugs and even we humans are multicellular colonies or live as social groups. Is that explained through genetic evolution? How?

Good point! Christianity didn't need to develop a new cosmology, It just adopted the Judaic one and then claimed it was "the LAST testament" of the same old God. It purported to bring Judaism up the the 2,000 year-ago then present. It was such a successful formula that the Muslims copied it. In our times, the same old now worn out forumla was adopted by Reverand Moon to build his cult. I suppose the Mormons and Christian Scientists used it also. To develop a world-view system able to lead us into building a new civilization capable of replacing this declining one, we have to get a new and better formula! By the way, is the pai free? Do you have any pumkin or, even better yet, key-lime?

As you say, the study of ethics falls within philosophy, but should it really do so? It seems to me ethical/moral ideological systems evolved to make a society operate more uniformly and hence efficiently (social evolution). I say this because, as science is well aware of, we evolved through millions of years of evolution as small, social, hunting/gathering size-group primates. It is our group of innate social instincts that lie at the base of our moral/ethical systems. I name as examples, just three of many: the alpha protecting the group territory, the mother caring for their offspring and the expectation that the one you do a favor for will return the favor when needed. It seems to me that ethics/morality is a social evolutionary development that evolved through a natural selection process to enable large bodies of people to coordinate their social feels in a united and uniform way. I would add that I think present moral/ethical systems are breaking down because the old ideological systems which support them have become obsolete. Morality/ethics is a subject that seems to me to have no meaning outside of the above. That could be why it is philosophical. Moreover, moral/ethical systems are the means to the ends, and we humans have no goals or purpose other than the ideological system that unites us. All successful mainstream ideological systems have or have had goals (as "ends") and a moral/ethical "means to the ends." I think ethics is a social evolution, hence science, subject. . .

I think I may have what is at the bottom of our differences. The public and media regards money as different from credit. They are not. When the goverrnment hires contractors and borrows from the banking system to pay for it, there is an expansion in the total money supply even thought there may be the same number of paper currency bills in circulation. The total number of bills has little to do with demand. When the borrowing increases, the total money supply expands and, in response, prices rise. Prices rise in rough proportion to the increased amount of credit. Now, with banks flush with cash but lending it out parsimoniously because they expect prices and demand to shrink (the "double dip"), there is no increase in the money supply. So, as residential real estate prices continue to drop, businesses will borrow less, people will buy less, and the tax take will decline, all because the Stimulus is over. Congratulations! That is the best summation of the Rightists I have ever encountered. I sum it up much like that in "The Next Civilization." With much more space to deal with in its many pages, I also added the Von Mises and Ann Rand Libertarian influence and also the growing sense of class. To free themselves from guilt over wanting to end care for the mentally and physically handicapped, the insane, the aged and unemplyed, they need to see themselves as "better" in order to justify it. This pushes classism and seems to be the same process that occurred late in all the previous civilizations. With blacks growing in number and the whites (as is the Tea Party) controlling the wealth, it could even end, ultimately, in a caste system. Agreed! In order to have the voting support of the militant faithful, the corporate class has to become more anti-evolution. That anti-science position helps them deny global warming. Thus, they would also starve the educational system until it EVENTUALLY volves into a few church run technical universities used to teach the skills to a small middle class that it would use to service the upper classes. Left would also be a few of the old-line universities for the children of the rich to luxuriate in as professional students and/or have connections needed to land important positions. The rest of the population would become "the rabble." In every past civilization past its peak, the middle class vanished, religious reaction grew, the class structure hardened, and the secular system disappeared. Take a look at the collapse of the Hellenic age and the regression of Buddhist philosopjy in both India and China as the older faiths returned. Secular Humanism is on the same road. Civilizations follow a discernable life cycle, one that has tended to shorten with each millenium.

We all know there is a vast difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament. The older one is the Judaic Bible. It recounts the history of an historically obscure, monotheistic tribe which, in Numbers, Deuteronomy and other parts describes their invasions and slaughtering of the men women and children of the lands they stole. In comparison to the brutal Judaic Bible, the New Testament is generally a beacon of pragrance and light---even though, of course, there are exceptions. Being only half as ancient and hence that much less out-of-date, the offensive parts are much less in number: such as the admonitions to hate your family (Luke 14:26), Kill Jesus's enemies (Luke 19:27 and Math. 10:34), regarding dealing with slaves (Eph 6:5) and the subjection of women (1Tim 2:11-12) Since there is this vast difference between the two Bibles, why is the Jewish Bible considered part of the Christian Scripture?

Yes, that's my take on the subject also. . . Demand that is relative to what? Also, I suggest you read the first post again because no mention was made of demand. When prices decline as they did in the Great Depression, people buy less, less is produce, the Treasury tax take declines and the economy spirals down. If the government does not increase spending and get prices going up again, Europe will soon lead us into a credit collapse that would bring us a gobal depression.

We call the theorizing of the great minds of Athens and the Athenian age as well as those of the European Renaissance as "philosophers" but they advanced human thought and were a part of the growth of science. Now, philosophy has degenerated into a pedantic Ivory Tower fussiness and stuffy academic playground for professional students. How here can defend them for us all?

May I first introduce this subject with a comment? When prices go down, people put off purchases because prices will go down and they can get the items cheaper. That reduces manufacturing and workers are laid off. So, there is even less demand. Also, government tax receipts decline as income declines. That makes the national debt more difficult to control. So, the debt grows. When prices are going up, people borrow to buy before prices go higher. The borrowing puts more money in circulation and prices continue to rise. Manufacturing increases to supply the growing demand, workers are hired and the government gets in more tax revenue. Right now, prices are relatively stable. So, we are not recovering.

Yes, absolutely. And the only reason why there is an adequate stock of honey in each market is because the price is set even with demand! I guess the questioner is unaware of the supply/demand priciple! If not, he may be wondering why it costs so damn much to buy a bottle when there is so much in the market!

I made a mistake clicking on this thread. Even the title makes no literal sense. And then, as you read down, you find no credible explanation of the causes of mental breakdown. From my study and experience, I am aware of many causes, causes of all kinds. One man I saw in an inteview who had syphlitic damage in his brain thought people were piping poisonous gas into his house and making it hard for him to think. He believed he was Napoleon, also. In another case, the woman was aware of all her surroundings but could not make useful decisions. It was then called manic depressive. The cause is unknown. She has no religious faith. I am a non-theist but had depressive episodes when I was young. In a science forum like this, I think everyone should take on some responsibility and put in something scientifically valid and not some theory concocted just to offend the faithful and philosophy---even though I sympthize with his motive!

I thought this thread was about what the price of gold would do, so I opened up and was disappointed! It has moved down today and might get as low as a paltry $1,600 (!) an ounce before it rests. I expect much higher prices when they finally give up on Greece and it goes default.

One reason is that the idea of us "descending from monkeys," as the clergy likes to put it, seems demeaning and denigrating. It seems to deny our role and importance in the universe. Another is that without faith, we are led to believe our existence is without purpose. Without faith, we lack a moral foundation. There are others, but these perhaps play the most central role. Anyone whose faith is based upon these questionable issues is encouraged to state they are. I suggest we go one at a time, however. Lets do this completely and effectively.

Can you explain or describe what you mean by saying you have spirituality? I would say that mirages, hypnosis, magic, and near-death experiences are mysterious, but are they examples of the spiritual that you mention? All of them are readily explainable. Would you consider belief in Santa Claus as "spiritual?" First of all, I would suggest that you take the position of all science in being that you do not believe in something the existence of which cannot be verified. That is a good starting point. You cannot, for example, verify the existence of Santa Claus in the same way you cannot verify that of "God" or any god. In fact, you cannot verify even the existence of any spirits at all, including a self-spirit or "soul' capable of living after the death of your body and brain. If you only accept such logic and even get used to it, a whole new world will opened up to you. You will see everything as being "natural." That is, the universe operates according to natural cause and effect. No longer is there any need to fear the unknown, to see fortune tellers, avoid hauted houses, wonder what "evil" ("Satan's work") is, and be fooled by magic. You become a truly modern man. When you recognize that there is no god and never was, you will undertsand that it will continue to be true long after humanity outgrows and brings to an end its too-protracted spirit-believing Age. I also suggest you give up the idea that there is a inteliigent force (god) determining natural law. The so-called laws of nature have evolved through centuries and are either mathematical forumations or generalizations or both. They will continue to evolve. As with all human understanding, there is no arbitrary, rigid and inflexable "Truths" or "Laws." Gods come and go in history, but man has always improved his understanding of himself and the universe. We will always need science to continue doing so. brough http://civilization-overview.com

Is it as the Bible says, "God came to bring not peace but a sword?" Has anyone ever seen that sword? It must exist if the Bible says God came to bring it. So where is it? I know that is picky, but the fact is that that is what is meant by "taking it literally." Also, what did God mean by the many references to "Babylon?" Did that mean Rome, the "Anti-Christ" of just the city of Babylon? And if the Bible is supposed to be "The Infallable Word of God," why does He have Moses describing his own death and burial? Why does He tell us to "play with snakes" and "speak in tongues, "drink wine" and "wash each others feet?" Do you do all these things? If you don't, you are disobeying ":the infallible world of God."

Do you know of a single mainline religion so far that did not promotive having more children? Or one that promoted planetary custodianship? Neither Islam, Christianity, the Hindu faith, or East Asian Marxism promoted either. The Chinese Marxist ideological system promotes neither, but due to Western Secular influence after the fall of the Soviet Union, Chinese Marxism substituted nationalism for its world-commune stance, birth control and Western capitalism. The adopting of the one-child policy was also a result of the Western secular influence. Marxism was able to adopt it because it had suppressed the old religion of China. Our Secular Humanism has influenced the world and provided enough unity to set up the Global Economy, but it has proven unable to replace the old religions/ideologies. Until they are replaced with an advanced ideology, world conditions can only grow worse. Absolutely. When religions were evolving into being forty to over a hundred thousand years ago, people had no scientific understand. It was then logical to believe that the "spirit"-like consciounsess we have existed in everything else as well. It was a means of explaining everything that happened. Over the milleniums since, the number of spirits that needed to be imagined declined as more natural explanations were able to be figured out. Now, science is able to provide a more or less accurate natural cause explanation for everything. In no case now is a "spirit" explanation any longer needed or better.

Social theorists sometimes refer to East Asian Marxism as a "secular religion." What reason could social sciernce academics have for referring to it that way? Even more interesting is that even "Secular Huanism" can also be referred to as a secular religion. Could it be because both are ideologies and have to be qualified by the word "secular" to distinguish them from the ancient "spirit" believing ones? In other words, it would seem that the only difference between East Asian Marxism and Christianity, for example, is that the older one is based on "spiritism" while the "secular" one is not. If that is the only difference, what is it they all have in common that explains why, in one form or the other, they all dominate the way we think? Any thoughts on this?

Some science philosophers have speculated that religion is "hard wired" in us (a dumb way of saying we have a "religious instinct"). Does anyone believe that? I don't. Other ones speculated that religion is just a means the rich used to control the masses. That seems to me they regard it as a sort of parastic phenomenon. For a human trait that has characterized the human race for well over 40,000 years, that just doesn't seem to be an adequate explanation. What do the rest of you think?

You stated that three times in your post so it must be true . . . ! I believe I can show that psychology can be more accurate by not being connected to neuroscience! OK here goes: we evolved through millions of years as small group social primates and in the form of hunting and gathering groups. Neuroscientists are not able to effectively show this neurologically nor are genetists able to genetically. It is knowedge resulting from work in paleontology, anthropology, etc. The result of that knowledge is that our behavior must necessarily resemble that of many other small group social animals, especially primates. So, the innate motivation that is common among small group social primates can be, and has been, visibly observed and noted. Those behavioral patterns we all share can be honestly referred to as "instincts" which in us, are subject to minor modification by our ideologies in order to enable us to operate more efficiently. Thus, we are in a position to tell neurologists and geneticist when their conclusions are wrong if and when they are.

Yes, I've looked at both Relativity and Quantum mechanics and agree it does not follow any cause-and effect process we understand. However, it seems presumptious to assume that state will continue to exist indefinitely. Our perception of the universe is not static.

I question the future of Quantum Physics. The perplexity of quantum physics spreads into other fields. My field is social theory. I have taken the work of over twenty-two social and natural sciences to build a cause and effect theory of the natural selection process in social evolution. This work is objective and in conflict with much of the social theory concensus, such as it is. I see my approach as determinist. I believe that the mystery of quantum physics has enabled a visible drift in social theory away from the strictly determistic approach. This leads me here because I have a theory about this in "The Last Civilization" and hope to get comments from some of you. I have seen in social theory that if something is observed to be too complex to sort out or leads to "politically incorrect" conclusion, it is either subtly abandoned or excused in the same way, perhaps, quantum physics is accepted. That is, that the universe does not adhere to a strictly determinist ideal. An example of social theory concluding such a problem as unsolvable and by inferrence, therefore possibly quantum in character, is the way social theorists abandoned the mid-last century quest to find out why and how civilzations rose and fell. They failed miserably, so the profession simply abandoned the word "civilization" (a word for which they had never agreed on a definition) and substituted the even less definable, omnibus word, "culture." My centension is that the universe is determinist and that the problem of quantum physics is not a result of a quantum-chaotic universe but of physicists accepting such a view rather than admit they are presently stumped and that the problem will probably be solved by other (and better?) physicists perhaps generations later on. Do you think I am wrong?

For about the last three years, wherever you drove, shops, stores, businesses of all kinds blatently advertised "We Buy Gold!." All over the country people who became unemployed and those behind in their morgage sold what gold they had to help them survive. Where did it all go? It was refined and turned into investment form for the rich! Those poor people who sold now see how much more it is worth (in dollars) than it was when they gave up their gold rings, bracelets and even teeth fillings. The rich now look back and see how they, the ones who bought that gold from the refiners who got it from the poor, how much profit they have from the misfortune of the poor, the poor, that is who were once the middle class. Will the people ever get back their gold? Or will it continue to be used in yacht bathroom plumbing and stored in wealth-owners safes? __________________

In order for all the various "ethnicities" to get along, the secular ideological unity has to increasingly depend on doctrines of tolerance and ever more humanism in order to minimize friction. This tend can only go so far, however, without undermining society. It undermines the state's ability to react to dissent. Ethnic protests over imagined slights leads to riots and individual acts of terrorism. The state seems impotent and loses respect. This can only go on for a limited time before people will give up and begin to long for a "Caesar" or 'Napoleon,' that is, for an alpha male who they can respect, one who can force through needed reforms and bring back hope.