From: alias@removenetserver.org   
      
   On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 07:52:19 -0800, FixinDixon wrote:   
      
   [snip]   
      
   >>   No matter what Mankind does, it will always have the potential for   
   >> > conflict.   
   >>   
   >> no matter what?  what u mean is "whatever i can conceive of it doing" ..   
   >> fortunately we are not all limited by ur conceptions.  though.. i don't   
   >> see a "peaceful mankind" in the near future myself either..   
   >   
   > Mankind, or, to specific, Homo Sapiens Sapiens, has always been in   
   > conflict.  Evidence - Lesho E, Dorsey D, Bunner D (1998) Feces, dead   
   > horses, and fleas - Evolution of the hostile use of biological agents   
   > WESTERN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE.   
   > Kemp, g (1993) AHIMSA (NONVIOLENCE) - AN ALTERNATIVE   
   > CULTURAL-PERSPECTIVE ON HUMAN CONFLICT in AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR   
      
      
   lol.. i wasn't asking for sources ; )   
      
   but i will agree that large societies have consistently engaged in violent   
   conflict throughout all of our recorded history.. and most likely long   
   before that as well.  violence is effective, it gets the job done.   
      
   thats not the topic though..   
      
   u said "no matter what" we do this will always remain the same.  i   
   disagree.  i have this crazy notion of actual "progress" being a   
   possibility..   
      
   a longshot; yes..  but possible.   
      
   [snip]   
      
   >> the understanding of conflict is not necessary for peace.  this is similar   
   >> to saying that an understanding of mass is needed for gravity.  brute   
   >> facts simply *exist* independant of ur opinion of them.  get used to it..   
   >> its not changing any time soon.   
   >   
   > Of course you need and understanding of mass to understand gravity.   
      
      
   read it again.  thats not what i said.   
      
      
   > Gravity is the force that acts of every object in an equal fashion,   
   > pulling each object towards every other object with mass.  You can't   
   > throw an apple up, watch it fall and say "that's gravity"...well, you   
   > can, but you're not understanding the concept of gravity.   
      
   understanding is irrelevant.. its not necessary for the thing to   
   function.. gravity was here long before the concept of "understanding"   
   (a by product of over developed monkey brains) existed and will   
   be here long after both it, and the human race, have gone.   
      
      
   > I agree   
   > gravity exists, I accept that I'm not floating around the ceiling. But   
   > my argument is that the understanding of a given concept might just   
   > lead to full knowledge and application of it.   
      
   and i'm saying that if a thing exists, it exists.  ur understanding or   
   appreciation of it doesn't matter.. it exists.  whether the thing is   
   peaceful co-existence with ur fellow man, gravity, or ballpoint pens, a   
   thing simply is or is not.   
      
   if i blow ur brains out and destroy ur capability to understand gravity,   
   will the corpse float to the ceiling?   
      
   if a tree falls in the forest does it comprehend physics?   
      
   of course not..   
      
   and if a culture was based on higher goals than "aquire, consume, and destroy"   
   its members need not understand those principles any more than the   
   average person understands the base instinct that drives him   
   to not only purchase a Hummer.. but drive it on city streets as if it made   
   sense.   
      
      
   [snip-o-rama]   
      
      
   >> >   
   >> > As a species, yes.  'Mankind' went through several species before homo   
   >> > sapiens sapiens came about.  I don't doubt that, as long as we don't   
   >> > destroy the planet, other species will evolve, but a species cannot   
   >> > evolve within itself.  It can only create new species.   
   >>   
   >> not true.. unless ur going to mire us in a discussion of definitions and   
   >> nonsense along those lines.. clearly the intent was to suggest that we   
   >> (human beings) are in a constant state of evolution..   
   >   
   > Bear in mind my previous posts - I LOVE definition and clarity, and so   
   > I don't consider it nonsense.   
      
   at this point in my current stint of reality modulation i have come to   
   realize all definitions are transitional and based solely in the   
   perceptions of the flawed creature that utters them.   
      
   but i'm probably crazy.  i'm not even sure i'm real.. let alone the rest   
   of u.   
      
      
   >> evolution, being a process that takes place on a time scale beyond ur   
   >> objective reckoning, may not appear to be ongoing.. but yeah, it is.   
   >>   
   >> species, genus, whatever.. their the next step.  the one that evolves from   
   >> us.  the one we're evolving into.. unless the great magnet has already   
   >> concluded its expirement in high IQ chimps and we're the last version.   
   >   
   > I'm not saying that evolution is not ongoing.  Of course it   
   > is...that's the point of evolution.  What I'm saying (sigh) is that   
   > Homo Sapiens Sapiens, OUR species, will eventually change into a new,   
   > maybe improved species.   
      
   does my thickness exasperate u? thats a new experience, thanks.   
      
      
   > This species will NOT BE Homo Sapiens   
   > Sapiens.  It will be another different species.  Perhaps I wasn't   
   > clear enough, so apologies fo that.   
      
   as my daddy used to say: "same fuckin difference"   
      
   IMO what the biologists decide to classify a successful mutation as is   
   unimportant.. it will be the same thing regardless of its name.   
      
      
    We, or our descendants, are not   
   > going to suddenly all develop new characteristics overnight.  One of   
   > our children will have a peculiar adaptation that allows it to   
   > function better in our world.  This will be passed down thought it's   
   > offspring and so on until enough of them exist to be classified as a   
   > new species.  Because every parent wants the best for their child,   
   > adults will mate in this new species so their child gets the best   
   > genes possible.  Eventually, because Homo Sapiens Sapiens is no longer   
   > mating amongst itself, it will die out as a species and the new one   
   > will carry on.   
      
   adults cannot "mate into" a new species.  thats the definition of species.   
   which i just said was irrelevant.. so screw it ; )   
      
   so ok.. we're at an interesting conflux of agreement here..   
      
   so.. we agree evolution is an ongoing process and will likely effect   
   future generations of monkey-people.. which makes a guy wonder.. what   
   would be a successful mutation, of the sort likely to be thrown back into   
   the gene mill and passed to future generations..   
      
   ..   
   alias   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)