Comments on: Natural Selection and Natural Born Killers http://www.theintentionexperiment.com/natural-selection-and-natural-born-killers.htm Using Your Thoughts to Change Your Life and the World Mon, 06 Feb 2012 16:26:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Michele E. Hawkins http://www.theintentionexperiment.com/natural-selection-and-natural-born-killers.htm/comment-page-2#comment-5099 Michele E. Hawkins Tue, 08 Dec 2009 12:52:47 +0000 http://www.theintentionexperiment.com/natural-selection-and-natural-born-killers.htm#comment-5099 Lynda (comment #40), you state that you "now take responsibility and question everything" and that "what I do is connected with promoting or challenging what is put before me".  I'm happy to hear it, because it is only once we take responsibility for ourselves that we have a chance to free ourselves of prejudice.   Let me therefore invite you to explore whether your inference that Darwin was racist is justified when you say that Darwin's subtitle of On the Origin of Species -- "or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" -- *says it all*.   As you have decided to take responsibility for yourself and to question everything, please search the Origin for evidence of Darwin's supposed racism.  Do begin at the beginning.  You will find that as early as page 15 of the first edition of the Origin, Darwin uses not only the word "race", but also the word "aboriginal":   "Nevertheless, as our varieties certainly do occasionally revert in some of their characters to ancestral forms, it seems to me not improbable, that if we could succeed in naturalising, or were to cultivate, during many generations, the several races, for instance, of the cabbage, in very poor soil (in which case, however, some effect would have to be attributed to the direct action of the poor soil), that they would to a large extent, or even wholly, revert to the wild aboriginal stock."   (Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or, The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, London: John Murray, 1859; p. 15.)   Darwin used the term "races" to refer to what we'd call (in nonhuman animals) breeds and (in plants) varieties.  And the word "aboriginal" refers to what scientists now call the "wild type", meaning the original, such as wild roses before cultivation or wild cattle before domestication.  These were common terms in Victorian times, as were many other terms.  Those other terms, however, don't ruffle feathers by their very existence and cause people to make moral judgements about their users.  Whether or not readers wish to take umbrage and call Darwin a "cabbagist" is up to them, but sensible people will see the use of these words for what they are: of no greater importance than placing a space before punctuation marks such as commas and semicolons, which too was de rigeur in Victorian times.   Those who have actually read the Origin will have found that Darwin notes the differences between individuals within any given species, such as pigeons or cabbages, and the differences between species, such as those between species of cattle or between species of corn, and explains how they have come about.   And yet it's an extraordinarily curious fact that many people feel that their very sense of identity is somehow threatened by Darwin's observations of the natural world and so they expend enormous amounts of energy trying to debunk them. What on Earth are these terrifying observations? Darwin observed that:   1.  No two individuals are born identical (apart from the rare cases of genetic twins).  This means that each individual of every species is unique.  Is this not so?  Is every dog identical to every other dog, every leopard identical to every other leopard, every aardvark identical to every other aardvark?  If we fail to see the difference between one dog, leopard, or aardvark and the next dog, leopard, or aardvark, then that failure is ours -- the dogs, leopards, and aardvarks aren't any more identical to each other than are you and I. Anyone who spends time with them will soon be able to distinguish one from the other.   2.  More individuals are born than can be supported by available resources. And yet....    3.  In general, populations are relatively stable.  For example, in spite of some fluctuation, a population of zebras is much the same from year to year no matter how many babies are born.  Giant clams give birth to about 100 million offspring at a time, and yet the seas are not overrun by giant clams, because, in fact, only one or two of those baby clams will live to maturity.  Please feel free to examine population statistics to see whether this is correct.   What can we make of these observations?   1.  Not every being that is born lives long enough to reproduce or even to make it to adulthood.  Witness the rapid eating of giant clam eggs by fish, and the high death rate of zebra babies in the first 12 months after birth.   2.  Any individual who has some kind of advantage -- IN A GIVEN ENVIRONMENT -- has an edge on individuals who do not have that advantage.  For example, if you are a lizard with mottled green skin and you live in trees with green leaves then you are less likely to be seen by a predator than another lizard of your species whose skin is also mottled green but who has a red spot on his back.  But what if you are a lizard with mottled green skin and a few red spots who lives in a tree with green AND red leaves?  You may just have an advantage over the mottled green lizard with no red spots who is now an obvious green blob.  Advantage is always conditional on the prevailing environment.  So any advantage, no matter how minor, is to the good for the individual in possession of it.   3.  Individuals with advantages over their peers have a statistically better chance of making it to adulthood and having babies.  Of course, the really obvious examples of this are seen when bulls of any kind (elephants, walruses, seals, etc) fight for access to breeding females.  The winning males are the ones who mate, and the losing males are the ones who don't.  Obviously -- and incontrovertibly -- the genes of the winning males are going to have a higher representation in the gene pool of the next generation than those of the losing males, who may end up with no genetic representation at all unless they can sneak a copulation with some female on the periphery of the winning male's territory.  Females are as competitive as males when it comes to choosing mates, but their competitive behaviour isn't as commonly portrayed on TV shows as those of males, probably because males are at much greater risk of injury and death in their often spectacular encounters. So it's not in the least difficult to see that over time there will be a shift in the gene pool, with some individuals' genes having a greater representation in the next generation than others'.  Whatever genetic traits (advantageous or otherwise) those successful individuals possess will, of course, also have greater representation in the following generations, leading, over time, to a general shift in the genetic profile of the population. So we might observe claws getting longer and thicker for better penetration of thick hides, or brightly coloured feathers giving way to duller-coloured feathers less obvious to predators. We use our knowledge of these genetic shifts all the time when we cultivate plants or breed domestic animals. Take dogs, who are a wonderful example of the extraordinary variety that is possible simply by crossing certain individuals with others. Or racehorses. There isn't a racehorse breeder in the world who doesn't know the value of good genes or a rich racehorse owner who isn't willing to spend lots of money to secure them! And that's all Darwin was saying.  There's really no need to panic.   It's beyond me why people get so steamed up about it, and yet have nothing whatsoever to say about gravity or electricity or insulin injections or car engines.  What's the difference? Everything that Darwin said can be challenged in exactly the same way as any other scientific finding can be challenged.  That's the strength of science.  It sets itself up to be shown to be wrong.  No-one, no matter how great an authority, is above the evidence.  Interestingly, no scientist's ideas have been subjected to more rigorous testing than Darwin's, which stand stronger with every challenge.   What we know about these things, we know through the rigours of applying the scientific method -- a system of DISPROOF, not of proof as so many erroneously think.  It is this very system that Darwin used, as did Alexander Fleming, Albert Einstein, Sir Isaac Newton, Nicola Tesla, Nicolas Copernicus, and Galileo Galilei.  Why aren't there blogs devoted to debunking them or trying to find flaws in their personal lives?  Why should they be exempt from the fury of us all?   It's truly bizarre that the work of this particular scientist has such an emotional effect on so many.  I have spoken with many people who have an almost pathological hatred or fear of Darwin and yet, when asked whether they have actually read the Origin or any of Darwin's work themselves, admit that they have not.  Personally, I don't see what could inspire this fury in Darwin's lengthy descriptions of pigeon breeding, climbing plants, breeds of dogs, and so on, let alone his works on barnacles, slime mold, earthworms, and orchids.   I ask that those who find themselves whipped up into a fury over what Darwin supposedly said calm themselves sufficiently to read what he actually did say.  They just may find it disappointingly bland and perhaps even infuriatingly lacking in any challenge to their view of their place in the world, their reason for being, life after death, the existence or otherwise of a god or other cosmic beings, or their belief in how life originated.   It's a curious fact that many of Darwin's harshest critics have never actually read his works through, relying instead on what they've been told.  Why would anyone who genuinely wishes to develop an informed view not go to the very accessible source in order to do so?  It isn't as if reading any of Darwin's works is difficult; they're hardly the Principia Mathematica!  You wouldn't rely on the supposed authority of someone telling you to put your signature to a legal document without reading its contents for yourself. So, given that Darwin has inspired so intense a response, why would you rely on the supposedly authoritative opinions or interpretations of his work by others? The most effective balm for the mind enraged by Darwin, I find, is Darwin himself. Regular doses of his works calm the emotions, ease away frenetic prejudice, illuminate false assumptions, and restore common sense. Lynda (comment #40), you state that you “now take responsibility and question everything” and that “what I do is connected with promoting or challenging what is put before me”.  I’m happy to hear it, because it is only once we take responsibility for ourselves that we have a chance to free ourselves of prejudice.
 
Let me therefore invite you to explore whether your inference that Darwin was racist is justified when you say that Darwin’s subtitle of On the Origin of Species — “or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life” — *says it all*.
 
As you have decided to take responsibility for yourself and to question everything, please search the Origin for evidence of Darwin’s supposed racism.  Do begin at the beginning.  You will find that as early as page 15 of the first edition of the Origin, Darwin uses not only the word “race”, but also the word “aboriginal”:
 
“Nevertheless, as our varieties certainly do occasionally revert in some of their characters to ancestral forms, it seems to me not improbable, that if we could succeed in naturalising, or were to cultivate, during many generations, the several races, for instance, of the cabbage, in very poor soil (in which case, however, some effect would have to be attributed to the direct action of the poor soil), that they would to a large extent, or even wholly, revert to the wild aboriginal stock.”
 
(Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or, The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, London: John Murray, 1859; p. 15.)
 
Darwin used the term “races” to refer to what we’d call (in nonhuman animals) breeds and (in plants) varieties.  And the word “aboriginal” refers to what scientists now call the “wild type”, meaning the original, such as wild roses before cultivation or wild cattle before domestication.  These were common terms in Victorian times, as were many other terms.  Those other terms, however, don’t ruffle feathers by their very existence and cause people to make moral judgements about their users.  Whether or not readers wish to take umbrage and call Darwin a “cabbagist” is up to them, but sensible people will see the use of these words for what they are: of no greater importance than placing a space before punctuation marks such as commas and semicolons, which too was de rigeur in Victorian times.
 
Those who have actually read the Origin will have found that Darwin notes the differences between individuals within any given species, such as pigeons or cabbages, and the differences between species, such as those between species of cattle or between species of corn, and explains how they have come about.
 
And yet it’s an extraordinarily curious fact that many people feel that their very sense of identity is somehow threatened by Darwin’s observations of the natural world and so they expend enormous amounts of energy trying to debunk them. What on Earth are these terrifying observations?

Darwin observed that:
 
1.  No two individuals are born identical (apart from the rare cases of genetic twins).  This means that each individual of every species is unique.  Is this not so?  Is every dog identical to every other dog, every leopard identical to every other leopard, every aardvark identical to every other aardvark?  If we fail to see the difference between one dog, leopard, or aardvark and the next dog, leopard, or aardvark, then that failure is ours — the dogs, leopards, and aardvarks aren’t any more identical to each other than are you and I. Anyone who spends time with them will soon be able to distinguish one from the other.
 
2.  More individuals are born than can be supported by available resources. And yet…. 
 
3.  In general, populations are relatively stable.  For example, in spite of some fluctuation, a population of zebras is much the same from year to year no matter how many babies are born.  Giant clams give birth to about 100 million offspring at a time, and yet the seas are not overrun by giant clams, because, in fact, only one or two of those baby clams will live to maturity.  Please feel free to examine population statistics to see whether this is correct.
 
What can we make of these observations?
 
1.  Not every being that is born lives long enough to reproduce or even to make it to adulthood.  Witness the rapid eating of giant clam eggs by fish, and the high death rate of zebra babies in the first 12 months after birth.
 
2.  Any individual who has some kind of advantage — IN A GIVEN ENVIRONMENT — has an edge on individuals who do not have that advantage.  For example, if you are a lizard with mottled green skin and you live in trees with green leaves then you are less likely to be seen by a predator than another lizard of your species whose skin is also mottled green but who has a red spot on his back.  But what if you are a lizard with mottled green skin and a few red spots who lives in a tree with green AND red leaves?  You may just have an advantage over the mottled green lizard with no red spots who is now an obvious green blob.  Advantage is always conditional on the prevailing environment.  So any advantage, no matter how minor, is to the good for the individual in possession of it.
 
3.  Individuals with advantages over their peers have a statistically better chance of making it to adulthood and having babies.  Of course, the really obvious examples of this are seen when bulls of any kind (elephants, walruses, seals, etc) fight for access to breeding females.  The winning males are the ones who mate, and the losing males are the ones who don’t.  Obviously — and incontrovertibly — the genes of the winning males are going to have a higher representation in the gene pool of the next generation than those of the losing males, who may end up with no genetic representation at all unless they can sneak a copulation with some female on the periphery of the winning male’s territory.  Females are as competitive as males when it comes to choosing mates, but their competitive behaviour isn’t as commonly portrayed on TV shows as those of males, probably because males are at much greater risk of injury and death in their often spectacular encounters.

So it’s not in the least difficult to see that over time there will be a shift in the gene pool, with some individuals’ genes having a greater representation in the next generation than others’.  Whatever genetic traits (advantageous or otherwise) those successful individuals possess will, of course, also have greater representation in the following generations, leading, over time, to a general shift in the genetic profile of the population.

So we might observe claws getting longer and thicker for better penetration of thick hides, or brightly coloured feathers giving way to duller-coloured feathers less obvious to predators. We use our knowledge of these genetic shifts all the time when we cultivate plants or breed domestic animals. Take dogs, who are a wonderful example of the extraordinary variety that is possible simply by crossing certain individuals with others. Or racehorses. There isn’t a racehorse breeder in the world who doesn’t know the value of good genes or a rich racehorse owner who isn’t willing to spend lots of money to secure them!

And that’s all Darwin was saying.  There’s really no need to panic.
 
It’s beyond me why people get so steamed up about it, and yet have nothing whatsoever to say about gravity or electricity or insulin injections or car engines.  What’s the difference?

Everything that Darwin said can be challenged in exactly the same way as any other scientific finding can be challenged.  That’s the strength of science.  It sets itself up to be shown to be wrong.  No-one, no matter how great an authority, is above the evidence.  Interestingly, no scientist’s ideas have been subjected to more rigorous testing than Darwin’s, which stand stronger with every challenge.
 
What we know about these things, we know through the rigours of applying the scientific method — a system of DISPROOF, not of proof as so many erroneously think.  It is this very system that Darwin used, as did Alexander Fleming, Albert Einstein, Sir Isaac Newton, Nicola Tesla, Nicolas Copernicus, and Galileo Galilei.  Why aren’t there blogs devoted to debunking them or trying to find flaws in their personal lives?  Why should they be exempt from the fury of us all?
 
It’s truly bizarre that the work of this particular scientist has such an emotional effect on so many.  I have spoken with many people who have an almost pathological hatred or fear of Darwin and yet, when asked whether they have actually read the Origin or any of Darwin’s work themselves, admit that they have not.  Personally, I don’t see what could inspire this fury in Darwin’s lengthy descriptions of pigeon breeding, climbing plants, breeds of dogs, and so on, let alone his works on barnacles, slime mold, earthworms, and orchids.
 
I ask that those who find themselves whipped up into a fury over what Darwin supposedly said calm themselves sufficiently to read what he actually did say.  They just may find it disappointingly bland and perhaps even infuriatingly lacking in any challenge to their view of their place in the world, their reason for being, life after death, the existence or otherwise of a god or other cosmic beings, or their belief in how life originated.
 
It’s a curious fact that many of Darwin’s harshest critics have never actually read his works through, relying instead on what they’ve been told.  Why would anyone who genuinely wishes to develop an informed view not go to the very accessible source in order to do so?  It isn’t as if reading any of Darwin’s works is difficult; they’re hardly the Principia Mathematica!  You wouldn’t rely on the supposed authority of someone telling you to put your signature to a legal document without reading its contents for yourself. So, given that Darwin has inspired so intense a response, why would you rely on the supposedly authoritative opinions or interpretations of his work by others?

The most effective balm for the mind enraged by Darwin, I find, is Darwin himself. Regular doses of his works calm the emotions, ease away frenetic prejudice, illuminate false assumptions, and restore common sense.

]]> By: Irene Timm http://www.theintentionexperiment.com/natural-selection-and-natural-born-killers.htm/comment-page-2#comment-5054 Irene Timm Fri, 04 Dec 2009 10:15:52 +0000 http://www.theintentionexperiment.com/natural-selection-and-natural-born-killers.htm#comment-5054 Lynne, thanks for an obviously thought-provoking post. Your comments and those of others have given me much to think about. >To me, the bottom line is if you're coming from the survival-only physical world, Darwin holds up. However, it is my understanding that his THEORY referenced only physical evolution, not the evolution of consciousness. >There is a BIG difference between survival - growing what you need to eat and provide shelter, and choosing to victimize others by stealing from them; between society adapting to new skills like building a fire or using a wheel and killing others for supremacy. >If a being has choice between "right/wrong" and the competency to discern it, Darwin is just a fall guy for your bad behavior. If Darwin was indeed raised in a religious family, I would imagine him to be horrified at how his name is being used as the justification for someone's greed, etc. >If you subscribe to "there is no right or wrong" - such as The Course in Miracles (Marianne Williamson provides excellent dialogue on this) then Darwin is still being maligned by those who lack personal growth/spirituality, who are living in fear (lack of), anger, or shame, etc., and who perpetrate the negative/life negating actions expressed in greed, theft, murder, the quest for power, maligning others, etc. >As referenced in "The Living Matrix" making "War" on cancer or other negative energy only creates more negative energy; better to hold a 30-day prayer vigil a la Miracles/Williamson for that nasty teacher, bullying classmate/boss, or the credit card company that just raised your rate to 24% I do believe that this is where the science of The Intention Experiment meshes well with spirituality (such as A Course in Miracles). >How wonderful to find a community of people interested in seeking the Truth. Blessings to All! Lynne, thanks for an obviously thought-provoking post. Your comments and those of others have given me much to think about.

>To me, the bottom line is if you’re coming from the survival-only physical world, Darwin holds up. However, it is my understanding that his THEORY referenced only physical evolution, not the evolution of consciousness.
>There is a BIG difference between survival – growing what you need to eat and provide shelter, and choosing to victimize others by stealing from them; between society adapting to new skills like building a fire or using a wheel and killing others for supremacy.
>If a being has choice between “right/wrong” and the competency to discern it, Darwin is just a fall guy for your bad behavior.
If Darwin was indeed raised in a religious family, I would imagine him to be horrified at how his name is being used as the justification for someone’s greed, etc.
>If you subscribe to “there is no right or wrong” – such as The Course in Miracles (Marianne Williamson provides excellent dialogue on this) then Darwin is still being maligned by those who lack personal growth/spirituality, who are living in fear (lack of), anger, or shame, etc., and who perpetrate the negative/life negating actions expressed in greed, theft, murder, the quest for power, maligning others, etc.
>As referenced in “The Living Matrix” making “War” on cancer or other negative energy only creates more negative energy; better to hold a 30-day prayer vigil a la Miracles/Williamson for that nasty teacher, bullying classmate/boss, or the credit card company that just raised your rate to 24% I do believe that this is where the science of The Intention Experiment meshes well with spirituality (such as A Course in Miracles).
>How wonderful to find a community of people interested in seeking the Truth.

Blessings to All!

]]> By: Curtis Chappell http://www.theintentionexperiment.com/natural-selection-and-natural-born-killers.htm/comment-page-2#comment-5051 Curtis Chappell Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:34:26 +0000 http://www.theintentionexperiment.com/natural-selection-and-natural-born-killers.htm#comment-5051 Lynne, Cheers for the thought provoking, yet bizarre post. I’m not a Darwinist, but you can’t really hold Darwin accountable for promoting a generic concept of there being a ‘lower human species’, as this was a very common assumption amongst the society he found himself in, in his day. I have found numerous references to ‘savages’ and ‘stupid aboriginals’ from both anthropologists as well as botanists who were studying non-white societies in their native environments, so this attitude was quite prevalent at the time. In Australian history, there are numerous references to the local aboriginals thought of as being ‘unteachable’, yet they existed for over 40,000 years prior to the Euro-invasion. I don’t quite understand how you make the jump from Darwin promoting the struggle of the fittest to psychotic students committing murder? One is based on the observation of the natural world, while the other is a product of societal pressures. How is the latter a outcome of the former? Write On! Lynne,

Cheers for the thought provoking, yet bizarre post. I’m not a Darwinist, but you can’t really hold Darwin accountable for promoting a generic concept of there being a ‘lower human species’, as this was a very common assumption amongst the society he found himself in, in his day.

I have found numerous references to ‘savages’ and ‘stupid aboriginals’ from both anthropologists as well as botanists who were studying non-white societies in their native environments, so this attitude was quite prevalent at the time.

In Australian history, there are numerous references to the local aboriginals thought of as being ‘unteachable’, yet they existed for over 40,000 years prior to the Euro-invasion.

I don’t quite understand how you make the jump from Darwin promoting the struggle of the fittest to psychotic students committing murder?

One is based on the observation of the natural world, while the other is a product of societal pressures.

How is the latter a outcome of the former?

Write On!

]]> By: Silvia http://www.theintentionexperiment.com/natural-selection-and-natural-born-killers.htm/comment-page-2#comment-5050 Silvia Thu, 03 Dec 2009 10:04:39 +0000 http://www.theintentionexperiment.com/natural-selection-and-natural-born-killers.htm#comment-5050 Taking Harris and Auvinen for the Darwinism is as taking Medioeval witchstakes for Christianity or Hitler's ideas for Germans' ideas. That's seems to me too oversimplified Taking Harris and Auvinen for the Darwinism is as taking Medioeval witchstakes for Christianity or Hitler’s ideas for Germans’ ideas.
That’s seems to me too oversimplified

]]> By: Michael http://www.theintentionexperiment.com/natural-selection-and-natural-born-killers.htm/comment-page-2#comment-5049 Michael Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:39:35 +0000 http://www.theintentionexperiment.com/natural-selection-and-natural-born-killers.htm#comment-5049 Ivan, Darwin, himself, was not a Social Darwinist and if we're being historically accurate then it's important to point out that these ideas existed long before Darwin. See Herbert Spencer's "Progress: Its Law and Cause" (1857), for example, which was published two years before "On the Origin of Species" (1859). It's also important to note "An Essay on the Principle of Population" (1798) by Thomas Malthus. It's not overtly Social Darwinism but it's founded on similar ideas. So let's stop pretending that evolution has corrupted society. Ivan,

Darwin, himself, was not a Social Darwinist and if we’re being historically accurate then it’s important to point out that these ideas existed long before Darwin. See Herbert Spencer’s “Progress: Its Law and Cause” (1857), for example, which was published two years before “On the Origin of Species” (1859).

It’s also important to note “An Essay on the Principle of Population” (1798) by Thomas Malthus. It’s not overtly Social Darwinism but it’s founded on similar ideas. So let’s stop pretending that evolution has corrupted society.

]]> By: uberVU - social comments http://www.theintentionexperiment.com/natural-selection-and-natural-born-killers.htm/comment-page-2#comment-5044 uberVU - social comments Tue, 01 Dec 2009 20:43:34 +0000 http://www.theintentionexperiment.com/natural-selection-and-natural-born-killers.htm#comment-5044 <strong>Social comments and analytics for this post...</strong> This post was mentioned on Twitter by LynneMcTaggart: New blog post: Natural Selection and Natural Born Killers http://bit.ly/4UOAIg... Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by LynneMcTaggart: New blog post: Natural Selection and Natural Born Killers http://bit.ly/4UOAIg...

]]> By: Jordan Wm. Burrill http://www.theintentionexperiment.com/natural-selection-and-natural-born-killers.htm/comment-page-2#comment-5041 Jordan Wm. Burrill Tue, 01 Dec 2009 01:13:37 +0000 http://www.theintentionexperiment.com/natural-selection-and-natural-born-killers.htm#comment-5041 Dear Lynne, A shockingly high percentage of sociopaths (a disoder that prevents an individual from being able to have empathy for others) go undiognosed in modern society. Wether this psychological defect is caused by nature or nurture is still being debated. Most of them are productive folks and would never commit attrocities. By choosing to remain in social and work enviornments that are highly structured, (such as civil service) - they can avoid personal moral and ethical decisions to some degree. (This is of course why we so often hear accounts of beureaucratic agencies set up to help people - ending up hurting rather than helping or simple being ineffective.) So why do these self-justifying monsters expect and recieve better treatment than they deserve when they are caught? Because we care and can empathise with their internal turmoil. It's my hope that nurture ends up playing a large role in this and effective treatments can be found. So we are not stuck simply trying to spot these sick souls before thy strike. I think that if society returns to the truth that we have an origin beyond process and are responsible to that Great Center of Being, that knows us and our potentials - we may blunt all the historical /theoretical excuses used by those who are thinking about creating horror outside of themselves. Keep up the great work! Jordan B., USA Dear Lynne,
A shockingly high percentage of sociopaths (a disoder that prevents an individual from being able to have empathy for others) go undiognosed in modern society. Wether this psychological defect is caused by nature or nurture is still being debated. Most of them are productive folks and would never commit attrocities. By choosing to remain in social and work enviornments that are highly structured, (such as civil service) – they can avoid personal moral and ethical decisions to some degree. (This is of course why we so often hear accounts of beureaucratic agencies set up to help people – ending up hurting rather than helping or simple being ineffective.)
So why do these self-justifying monsters expect and recieve better treatment than they deserve when they are caught? Because we care and can empathise with their internal turmoil.
It’s my hope that nurture ends up playing a large role in this and effective treatments can be found. So we are not stuck simply trying to spot these sick souls before thy strike.
I think that if society returns to the truth that we have an origin beyond process and are responsible to that Great Center of Being, that knows us and our potentials – we may blunt all the historical /theoretical excuses used by those who are thinking about creating horror outside of themselves. Keep up the great work!

Jordan B., USA

]]> By: Alan Rayner http://www.theintentionexperiment.com/natural-selection-and-natural-born-killers.htm/comment-page-2#comment-5040 Alan Rayner Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:25:00 +0000 http://www.theintentionexperiment.com/natural-selection-and-natural-born-killers.htm#comment-5040 The message ends with encouragement to us that we should subscribe to an RSS feed if we feel that we "enjoyed" the posting. Hopefully very few of us will have enjoyed it - as it presents a depressing (even if realistic) viewpoint on the state of humanity. Our challenge is to transform that paradigm into one which empowers us by linking to the "power" of the universe rather than to puny competition with fellow human beings. The "Intention Experiment" is one way of demonstrating the potentials of such linking. In the process we may even uncover who we really are! Alan Rayner Europe EX39 2BA The message ends with encouragement to us that
we should subscribe to an RSS feed if we feel that
we “enjoyed” the posting.

Hopefully very few of us will have enjoyed it – as
it presents a depressing (even if realistic)
viewpoint on the state of humanity.

Our challenge is to transform that paradigm
into one which empowers us by linking to the
“power” of the universe rather than to puny
competition with fellow human beings.

The “Intention Experiment” is one way of
demonstrating the potentials of such linking.
In the process we may even uncover who we
really are!

Alan Rayner
Europe EX39 2BA

]]> By: Ivan http://www.theintentionexperiment.com/natural-selection-and-natural-born-killers.htm/comment-page-2#comment-5039 Ivan Mon, 30 Nov 2009 07:02:46 +0000 http://www.theintentionexperiment.com/natural-selection-and-natural-born-killers.htm#comment-5039 Hey Lynne and Everyone Great blog. For my money, I feel Michelle has made a significant point about the context of Darwinism. My observations on the matter is that he was / is a proponent of the socialist oligarchy that originated in the educational institutions of the time. He was the sum of of his programming and whether he was working to an agenda or not is beside the point, his work or observations are simply what they are. Nothing more nothing less, take it or leave it. So long as we are all aware of the bigger picture, what does it matter? We are all part of the great change, and by comparison Darwinism is or will become a relic that will be confined to the great museum of conciousness. Hey Lynne and Everyone
Great blog. For my money, I feel Michelle has made a significant point about the context of Darwinism. My observations on the matter is that he was / is a proponent of the socialist oligarchy that originated in the educational institutions of the time. He was the sum of of his programming and whether he was working to an agenda or not is beside the point, his work or observations are simply what they are. Nothing more nothing less, take it or leave it. So long as we are all aware of the bigger picture, what does it matter? We are all part of the great change, and by comparison Darwinism is or will become a relic that will be confined to the great museum of conciousness.

]]> By: Michelle http://www.theintentionexperiment.com/natural-selection-and-natural-born-killers.htm/comment-page-2#comment-5038 Michelle Mon, 30 Nov 2009 04:57:47 +0000 http://www.theintentionexperiment.com/natural-selection-and-natural-born-killers.htm#comment-5038 I think all scientific "thruths" and discoveries are still bound by the culture in which they came from. I don't know that it would be fair for those of us who live within a paradigm of the abundance of the universe to condemn a Victorian era man for the prevailing consciousness of his time. For me the most profound aspect of the Theory of Evolution is the notion that life forms evolve. That to me is the greater truth. I've been doing a lot of metaphysical studying over the years and my personal conclusion is that over the history of human beings, from australopithicus, to Neaderthals to homo sapien sapiens and even today within the species of current homo sapien sapiens, it is consciousness that has alsways evolved and is still evloving. No matter what outer garb we may have worn as fur or skin, the consciousness of humanity is evolving. If it took a Victorian man to place this notion in the consciousness of our species, even if some of the principles are as out-dated as the garments and society of the Victorian era, I'm okay with it. I think all scientific “thruths” and discoveries are still bound by the culture in which they came from. I don’t know that it would be fair for those of us who live within a paradigm of the abundance of the universe to condemn a Victorian era man for the prevailing consciousness of his time.

For me the most profound aspect of the Theory of Evolution is the notion that life forms evolve. That to me is the greater truth. I’ve been doing a lot of metaphysical studying over the years and my personal conclusion is that over the history of human beings, from australopithicus, to Neaderthals to homo sapien sapiens and even today within the species of current homo sapien sapiens, it is consciousness that has alsways evolved and is still evloving. No matter what outer garb we may have worn as fur or skin, the consciousness of humanity is evolving. If it took a Victorian man to place this notion in the consciousness of our species, even if some of the principles are as out-dated as the garments and society of the Victorian era, I’m okay with it.

]]>