I would argue that one of the most powerful evolutionary advantages we have as a human species is human potential. By human potential, I mean traits like creativity, motivation, artistic talent, critical thinking, communicative ability, etc. It is a weird and nebulous thing, but we do know that it is not unique to any particular group of humans. It is not unique to men, nor is it unique to aryans, and it is not even unique to particular families.

I think that a decent argument can be made that creating a hospitable and reasonably equitable environment for all of these groups will maximize the percentage of humans who excel at these useful traits, creating a better world for everyone to live in.

So if your system oppresses any significant segment of the population, then there is a good chance that you will be less successful. I think that the Jewish brain drain from Nazi Germany is actually a very good example of this principle in action.

I should note that this is an evolutionary principle that is well established within certain groups. It is a massive evolutionary advantage to look out for people within your own group (tribe), which incidentally is why we have a long history of it being totally ok to kill other people's toddlers but not your own (see the Old Testament for examples). I think that now in these modern times we are realizing the benefits of extending that same principle of tribalism equity to the whole human community.

But yea, it's ultimately just a survival strategy. I have never claimed that my view of human morality has any absolute standard or guarantee of success. I can only be thankful that the society I live in has won out over the other ones.

Mind you, I still think it needs improvement - and leaving my little stamp on it is going to be a hell of a journey by the time it's over.

So why did God seem to think it was OK to murder toddlers and enslave people under certain circumstances? I thought that his absolute gold standard of morality was the only thing that was keeping us from devolving into such chaos.

I cannot figure out what you are trying to debate? That there is no science behind DMT? That there is nothing to DMT? That "spiritual" does not exist? What is your point of this continued conversation? That you are scared of psychedelics? Why do you think such an experience would have been programmed into our head, the most powerful experience a person can have?

I have trouble understanding "spiritual" to be the same as "awesome" or "awe-inspiring", but if thats what you mean by "spiritual", I suppose we agree. I understand "spiritual" to mean "that which concerns the spirits or the spiritual world", ie something supernatural.

I suppose there is little point in continuing this debate, I get a little carried away.. My point ws only that it is unscientific and nonsensical to think that stimulating your brain with chemicals can help you discover some sor of spiritworld or some nonsense like that, the reason I KNOW this, as you put it, is what I've fruitlessly to express over several long comments. Basically, to repeat myself for like the 5th time, it has to do with basic facts of the origin of our brains and so forth, it is now established, beyond any reasonable doubt, that our brains evolved. If you understand what biological evolution is and how it works, you'd know it is the mindless reshuffling of nucleotides acted upon in populations of animals over countless generations, this produces amazing survival machines, and some of them develop brains, and some of those grow big brains.

How do you think DNA evolved over so many years,
DNA probably evolved after RNA, nobody knows exactly how replicating nucleotides started to replicate, it was probably a staggeringly unlikely event, but then there was literally all the time and space in the universe for it to happen..

you ever read Francis Cricks, who helped found DNA, Well, I've read The Double Helix, and I'm currently studying biology and genetics.
what his theory for DNA was? Panspermia. Yeah.
No,
It was speculation, probably tongue-in-cheek that he later regretted. In any case, the argument was based on the fact that the origin of DNA/RNA was an extremely unlikely event, and that if it didn't originate on earth, it could have been brought here from elsewhere. Both options are essentially saying the same thing, that abiogenesis happened and that it later evolved (either here on earth, like most scientist now think, or somewhere else.)

It doesnt really matter whether directed panspermia is true or not, DNA is still strings of molecules that abide by the laws of physics and chemistry. They are not some sort of magical quantum spirit crystals mind-controlled by aliens.
The Universe is a lot trickier than just our basic Science.
Whatever you say boss.

How do you KNOW?

Physics is something that is only beginning to be understood. The Laws of Physics are subjective to change. We will probably find out soon whether the speed of light is a constant it may be that the speed of light is not a constant.

My point is, is that we have barely even tipped our toes into the way everything works, while I trust science much more than any religion I am not arrogant enough to think that there are fundamental aspects of reality that we simply do not understand on any level.

Another point is, if you ever take DMT. Most people have no words to describe what they see. As stupid monkey humans we have defined vague terms to mean something. Even if someone thinks a DMT experience is spiritual, so what? Because it is chemicals in the brain? What basis do you have to say that having a spiritual experience is not considering it is based upon the science of the Universe? Spiritual, God, dark matter, death, even consciousness are terms that ill defined with monkey brains.

I think you believe that "spiritual" must mean dogmatic religion. Science in itself can be "spiritual", contemplating the Universe can be "spiritual". I repeat that term because at this point in our culture-less society that term is taboo. I know some people consider FUCKING to be "spiritual". I am not implying that I believe in any religion, I do not, at all. DMT is like experiencing the Universe in your own head. It is the one and only experience that is convincing enough to say that we know very little, it is the most humbling and powerful experience there is. And if there is one using endogenous chemicals, more powerful, I do not want to even know about it, myself.

I cannot figure out what you are trying to debate? That there is no science behind DMT? That there is nothing to DMT? That "spiritual" does not exist? What is your point of this continued conversation? That you are scared of psychedelics? Why do you think such an experience would have been programmed into our head, the most powerful experience a person can have? How do you think DNA evolved over so many years, you ever read Francis Cricks, who helped found DNA, what his theory for DNA was? Panspermia. Yeah. The Universe is a lot trickier than just our basic Science.

One thing is clear, you are never going to know what I am talking about until you have that experience. Why not? It has never killed anyone... you will think you have died because what you are witnessing is alien and defies explanation. It will be so awesome, that you will not even care that you died or think you have died. People should do it, even if it is just to be in awe of what your own vessel is capable of doing.

I wish I could sell y'all's one of my manic episodes. Your senses will be altered and you will look at life in a different way. I once described three of my most powerful episodes to a coworker one time and he claimed that they were very similar to psychedelics that he did.

It's human. You compartmentalize everything - me; my circle; my extended circle; strangers; enemies;super-enemies.

Different thoughts apply to different groups. While perhaps we should thinking of humanity as a whole, our brains don't really work that way.

It seems to me that conservatives make a stronger distinction between my circle and everyone else, than liberals do - whether that's a good or bad thing is up for debate, but you certainly apply your empathy in different ways.

This is how we can live with people being homeless as well - they have been compartmentalized outside of our immediate grasp and thus not worthy for "proper" empathy, they get pity or scorn instead.

If all of a sudden a homeless person has come from our immediate circle - let's say a parent or child - then we apply our thoughts different to that type of person. It opens our eyes to all the other homeless people, and we see them more favorably and don't shut them out as harshly.

Close example is the most powerful mind changer. I think.

I didn't mean to cause a stir! Sorry everyone

I want to point out to everyone that I am not an achievement hunter. If I could have all the most powerful abilities while having no icon next to my name I would be just as happy.

In a round about way my intentions are selfish but not how you'd think. I want the community to grow. If we have more "fully active" members posting videos that means its more likely for the quality stuff to be posted. If there are more quality videos posted then i can spend more time here being entertained


L0cky Thank you for the great comment. I too feel as you do. The insurmountable barrier to becoming a "normal" member is ridiculous.

I'm serious too, people looking at this country from the outside are just astonished by how we look at things. I mean people in this country believe that Iraq was seconds away from destroying us, that Cuba is still a sinister threat. They arm themselves and put on fatigues and get ready for Iraqis to come into their town. The propaganda is mindblowing, and then some great president like Reagan or a bunch of High School kids with rifles in the hills are gonna snatch us away from whatever demon is about to destroy us all.

It's incredible how successful propaganda is and we look down on the German people for allowing the Nazis to run roughshod over everyone. We're the most powerful nation in the world and we're terrified of everyone, it's insane.

To say to these terrified people that guns are available for you, whatever guns you want. It's just insane.

Your talk of "the present climate" is intriguing. What present climate exists for the most powerful nation and military force that has ever existed? You see American citizens are so absolutely terrified of everything that it's just gotten ridiculous. People believe that the Chinese are going to attack any minute, that Iran is off our coast with a nuclear weapon. Usually these threats exist coming from those who have our boot on their necks. The disparity of force is mind blowing.

I'm sorry but we are not in need of protection like this. We go around the world supporting terror and tyranny and you say that's for the greater good? I don't believe so, but it's interesting the way you say it, many people believe that we are somehow just about to be strangled by some crazy powerful threat. It's a part of a lot of literature, I suggest you look into the long history of fear in the US...it's not dissimilar to the German public and their fear of Jews that was dredged up.

Um... well, lets see... Barak Obama is the President of the United States, arguably the most powerful nation in the world. So his children would make excellent targets for anyone who considers the USA a threat. That would be a heck of a lot of people.

Really harlequinn, you need this stuff spelled out for you? I didn't notice any sarcasm tag...

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^criticalthud:
indeed. he didn't invade iraq by himself, did he? he got help. he's arguably one of the most powerful men on the planet. I'm assuming he has some people that know their way around the backend of a pc.

While he's undoubtedly still got some major influence, he invaded Iraq with the backing of the US government. I guess it's still possible that he attempted this just using business and house connections, but I'm skepical.


well, i'd say his financial resources are somewhere near unlimited. for that you can buy whatever talent you want. What is in Iraq now is private industry, including private military contractors, and they were a huge part of everything. The "US" invaded, but only after a fairly intense propaganda and disinformation campaign.

another piece that makes this entirely plausible is that each state has different polling technology and systems. Meaning it is a giant clusterfuck of vulnerability.

>> ^criticalthud:

indeed. he didn't invade iraq by himself, did he? he got help. he's arguably one of the most powerful men on the planet. I'm assuming he has some people that know their way around the backend of a pc.


While he's undoubtedly still got some major influence, he invaded Iraq with the backing of the US government. I guess it's still possible that he attempted this just using business and house connections, but I'm skepical.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^criticalthud:
amazingly, there are actually people on here questioning whether or not Karl fucking ROVE would stoop to cheating.
the man who has orchestrated more bullshit propaganda, flat-out lies, political strategies of un-cooperation and disinformation, war and mass murder.
YES, Karl fucking ROVE would rig an election.
He clearly believes he is ABOVE THE LAW
and for the most part, HE IS.

I'm not sure if they're questioning whether Rove would stoop to cheating, they're questioning whether it's probable that he actually did.
So a question of capability rather than intent.
I believe Rove is actually Mr Burns made flesh and would gleefully steal candy from a baby, given the opportunity.


indeed. he didn't invade iraq by himself, did he? he got help. he's arguably one of the most powerful men on the planet. I'm assuming he has some people that know their way around the backend of a pc.

Voter apathy makes perfect sense when you look at polls. Polls should that most people believe that government doesn't speak for them, and they're right, and that it's only for the most powerful of people. There was a study done on this that should for the middle 1/3rd of income in the country there was No correlation between how congress votes and their interests. For the lowest 1/3rd there was a negative correlation. When you know the system doesn't work for you you tend not to worry about it, plus you've got shit to do.

Like @NetRunner said, he's X minus 20.

In other words, he's the second closest person on the planet to the most powerful position on the planet. It's due in large part to his being the American-born privileged white male heterosexual Christian son of a wealthy businessman and governor who sent him through Harvard Law. And now he's standing in a room full of insanely rich (and I'm assuming) heterosexual-identified Christians complaining that he would be better off if he were Latino. Would he even be in that room if he were Latino? I doubt it.

He had all those advantages in life and has reached such heights from them, and that's fine. But then, when it would be convenient, he wishes he could briefly be Latino, so he can have that limited advantage too. This shows a complete lack of appreciation (both meanings) for the advantages he has and the benefits they have gained him. He wouldn't have even gotten into the primaries.

"Message received loud and clear. Now what answer do you want to hear?"

Did this guy go from an alcoholic to a tea-totaller based upon what would make him the most popular or was it for a more authentic reason like one we would look for in the leader of the richest and most powerful nation in the world?

Oh, and feel free to ignore all the other points in the video. Best stick to the most basic and oversimplified premise you can find.

>> ^lantern53:

I knew a guy who was an alcoholic. Now's he a teetotaler. What a flipflopper!
Anyway, 'economic stimulus' for one, is not the same as Obama's Economic Stimulus Plan.
We definitely need stimulus, but all we got was debt, $50,000 for every man, woman and child in the US.
Romney ain't the anointed one, like Obama, but I think he's gotten the message from people that realize Obama's plan has failed.