Posted on 04/14/2004 6:15:04 AM PDT by Momaw Nadon
Every species seems to come and go. Some last longer than others, but nothing lasts forever. Humans are a relatively recent phenomenon, jumping out of trees and striding across the land around 200 000 years ago. Will we persist for many millions of years to come, or are we headed for an evolutionary makeover, or even extinction?
According to Reinhard Stindl, of the Institute of Medical Biology in Vienna, the answer to this question could lie at the tips of our chromosomes. In a controversial new theory he suggests that all eukaryotic species (everything except bacteria and algae) have an evolutionary "clock" that ticks through generations, counting down to an eventual extinction date. This clock might help to explain some of the more puzzling aspects of evolution, but it also overturns current thinking and even questions the orthodoxy of Darwin's natural selection.
For over 100 years, scientists have grappled with the cause of "background" extinction. Mass extinction events, like the wiping out of dinosaurs 65m years ago, are impressive and dramatic, but account for only around 4% of now extinct species. The majority slip away quietly and without any fanfare. Over 99% of all the species that ever lived on Earth have already passed on, so what happened to the species that weren't annihilated during mass extinction events?
Charles Darwin proposed that evolution is controlled by "survival of the fittest". Current natural selection models imply that evolution is a slow and steady process, with continuous genetic mutations leading to new species that find a niche to live in, or die. But digging through the layers of rock, palaeontologists have found that evolution seems to go in fits and starts. Most species seem to have long stable periods followed by a burst of change: not the slow, steady process predicted by natural selection. Originally scientists attributed this jagged pattern to the imperfections of the fossil record. But in recent years more detailed studies have backed up the idea that evolution proceeds in fits and starts.
The quiet periods in the fossil record where evolution seems to stagnate are a big problem for natural selection: evolution can't just switch on and off. Over 20 years ago the late Stephen Jay Gould suggested internal genetic mechanisms could regulate these quiet evolutionary periods but until now no-one could explain how it would work.
Stindl argues that the protective caps on the end of chromosomes, called telomeres, provide the answer. Like plastic tips on the end of shoelaces, all eukaryotic species have telomeres on the end of their chromosomes to prevent instability. However, cells seem to struggle to copy telomeres properly when they divide, and very gradually the telomeres become shorter.
Stindl's idea is that there is also a tiny loss of telomere length between each generations, mirroring the individual ageing process.
Once a telomere becomes critically short it causes diseases related to chromosomal instability, or limited tissue regeneration, such as cancer and immunodeficiency. "The shortening of telomeres between generations means that eventually the telomeres become critically short for a particular species, causing outbreaks of disease and finally a population crash," says Stindl. "It could explain the disappearance of a seemingly successful species, like Neanderthal man, with no need for external factors such as climate change."
After a population crash there are likely to be isolated groups remaining. Stindl postulates that inbreeding within these groups could "reset" the species clock, elongating telomeres and potentially starting a new species. Studies on mice provide strong evidence to support this. "Established strains of lab mice have exceptionally long telomeres compared to those in wild mice, their ancestors," says Stindl. "Those strains of lab mice were inbred intensively from a small population."
Current estimates suggest telomeres shorten only a tiny amount between each generation, taking thousands of generations to erode to a critical level. Many species can remain stable for tens to hundreds of thousands of years, creating long flat periods in evolution, when nothing much seems to happen.
Telomere erosion is a compelling theory, helping to explain some of the more mysterious patterns in evolution and extinction. There are few data - partly because telomeres are tiny and difficult to measure - but new DNA sequencing techniques could soon change that. Studies have already shown a huge variation in telomere length between different species.
Other scientists are going to take some convincing. David Jablonski, a palaeontologist from the University of Chicago, says: "The telomere hypothesis is interesting, but must be tested against factors like geographic extent, or population size and variability, that have already been proven effective in predicting extinction risk."
Stindl accepts that more experiments need to be done to test his ideas. "We need to compare average telomere lengths between endangered species and current successful species," he says. "I don't expect all endangered species to have short telomeres, since there are clearly other extinction mechanisms resulting from human threats to ecosystems, but I would expect some correlation between extinction risk and telomere length."
If Stindl is correct it will have interesting implications for mankind. Although inbreeding seems to have been the traditional way of lengthening telomeres, there could be a less drastic alternative. Stindl believes that it may be possible to elongate telomeres by increasing the activity of the enzyme telomerase in the embryo. So humans could perhaps boost biodiversity and save endangered species simply by elongating their telomeres. We may even be able to save ourselves when our own telomeres become critically short, making humans the first species to take hold of destiny and prevent their own extinction.
Indicators for human extinction Human telomeres are already relatively short. Are we likely to become extinct soon?
Cancer: Cancer incidence does seem to have increased, but it is hard to say whether this is due to longer lifespans, more pollution, or telomere erosion. The shortest telomere in humans occurs on the short arm of chromosome 17; most human cancers are affected by the loss of a tumour suppressor gene on this chromosome.
Immunodeficiency: Symptoms of an impaired immune system (like those seen in the Aids patients or the elderly) are related to telomere erosion through immune cells being unable to regenerate. Young people starting to suffer more from diseases caused by an impaired immune system might be a result of telomere shortening between generations.
Heart attacks and strokes: Vascular disease could be caused by cells lining blood vessels being unable to replace themselves - a potential symptom of telomere erosion.
Sperm counts: Reduction in male sperm count (the jury is still out on whether this is the case) may indicate severe telomere erosion, but other causes are possible.
One thing she said didn’t sit well in my Spirit. She said “His heart aches when He sees us doing evil to one another, even if it's nothing more than a harsh word. His heart breaks over every unkindness and every evil that proceeds out of us.“ The phrasing implies that we have the power to do injury to God by rebellion – like teenagers so frequently do to get even with their parents for perceived slights. But God’s response to rebellion (and self righteousness) is righteous judgment:
I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people, which walketh in a way [that was] not good, after their own thoughts; A people that provoketh me to anger continually to my face; that sacrificeth in gardens, and burneth incense upon altars of brick; Which remain among the graves, and lodge in the monuments, which eat swine's flesh, and broth of abominable [things is in] their vessels;
Which say, Stand by thyself, come not near to me; for I am holier than thou. These [are] a smoke in my nose, a fire that burneth all the day. – Isaiah 65:1-6
It seems to me that those who truly believed that there was no need for doing truth but did truth anyway (1 John 1:5-10) will not be hurt by a failure to believe that they didn’t need to be sanctified.
It also seems to me that some who believed that doctrine and because of it, did not continue on intentionally to add to their faith works might nevertheless be there but may have lost some of crowns they could have obtained (2 Tim 4:8, James 1:2, 1 Peter 5:4) – kind of like “heavenly hippies”. BTW, the purpose of a crown in my view is to have something to give to God (Revelation 4).
But indeed, the worst possible result of a belief in predestination to the exclusion of free will – living a life of rebellion to the Word on the basis of “God made me do it” - is His righteous judgment. I wonder what they will be thinking as they are being banished with the words “I never knew you”:
That is a most excellent question, Ronzo! To the extent the churches may do this, they are standing Christianity on its head. For God asks us to "put on the new man," to be born again. Propping up the "old man" is to condone the propensity to sin and the continued separation of the sinner from God's Grace. Or so it seems to me, FWIW.
Thanks for the great post, Ronzo. I expect I'll be reading Needleman's Lost Christianity soon: He's a most remarkable thinker!
It seems that way to me, too, Alamo-Girl. Though sometimes I do wonder whether "inadvertence" is really to blame here. Certain scientists I could name exude confidence that they know exactly what they're doing. I gather they're just hoping we won't notice that what they're doing ain't science!
To the extent that present-day science fosters second-reality building, I wonder whether scientists realize that they have put themselves out of a job? How is it possible to falsify anything in a fictitious reality where virtually everything is false, including the observer? One falsifies, not only reality, but also one's own nature by thinking one can actually go live in a fiction of one's own construction.
This sort of thing requires a "black magician," not a scientist! That, plus a gullible "audience" who want to be fooled by the trick.
Sadly, today it seems neither is in short supply. Then people say that American science is "losing its edge," its pre-eminence in the world. Maybe it's time for us to "wonder why" that is...and come to our senses.
To the extent that present-day science fosters second-reality building, I wonder whether scientists realize that they have put themselves out of a job?
BB, I haven't been keeping up with this thread, and sadly it's now too long for me to start at the beginning. But could you please help me out and name someone, and give me an example of his "second-reality building"? Presumably this will be an example of "... a fictitious reality where virtually everything is false, including the observer? One falsifies, not only reality, but also one's own nature by thinking one can actually go live in a fiction of one's own construction."
If you're thinking of quantum mechanics, just say so and I won't be able to argue with you, as that whole field leaves me mystified. But if you're thinking of something else, I'd like to know what it is.
Great catch, betty boop! Thanks for your reply!
100% guaranteed. The only question is when.
I wonder what they will be thinking as they are being banished with the words “I never knew you”:
Those are words I hope to never, ever hear directed towards myself! Nor would I want them to be directed towards any of my family or friends. That would be the worst fate of all --thinking you were serving God your whole life, only to come to realize you were serving a false concept.
This too was food for thought:
One thing she said didn’t sit well in my Spirit. She said “His heart aches when He sees us doing evil to one another, even if it's nothing more than a harsh word. His heart breaks over every unkindness and every evil that proceeds out of us.“ The phrasing implies that we have the power to do injury to God by rebellion – like teenagers so frequently do to get even with their parents for perceived slights. But God’s response to rebellion (and self righteousness) is righteous judgment...
I understand your concern! It seems as if this woman's testimony conflicts with that of the docrtine of God's impassibility --which is God's inability to suffer. According to my theological dictionary:
God is impassible because there is no created power which can overpower him. Suffering involves subjection to an oppressive force, and God could not experience this without losing sovereignty over his creation. But this is not to say, as many of those who object to the notion of divine impassibility do, that God is incapable of understanding his people's suffering.Alexander, T. Desmond, ed. New Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2000. 517
Well, assuming that the theologians are correct about God's impassibility, then how does one explain a passage like the following:
The Lord saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.
So the Lord said, “I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them.”
But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.
(Genesis 6:5-8 NIV)
The Bible clearly states that God does indeed suffer when we are rebellious! The above quote from Genesis is the most famous example, but if I had more time I'm certain I could find more passages that demonstrate that God is truly hurt when we are in rebellion. It seems as if God feels the pain of the rebellion first, then brings forth judgment second (if called for).
But I disagree with the theologian's propostion that because God can literally feel pain, that makes him less than soveriegn! No where does the Bible say that God is controlled by this pain we cause Him, nor is he controlled by any other emotion. He is still able to function and think clearly, even in the midst of feeling pain. He's not like us!
Yet when you read the Bible, especially the OT prophets and Psalms, one comes to the inescapable conclusion that God is a very emotional being! We don't find some cold, hard, impersonal diety that hands out orders like some giant mainframe computer in the sky. Rather, we see someone who has all the emotions and feelings we do, yet is never controlled by those emotions.
Now, to get back to the issue of ego and sanctification, we find that God himself provides the ideal that we need to emulate: to be able to feel, without being controlled by our emotions! This is not easy to do, even for the most "spiritual" of people. And it requires something that is rarely valued by the church, especially the Protestant, evangelical community: a well developed sense of reason. And by "reason" I do NOT mean intellect; perhaps what I mean would be better described by the term 'super-reason.' Our innate logic and reason are incapable of controlling our emotions, but not incapable of understanding them. If we can understand them, perhaps we can, at least, not be controlled by them.
But how to get to that place of understanding? That's the issue. That's what sanctification needs to be about, understanding ourselves, and coming to the realization that we are not defined by our emotions, intellect, or environment. We are defined by a standard that surpasses them all, and only when we realize this, can we truly come to the place of living death--death to self, death to the ego. This is where "super-reason" comes in.
Anyway, it's one of those things that's difficult to explain, but desperately needs some explanation!
What also needs explanation is why so many of the people I know who have some of the most powerful insights into God and His word are also some of the most emotional people I know! But their emotions are unlike anything I've ever seen --they have a purity and an authenticity and a power to them that surpasses any explanation. Also, most of these people are women, but not exclusively. If I were to try and summarize what is about them that makes them so different, it would be a genuine sense of love and compassion--not something forced or contrived, but a love that comes from the very depth of their being.
Perhaps instead of studying the "attributes" of God unto death, maybe it would be a better idea for theologians to do a biblical survey of the emotions of God....
FWIW...
Here's a little taste of what you're in for if you should ever read Needleman's Lost Christianity:
The real perception of suffering or injustice is an aspect of higher knowing. As such it must be distinguished from mere emotional reaction to the suffering of others. If one wishes to speak of the "horror" of man's inhumanity to man, one is then forced to distinguish, as it were, a higher awareness of this horror, free of emotionalism and inner violence which are attributes of egoism. Egoism, too, can in its way "see" the suffering of man, but it is a "seeing" mixed with illusions and fear, leading to impatience, faulty action and, finally, infliction of yet more suffering upon others, even in the name of love. One is obliged to doubt the value of one's caring actions when they spring only from emotionalism or moralism.
Please notice the usage “beast,” not “animal”: One does not wish to denigrate the honor and dignity of our animal brethren, these “other nations, caught up with ourselves in the net of life and time, fellow prisoners of the splendor and travail of the earth.”
If only the people who populate my “bete noire list” could resonate to an idea like that. But if they could, then they wouldn’t make the list.
Just to be fair, I’ll name names from both sides of the “Wissenschaften aisle,” in no particular order, three from the natural sciences, and three from the humanities: Dawkins, Pinker, Dennett; Singer, McKinnon, Chomsky.
I might have been motivated to write a critical essay about any of these folks – maybe three months ago. But by now, I am so sick and tired of the “politics of pointing the finger of blame,” and the tactics of personal attack and character assassination that I could spit.
I wonder what is the point of adding more fuel to a public culture that already seems determined, and has the means, to immolate itself -- on the alter of irrelevancy no less? While Nero fiddles, Rome burns. Me, I’m heading for the countryside….
But Patrick, you did ask for an example, so I owe you one. I pick Pinker.
But first, Pinker’s distinguished bio: Professor, Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, MIT; Director, McDonnell-Pew Center for Cognitive Neuroscience, MIT; author, Language Learnability and Language Development (1984), Learnability and Cognition (1989), The Language Instinct (1994), and How the Mind Works (1997). Here is his self-introduction at a very large and very famous public event in London, April 1999:
* * * * * *
Steven Pinker opens:
I’m going to discuss an idea that elicits wildly opposite reactions. Some people find it a shocking claim with radical implications for morals and every value that we hold dear. Other people think that it’s a claim that was established a hundred years ago, that the excitement is only in how we work out the details, and that it has few if any implications for our values and ethics. That is the idea that mind is the physiological activity of the brain, in particular the information processing activity of the brain; that the brain, like other organs, is shaped by the genes; and that in turn, the genome was shaped by natural selection and other evolutionary processes. I am among those who think that this should no longer be a shocking claim, and that the excitement is in fleshing out the details, and showing exactly how our perception, decision-making, and emotions can be tied to the activity of the brain.
Stephen Pinker closes (for now….)
* * * * * *
I feel sure Prof. Pinker’s project must be “exciting” in principle; especially as it is seemingly bent on finding ways to falsify and thus overcome the planted experience of the human race over the course of decades of millennia by now. But then as a wise man once said: “Some motives are beyond the reach of argument.”
Patrick, just try to scan the logic of the foregoing passages. Is this really a logical argument? Or is it an exercise in polemics, generated from an undisclosed motive, from a “hidden major premise?”
Let’s walk it through. Pinker begins by casting doubt on the rationality of his anticipated “opponent” (perhaps a “political conservative,” or “religious believer”). He goes on to suggest that the “breakthroughs” (precisely what kind of breakthroughs are not described) of the past one hundred years somehow obviate and render null the human existential experience of millennia, as articulated by the greatest thinkers of our race.
Western civilization, I gather, is simply expected to concede the floor to a parvenu who got a blueprint for utopia from Hegel or one of his epigones. Yet a scientist is expected to chart his course by evidence. It must be embarrassing to Pinker (assuming he could ever be embarrassed, which is highly doubtful – let alone feel shame) that there has yet to be any successful “utopia” in all of human history.
So I wonder why Pinker thinks he’s making any “selling points” here. Still, he urges us to believe that he, who claims to have some kind of warrant from God-knows-whom, (but I could guess) to consign human existence and human nature as mankind has experienced it for virtually countless millennia, to extinction so that a new beginning might be made, is completely justified in proclaiming the seductive, yet completely undemonstrated and yet-to-be-disclosed “virtues” of the “innovations” which lead to this result.
What are these innovations? First and foremost, there is the claim that consciousness is merely the epiphenomenon or by-product of brain activity.
If that is so, then how do we explain Steven Pinker? Are his public performances really to be understood as demonstrations of the virtuosity of his brain? When did a guy like Steven Pinker ever leave his ego to die, so that his omnicompetent brain function might live? When did Steven Pinker ever say that he could claim no credit for his public pronouncements – in academia, the press, the public forum – because such must justly be credited entirely to the optimality of his brain function?
If I believed for an instant that this dude actually believed anything that came out of his own mouth, I’d be a moron.
The brain is the single most complex living system known to man. There is not a single person on the face of this earth who understands what the brain is or what it does in all its complexity. We can study the organism. But even here, we get it wrong. For it turns out the brain is not a congeries of local organic sites, each dedicated to a specific, localized, dedicated purpose, such as interpreting “incoming” from sensory organs, such as the eye, the ear, etc.
Instead it turns out that the functions of the brain are not localized, but widely distributed throughout the brain; it appears this wide distribution of activity is carried by quantum fields and routinely involves the principle of non-locality….
If non-local effects are involved, then it seems this must mean that consciousness is BIGGER than the physical brain, MORE than the physical brain. Seemingly, consciousness takes place at a principal level of reality independent of physical brain function. Which in turn suggests that some principle must exist to coordinate such widely distributed activity – activity which, on Bell’s Theorem, may likely involve events so remote that they occur on the very edge, on the other side, of the universe….
Which is the polar opposite, the antithesis, of Pinker’s argument: That brain function is a local phenomenon, confined to tight processing units, mute, insensate…material, determined….
The critique could continue on other substantive points. But I think it would be good to leave off for now: Time for a time-out!
Dear Patrick, if you or anybody else out there reading this has further ideas on the present subject, I would seriously be most glad to hear them and think about them.
Perhaps that Scripture came to mind because His righteous judgment in reaction to the rebellion of some was to accept many others. (Psalms 118:22, Matthew 21:42)
With regard to the theology definition, I agree with you that the operative point is that God is not controlled by His own emotions.
I would add that He cannot be manipulated. Mortals may sometimes take advantage of a loving person, tempt them to do something they wouldn’t otherwise do in return for love, or gain by putting them on a “guilt trip”. These emotional games are non-starters with God. He is Truth.
Darwin didn't invent evolution. Buffon and others before him, incl. his own grandfather Erasmus, had formulted many of the key components of the theory long before young Darwin had even left his father's loins. Darwin was a gentleman naturalist of the nineteenth century, trained as a minister in the Anglican church. He was as a mild-mannered, reclusive person, not especially passionate about anything. It was the Marxs, Huxleys, and their successors, men with a true vendetta, that glommed onto his theory. It has been said with some merit that Darwin made atheism intellectually respectable.
I don't classify every scientist, biologist, etc. as a God-hater (except insofar as the Bible teaches that all men are God haters by nature, Jer. 17:9). Most AFAIK are apolitical, merely following what they've been taught.
Have you ever been to California or NY? Fifty million people live in those two states. NY and California are pretty much like any other place in the world- there are good people, bad people and people in between.
I've lived in California, my friend, in Marin County (3 years) and San Jose (1 year). I've lived in the Midwest. Trust me: there is a HUGE contrast in the way people treat others, strangers. I am absolutely convinced that there is a correlation between the way these people act and the way they vote. Just one of many examples: my third day in San Jose, my truck was broken into while parked inside a securely gated area. By contrast, in St. Louis, a parking attendant locked my doors to protect me from being robbed (incidently, the door was deliberatly kept unlocked because of the damage caused by the first incident). This was NOT an isolated event, but you don't need to hear about my stolen vacuum cleaner, dog nearly killed, stolen checks, etc., all of which happened in a year's time and none of which have happened since we've left California.
To give just one example, let's take... abortion. According to the liberal worldview taught in higher education: homo sapiens came from a long process of unguided evolution, stared by spontanteous generation involving lightning and amino acids. A long line of organisms, with sporadic (or gradual, depending on flavor of evolution held by the teacher) mutations eventually became us. There is no purpose to existence other than survival. Sometimes survival means killing unwanted offspring. There are no moral consequences, since, after all, we're just animals, and Christians and Jews are just holding onto outdated superstitions which the elite among us have long since cast off. For this group, the ultimate authority is human experience.
In the Judeo-Christian worldview, man was created by God through mechanisms to which we are not privy. Man has a purpose in live - every man, and every woman. All of history is progressing to a final destiny under Divine teleological guidance. Taking a life - the life of another human being created in God's image - is a grevious sin, worthy of death, with grave consequences in the next life. For those holding this worldview, the final authority is Divine revelation.
I would interject that it's rather ironic that Christians are often accused of shoving their beliefs down others' throats, while nary a word is heard of those humanists who are doing just that in our schools, and with far greater reach.
Whichever of these two views (and there are, fundamentally, ONLY two) the majority of a given populace holds will determine the cultural attitudes and individuals' treament of their fellow man. It comes down to either "survival of the fittest" or "love thy neighbor". Really, it boils down to who one's God is: either God or himself.
Hope that brings the matter into sharper focus.
BB, you dazzle me. I ask for a name, I get not only that but a publishable pamphlet on the topic. Alas, I have no knowledge of Pinker's subject matter (Cognitive Neuroscience), so I can't contribute a thing to this conversation. But now I have a much better understanding of what this thread is all about. Thanks for taking the time to bring me up to speed.
As a rule, I think the physicists are much more rigorous than scientists working in the biological fields, especially the new crop of specialities that have come down the pike, like cognitive neurobiology and evolutionary biology. Somehow or other, these folks seem to like to editorialize about the "nature" of man... and since a great many of them tend to be materialist and determinist philosophically, they assume the universe is a vast machine, the human brain is a machine, man is a machine.
Yuck: They drain all life out of the world and then call what they do "biology." The reduction is breath-taking, but never questioned (nor ever challenged within their own "community" of like-minded).
Morality and free will are dead under such a regime -- so long live utility! This is, of course, potentially a highly productive blueprint for manipulating human beings. And some of these people seem to want to be the manipulators....
If they could just stick with Niels Bohr's elegantly restrained and rigorous epistemological model, all would be well. Bohr said (I'm paraphrasing) that if something can't be observed, then essentially it isn't a problem for science. He said science was about making good descriptions, not about philosophizing about "how" the natural world is, and certainly not about editorializing regarding the "nature" of things. Given those assumptions, one can't make too much mischief....
Thanks so much for writing, Patrick!
If that is so, then how do we explain Steven Pinker? Are his public performances really to be understood as demonstrations of the virtuosity of his brain? When did a guy like Steven Pinker ever leave his ego to die, so that his omnicompetent brain function might live? When did Steven Pinker ever say that he could claim no credit for his public pronouncements – in academia, the press, the public forum – because such must justly be credited entirely to the optimality of his brain function?
Well said, betty. I would venture to say that Mr. Pinker probably thinks proudly of himself (notwithstanding the inherent irony of the aforesaid, as you have so elegantly pointed out) as one of those whom old Clive Staples Lewis disparagingly described as the "conditioners" in the Abolition of Man in which Lewis warns that that every power won by man over nature is a power over other men as well. Thus, (speaking of extinction, from the title of this thread) those who attempt to remake human nature end up destroying it. "What we call Man's power over Nature turns out to be a power exercised by some men over other men with Nature as its instrument." "Man's conquest of Nature turns out, in the moment of its consummation, to be Nature's conquest of Man."
"What we call Man's power over Nature turns out to be a power exercised by some men over other men with Nature as its instrument." "Man's conquest of Nature turns out, in the moment of its consummation, to be Nature's conquest of Man."
This from the great C. S. Lewis is perfectly germane to this thread. Thank you so very, very much, Diamond!
I remember I got the chills the first time I read this passage in The Abolition of Man. Some things are so true, and stated so sublimely, that they evoke a visceral response. The statement is so chilling because it is so true....
Can man become extinct? Sure he can! he can turn himself into a lemming and go rushing off a cliff.... He can "suicide himself" and the rest of his species. He'll probably do it, too, unless he comes to his senses.
It's clear to me that the six individuals I named earlier are all in the "human abolition business." Though I think Catherine McKinnon could be satisfied with abolishing, not Man, but men. :^)
The one thing they all seem to have in common is: They hate Life. They hate it so intensely that they can actually take comfort from the fiction that we're really all machines.... Freedom is a horrific burden, and responsibility utterly distasteful. So let's just expunge them!
Hey hey! Ho ho! Human nature's got to go! Wow. Whatta relief....
It's so good to hear from you, Diamond. You have always been (among other wonderful things) a model of sanity. Thank you!
Thanks to you both!
I "jumped ahead" last night while reading Needleman's A Sense of the Cosmos to a later chapter of the book. In it, Needleman was making the distinction between knowing and awareness. I see this same distinction in the passage from Lost Christianity that you cite here.
I can't wait to get to that part! :^)
Thanks so very much, Ronzo, for putting me in touch with Needleman's fascinating work.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.