Adonis Diaries

Posts Tagged ‘mankind

Is Mankind doomed by his own behavior?

And why mankind should be assumed to be “homogeneous”?

Don’t you feel homogeneous is a tenuous evolutionary theory and defies a few common sense realities?

Ice age covered most of Europe and reduced the green Sahara to a desert. And that was 200,000 years ago that almost wiped out all kinds of human species and barely 600 of them survived in 5 locations in Africa, mainly by the main Congo, Niger and the Nile rivers… That’s the current hypothesis.

The theory want us to believe that from these 600 left to survive, homo sapiens managed to colonized earth and all its continents. How? By following the herds, the edible vegetarian animals.

As if herds are about to leave their domain: They barely cross rivers in their shallow sections, and these scientists want us to believe that they crossed seas and oceans, one way or another.

Many kinds of bipeds species with brain size close to current man have been found in many continents.

A few species had very small stature and much smaller brain volume, others had larger stature and larger brain, others grew as fast as Chimpanzees do (an 8 year-old skeletal looked as 14 of age)…

This centrist theory, as old as time, is pretty tenuous.

If mankind homo sapiens could develop in Africa, why it should be so far fetched for Man to have also evolved in Iran, India, South Asia, Latin America and in every major river basin?

If they managed to evolve in Africa, homo sapiens should be able to evolve in a few other locations with the appropriate climatic conditions, away from the poles.

In any case, if they evolved with a different DNA structure then they wouldn’t be of the same species. Would they?

Why the scientists keep insisting on this centrist concept?

If mankind on earth has the same genes structure, should it be because it came from a single source or branch?

How about considering this alternative: mankind has the same genes simply because this is the exact structure that made him everywhere he evolved?

Actually, a few homo sapiens have a more robust level for diseases because of a few DNA variations and proteins…

If the Neanderthal species survived for 400,000 years, twice as long as Homo sapiens,  why the researchers insists that this species disappeared 25,000 years ago simply because it failed to be flexible and adjust to climate change?

The scientist want us to believe a theory that the larger brain of the Neanderthal species had two lobes smaller than current man, simply based on the structure of the skull, a tenuous finding meant to degrade this evolved kind of species.

The scientists claim that he lived mainly on meat and never ate fruits or vegetables.

If this is true, then the Neanderthal species must have domesticated animals in farms and, thanks to plenty of protein, they grew bigger than homo sapiens in body and brain: they had to consume twice the required calories.

Why the researchers stick to the notion that the Neanderthal failed to fabricate killing tools adapted for the large animals, when they were totally carnivorous species and needed twice as much protein as the better evolved Homo sapiens?

Actually, the tools the scientists discovered were of their latest phase before extinction and are not representative of 400 thousand years of evolution.

Anyway, if they had short range killing tools, maybe it is because they domesticated animals and didn’t need to go after dangerous animals.

How about because they had domesticated the animals and didn’t need heavier weapons?

How about this species failed to survive more than 400,000 simply because the various branches didn’t merge in a few locations to improve their skills and culture for development?

And Why this current mankind seems homogeneous?

I conjecture that samples of many mankind species migrated to the most fertile centers after major calamities where they evolved and formed a melting pot of developed species.

I may consider at least 4 melting pot centers: The South-East Asia around the Mekong River, the Indus/Ganges Rivers, the Central America, and the Middle-East/Caucasus region.

The best plausible hypothesis is that of the advent of the “Reverse Migrations” from the main melting pot centers to the 5 corners of earth, each center migrating everywhere by successive phases, with preference to the closer regions and then onward.

If the Middle East is considered the cradle of civilization, maybe it is because many more than one branch of Homo sapience converged and linked in this land. This convergence generated higher development for intelligence and a variety of cultural know-hows for sedentary living.

If it has been proven that the Phoenician mariners landed and colonized America (north, middle and south) 3,000 years ago, why is it not possible that mankind colonized these continents, Australia and the Pacific islands from South Asia and India, many thousands years before the Phoenicians?

Be careful excavating the artifacts from archaeological centers in the Middle-East.

Mankind, be honest, generous and proud of your origins, this melting pot in Near and Middle-East..

Is  Violent warfare Not about to wane? Why mankind is such a violent species?

A spate of recent and not so recent books have suggested that “everything is getting better,” that the world is getting more peaceful, more civilized, and less violent. Some of these claims stand up.

In his book The Better Angels of Our Nature, psychologist Steven Pinker made the case that everything from slavery and torture to violent personal crime and cruelty to animals has decreased in modern times.

He presented masses of evidence. Such trends, it would certainly seem, are highly unlikely to be reversed. (In which nations these data were collected?)

Pinker also suggested — as have others, including historian Niall Ferguson — that something big has changed about violent warfare since 1945 as well. (Including the warfare in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Somalia?)

Here too, the world seems to have become much more peaceful, as if war is becoming a thing of the past. As he wrote,

… wars between great powers and developed nations have fallen to historically unprecedented levels. This empirical fact has been repeatedly noted with astonishment by many military historians and international relations scholars…

John Peter shared this link of Nassim Nicholas

A summary of our paper on violence by Mark Buchanan, a physicist and writer.
https://medium.com/…/violent-warfare-is-on-the-wane-right-9…

(Sure. Since wars are deployed through third parties to the developing States)

Pinker admits that this might be a statistical illusion; perhaps we’ve just experienced a recent lull, and war will resume with its full historical fury sometime soon. But he thinks this is unlikely, for a variety of reasons. These include…

the fact that the drop in the frequency of wars among great powers and developed states has been so sudden and massive (essentially, to zero) as to suggest a qualitative change; that territorial conquest has similarly all but vanished in the planning and outcomes of wars; that the period without major war has also seen sharp reductions in conscription, length of military service, and per-GDP military expenditures; that it has seen declines in every exogenous variable that are statistically predictive of militarized disputes; and that war rhetoric and war planning have disappeared as live options in the political deliberations of developed states in their dealings with one another. None of these observations were post-hoc, offered at the end of a fortuitously long run that was spuriously deemed improbable in retrospect; many were made more than three decades ago, and their prospective assessments have been strengthened by the passage of time.

Again, Pinker has gone to lengths to emphasize that none of this proves anything abut future wars. But it is strongly suggestive, he believes, that this is significant evidence for such a belief.

Nassim Taleb criticized Pinker’s arguments a few years ago, arguing that Pinker didn’t take proper account of the statistical nature of war as a historical phenomenon, specifically as a time series of events characterized by fat tails.

Such processes naturally have long periods of quiescence, which get ripped apart by tumultuous upheavals, and they lure the mind into mistaken interpretations.

Pinker responded, clarifying his view, and the quotes above come from that response . Pinker acknowledged the logical possibility of Taleb’s view, but suggested that Taleb had “no evidence that is true, or even plausible.”

That has now changed.

Just today, Taleb, writing with another mathematician, Pasquale Cirillo, has released a detailed analysis of the statistics of violent warfare going back some 2000 years, with an emphasis on the properties of the tails of the distribution — the likelihood of the most extreme events. I’ve written a short Bloomberg piece on the new paper, and wanted to offer a few more technical details here.

The analysis, I think, goes a long way to making clear why we are so ill-prepared to think clearly about processes governed by fat tails, and so prone to falling into interpretive error.

 it strongly suggests that hopes of a future with significantly less war are NOT supported by anything in the recent trend of conflict infrequency. The optimists are fooling themselves.

Anyone can read the paper, so I’ll limit myself to simply summarizing a few of the main points:

  1. Following many historians, Cirillo and Taleb use the number of casualties as a measure of the size of a conflict. Obviously, since the human population has grown with time, larger wars have become possible. So, they sensibly treat the data in a fractional sense — looking at the number of deaths as a fraction of the human population.
  2. For nearly more than 50 years, going back to Lewis Fry Richardson, it’s been known that the cumulative distribution of wars by size follows a rough power law, the number of events larger than size S being proportional to 1/S raised to an exponent α.
  3. This is also an approximation, of course, because there is an absolute maximum possible size for a conflict — it can’t be more than the entire population. Hence, the power law form can only hold over a certain range. To take this into account, Cirillo and Taleb also rescale the data to take into account the finite size of the human population.
  4. Having done this, they find using various statistical methods that α falls within the range 0.4 to 0.7. For maximum sensitivity in the statistical tests, they derive this by focusing mostly on the largest wars over the 2000 years, those equivalent (in today’s numbers) to at least 50,000 casualties.
  5. Note on the value of α — this is smaller than the exponent known to hold for either earthquakes or financial market fluctuations. This implies that statistics of wars is even more prone to large fluctuations than these other processes, which are of course highly erratic themselves.
  6. It also implies that the sample mean over any period is NOT a very useful statistic for estimating the TRUE mean of the underlying statistical process. For example, it turns out that, for a process following this statistical pattern, one should expect fully 96% of all observations to fall below the true mean of the process.
  7. This brings home just how non-Gaussian and non-normal this process is. We’re used to thinking that, if we observe instances from some random process, we ought to (very crudely) see events about half above and half below the mean. Instead, in this process, one should expect that almost all observations will be below, and even far below, the actual mean. We almost always see fewer wars than we, in a sense, should. The process is set up almost perfectly to make an observer complacent about the possibility of large events.
  8. Related to the above, it also turns out to be >90% certain that the true mean of the process is higher than the observed mean. What we have seen in the record of wars over the past 70 years, for example, almost certainly offers an underestimate of the true likelihood of wars.
  9. The statistical process makes rare but large events so likely that looking forward on the basis of recent past observations is a recipe for unwarranted optimism. In actual numbers, Cirillo and Taleb find that the true expected mean — say, the number of deaths we should expect over the next half century — is actually about three times higher than what we’ve seen in the past.
  10. There are quite few other gems in the analysis, but these seem to me to be the most important.

One final thing, and maybe this is most important.

Cirillo and Taleb make a strong argument that the quantity that one should study and try to estimate from the statistics is the tail exponent α (see point 5 above). This is certainly not easy to estimate, and it takes a lot of data to get even a crude estimate, but working with α is a much better way of getting at the true mean of the process than working with the sample mean over various periods.

Looking at past events, and estimating the average number over any period, is simply a bad way to go about thinking about any process of this kind. The sample mean is NOT a mathematically sound estimate of the true mean of the process. For more on this, see Taleb’s comments at the top of the 3rd page of his earlier criticism of Pinker’s argument.

And that, I think, is pretty good reason to believe that all talk of the dwindling likelihood of wars based on recent past experience is mostly based on illusion and people telling themselves convincing but probably unfounded stories.

Sure it looks as if things are getting more peaceful. But, looking at the mathematics, that’s exactly what we should expect to see, even if we’re most likely due for a much more violent future.

104
10
Many optimists think so.
But a close look at the statistics suggests that the idea just doesn’t add up
medium.com|By Mark Buchanan

 

 

 

 

 

 

“This sick animal among all animal species”: Mankind confronting unnatural tensions

Mankind is in a constant tension between what nature requires and what the spirit imposes on him: A situation between the beast and the angel.

The Will is but acting on a doubt, otherwise we are mostly  not ready to confront truth and the essence of the world.

Schopenhauer wrote:

“The domain of the Self is this obscure and impenetrable part of our personality. The little we know of the Self we had acquired by studying and reflecting on our dreams and the formation of the symptoms in the neurotic people.

The Self has two openings to the influences of the physical body and to the impulses (pulsion) of the psychic needs and desires.  These impulses fill the person with chaotic energy and cannot get rid of these impulses by adopting any wholesome willing process.

The person has to satisfy the impulses. No logical procedure is at work.

For example, this principle of non-contradiction has no effect on the tumultuous internal influences that seem Not to eliminate one another or weaken any of the impulses.”

The unconscious mind refutes the set of value judgment, morality, the good and evil dichotomy, or even the influence of time in the succession of events in the realm of the conscious mind.

C.G. Jung stated:

It is more convincing and more natural to look at how events come to me rather than observing how I have produced these events

Sciences has done No discoveries that philosophy didn’t authorize to do, or guided the conduct of the research.

Has the world ever been transformed without the mind acting on a doubt?

It is the animal nature in mankind that provided and projected all the necessary data to formulate valid hypothesis.

We have got to reach a level of confidence that the subject and the object form one entity. This is the fundamental point that links mankind to his created God in any religion.

Otherwise, we remain totally confused and in disarray.

Most of us lead our life according to a typical formal biography: the destiny of a  caste, an economic  class, a profession, the color of our skin, family condition, the immediate environment we live in…

We can talk of a typical “lived life” as of a living myth.

The interest in myths is inherent in our psychoanalyse, which is linked to the poetic creation: Totem and Tabou

If in our maturity we fail to discover what is eternally valid in the deep mystic in us, we are doomed to spiritual misery: We have got to agree that what we did and the events we submitted to had sources in the deepest level of our psychic and that they are all legitimate activities and thinking.

It is this continuity in the living history, the typicality we adhere to, that allow us to function and move.

In antiquity, it was natural to incarnate a mythical entity, a God, a semi-God…and emulate their behaviour and adopt their line of thought: The past was necessary for the present.

 

And why mankind is “homogeneous”?

How come with this tenuous evolutionary theory?

Current explanation defies a few of my common senses

Ice age covered most of Europe and reduced the green Sahara to a desert. And that was 200,000 years ago that almost wiped out all kinds of human species and barely 600 of them survived in 5 locations in Africa, mainly by the main Congo, Niger and the Nile rivers… That’s the current hypothesis.

The theory want us to believe that from these 600 left to survive, homo sapiens managed to colonized earth and all its continents. How? By following the herds, the edible vegetarian animals.

As if herds are about to leave their domain: They barely cross rivers in their shallow sections, and these scientists want us to believe that they crossed seas and oceans, one way or another.

Many kinds of bipeds species with brain size close to current man have been found in many continents. A few species had very small stature and much smaller brain volume, others had larger stature and larger brain, others grew as fast as Chimpanzees do (an 8 year-old skeletal looked as 14 of age)…

This centrist theory, as old as time, is pretty tenuous.

If mankind homo sapiens could develop in Africa, why it should be so far fetched for Man to have also evolved in Iran, India, South Asia, Latin America and in every major river basin?

If they managed to evolve in Africa, homo sapiens should be able to evolve in a few other locations with the appropriate climatic conditions, away from the poles.

In any case, if they evolved with a different DNA structure then they wouldn’t be of the same species. Would they?

Why the scientists keep insisting on this centrist concept?

If mankind on earth has the same genes structure, should it be because it came from a single source or branch?

How about considering this alternative: mankind has the same genes simply because this is the exact structure that made him everywhere he evolved?

If the Neanderthal  species survived for 400,000 years, twice as long as Homo sapiens,  why the researchers insists that this species disappeared 25,000 years ago simply because it failed to be flexible and adjust to climate change?

The scientist want us to believe a theory that the larger brain of the Neanderthal species had two lobes smaller than current man, simply based on the structure of the skull, a tenuous finding meant to degrade this evolved kind of species. The scientists claim that he lived mainly on meat and never ate fruits or vegetables.

If this is true, then the Neanderthal species must have domesticated animals in farms and thanks to plenty of protein they grew bigger than homo sapiens in body and brain: they had to consume twice the required calories.

Why the researchers stick to the notion that the Neanderthal failed to fabricate killing tools adapted for the large animals, when they were totally carnivorous species and needed twice as much protein as the better evolved Homo sapiens?

Actually, the tools the scientists discovered were of their latest phase before extinction and are not representative of 400 thousand years of evolution. Anyway, if they had short range killing tools, maybe it is because they domesticated animals and didn’t need to go after dangerous animals.

How about because they had domesticated the animals and didn’t need heavier weapons?

How about this species failed to survive more than 400,000 simply because the various branches didn’t merge in a few locations to improve their skills and culture for development?

And Why this current mankind seems homogeneous?

I conjecture that samples of many mankind species migrated to the most fertile centers after major calamities where they evolved and formed a melting pot of developed species.

I may consider at least 4 melting pot centers: The South-East Asia around the Mekong River, the Indus/Ganges Rivers, the Central America, and the Middle-East/Caucasus region.

The best plausible hypothesis is that of the advent of the “Reverse Migrations” from the main melting pot centers to the 5 corners of earth, each center migrating everywhere by successive phases, with preference to the closer regions and then onward.

If the Middle East is considered the cradle of civilization, maybe it is because many more than one branch of Homo sapience converged and linked in this land. This convergence generated higher development for intelligence and a variety of cultural know-hows for sedentary living.

If it has been proven that the Phoenician mariners landed and colonized America (north, middle and south) 3,000 years ago, why is it not possible that mankind colonized these continents, Australia and the Pacific islands from South Asia and India, many thousands years before the Phoenicians?

Be careful excavating the artifacts from archaeological centers in the Middle-East.

Mankind, be honest, generous and proud of your origins.

 

Heaven: Earth exempt of Religion…

And “Mon Doudou Divin” by Norwegian Katarina Mazetti

We are bombarded with religious expressions and causes for religious persecution, annihilation, and ostracizing behaviors.

I shortened this essay: I had to state my position on Religion, now and quickly…

Religion, any religion, is not worth the peel of an onion, or of any vegetable.

All these varieties of peelings that the religious clerics throw on your path, from birth to death, and we ending up slipping and falling in this calamitous world they created.

Religion is the worst catastrophe that mankind invented since rulers realized that mankind long for the Absolute and the Eternal.(See link in note 1)

Religion was invented to efficiently and absolutely control society.

And the institution of religion was tightly linked to the power-to-be, supporting and aiding one another for the control of communities, into total submission to the absolute monarch, emir, military leader, the highest priest, the lower ranked clerics…

And when rulers try to dampen the power of religion on the citizen’s mind and spirit, the religious structure counter attack ferociously: Many communities keep slipping on the peelings and civil wars ensue.  No institution will voluntarily restitute its earthly power, unless a substantial financial and economical advantage is extended in return.

Nothing ever came out of religion, and the mind of mankind has been dwarfed ever since religion was structured into daily rituals and customs.

Daily practices and training on rituals and ceremonies meant to nail down the habits of total submission to a set of abstract notions that never brought bread on a table or soothed by urinating on bleeding fingers… or resolved any difficulty in this process of survival to natural calamities, and human cruelties…

I am against religion and the concept of religion,  Period.

And I’m not impressed of all these illusions spread around that religion is fundamentally necessary for mankind peace of mind and mental stability

You do have a variety of faith, and not restricted to religion: A wide range of living according to sets of acts of faith. (Read link in note 2)

1. You have the “normal” and regular faith of people going about their daily rituals in order to fit nicely into a community and blend in and considered normal people who can be trusted to maintain the tradition…

2. You have “The Dog” faith of a person in search of a community, a pack, a gang, and constantly looking around for a leader and a hierarchy to blindly summit to…

3. You have the faith of “The Perpetual Kid” who needs the care and attention of his parents. The older they get, the more bigoted: The substitute parent must be an “All Compassionate God”

4. You have the faith of the Artist, a person willing to invest time and energy to beautify religious Temples, Cathedral… with ostentatious and fantastic monuments in order to attract faithful to religious gathering. Artists who sing, compose, and perform for the religious hierarchy. These artists are the preferred Idiots of the clerics.

5. You have the faith of “The Exceptional Penitent” who will never settle but to a compassionate God for forgiveness and absolution. Hidden crimes, real or fictitious, to survive this Valley of Darkness...

6. You have the faith of The Savior who cannot imagine a life without leading, a position in the pack that should lead to establishing a new sect, cult…

7. You have the faith of The Inquisitor who fakes Not to believe in anything, and tacitly doing everything to reach a situation of total belief in a “religion” and feeling in a position of answering any kinds of query and questions

8. You have the faith of The Idiot who long for the supernatural in order to fathom the notion of God and relying on his feeble mind to satisfy his longing…

All these examples of faiths are human characteristics and attitudes and are not necessarily related to a religion, but religion is an easy daily presence to cling on as a pertinent and relevant target to manifest our behavior.

Religion was a substitute to our longing for the Absolute and Eternal, and religion was structured to satisfy our longing and chain us as slaves for a powerful and lasting form of control and dominance.

Heaven is Earth exempt of Religion. As long as religion exists, we have to experience and witness Hell on Earth. Let us just observe and feel what is hell, instead of reading what hell would be like after death.

Note 1: The absolute and eternal yearning https://adonis49.wordpress.com/2012/07/08/there-is-no-god-mankind-yearn-for-the-absolute-and-eternal/

Note 2: Acts of Faith https://adonis49.wordpress.com/2013/10/28/our-entire-life-is-a-constant-stream-of-acts-of-faith/


adonis49

adonis49

adonis49

April 2020
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930  

Blog Stats

  • 1,376,512 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.adonisbouh@gmail.com

Join 720 other followers

%d bloggers like this: