The principle of life comes from the basic mechanisms of the universe, it is a principle of existence, and therefore of interactions (of what? Mystery! Of fundamental and elementary bricks!) and it is also a principle of relative stability and instability in time.
It is because of the relative instability that things happen, and it is thanks to the relative stability that they have time to act under their particular form. These instability and stability are visible everywhere around us, we cannot deny them. The evolution of the material systems and other systems called living ensues.
The big question is this, how can the Life emerging from the material, the universe, therefore pure mechanism, can it evolve towards a system, we human being, producing the rejection of an existence of suffering, misery , ill-being, war, and of the implacability of death?
This big question, once known, accepted and transmitted, leading inevitably to refuse the perpetuation of the system called by us "reproduction", which requires implying a being who has not desired to exist, his own child, to whom it would be necessary, without reason, impose the misfortunes that one undergoes oneself or that one perceives everywhere around oneself.
And these are not small risks or risks so infrequent that one could ignore them...
Complexity is relative. Say that we are complicated that our brain is the most complicated thing in the universe is a value judgment of which we are the authors on ourselves.
The universe does nothing complicated, it stirs, and things come together with simple laws and rules, which are basic rules, always the same, these laws never change, they cannot be transgressed, hence the impossibility of free will.
Evolution is the product, the symptom, of the instability of atoms and molecules. But some things are more stable than others, for example the mechanism of cell division (which is instability in itself) is stable since billions of years, whereas the content of cells is much less stable, and this is what produces the variations of living organisms.
Rather than evolution of species which is an antinomic expression, it would be better to speak of evolution of the monocellular life and evolution of the multicellular life which are two types of different evolutions to be analyzed independently.
The evolution of plants, animals, myxomycetes, siphonophores, large systems and small multicellular systems, and so on, must also be considered differently. Why, because the safety of the "egg" cell is different according to these systems.
No one can say that it is of the same species as all present-day humans since no one can verify it materially by a true crossing, and no one can say that it is of the same species as all those who have died long ago.
The verification of the unity of a (so-called) species is not verifiable, it is only statistical, but statistically speaking we know that one in seven couples is sterile, which is enormous.
The copulatory frenzy is a mechanism set up by evolution, the principle being the blocking of reflection so that reproduction is not cogited. And it is a system that works perfectly in humans who are supposed to have some intelligence capable of blocking this kind of low instincts.
In fact, our laws are made to call to order excessive males, while custom has set up prudery all over the planet.
Anecdotal question: What is the use of civil marriage when anyone can copulate right or left and which a woman can generate at her convenience, single or not?
If civil marriage is a contract between two adults, as well as with society, is a child a person to whom anyone can impose existence and society without a contract? Could the possible birth handicap be part of the contract that would be accepted by that child if it could sign it before it existed? And you, would you accept it?
Who is to decide on the amount of compensation for a person with a disability by birth, the healthy or the unwell person? The one who pays or the one who asks for redress? Who arbiter this infinite risk taking? Will human society continue to manage (treat) the birth handicap for a long time as a collateral damage?
The bee species consists of queens and their drones, the other bees (in a hive there are about 80,000 worker bees for a queen and a few drones) are beings apart, appearing to be bees by form, but as they do not reproduce, what are they and how to name them?
This raises the question of the durability of this principle of bisexual reproduction limited to a few individuals and which puts on the shelf most members of the pseudo-species...
Variation is the basic principle of life, the appearance of existence of species is due to the gathering of varied individuals, who resemble each other, in a relatively restricted place and who can eventually cross each other. No animal knows that it is part of a species.
What animal imagines that it is part of a species apart from the human being the inventor of this notion that has no foundation other than a delusion of the same kind as the rotation of the sun around the Earth.
The notion of species is not evolutionary. The classification of species does not mean much thing from the point of view of Life. The purpose of ranking is for instant study, it is a need for language, and for sharing knowledge.
Of what species would be those who are at the branches junction? Of the old or the two new ones? We are constantly evolving. We are varieties of our parents. We have no species to defend and therefore no to attack. Life has no use, it exists.
I have no use, I exist. I make my utility for society if I want to, any other way of seeing would be slavery. In any case, I do what is useful to me to survive, since others have taken the risk of launching me on the fatal slope, encumbered by mortal dangers, in all conscience, it seems!
It is not the species that is important, but it is how life manages to stabilize the continuous variation of individuals to make a system such that individuals can cross each other. This group of individuals, we call it a species.
This notion of species is more or less valid in the present, but in the past one can look for a starting point that one will not really find because there are no profound transformations from a species to another. Individuals always intersect with members of their "species", which proves the continuity of life.
There has always been a continual reproduction since that origin and we are part of it. We are, with all the living, of the same family as LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor).
Speciation is a theory in the same way as evolution. To educate students, it is necessary to explain why there is speciation while variation is obvious and common, and should therefore lead to a rapid evolution. It is evolution which is the first principle, whereas speciation is a secondary characteristic.
If we take a thousand pairs of humans and send them to a thousand different planets, at the end of a hundred thousand years there will be a thousand different species coming from these thousand Adam and Eve incestuous.
God creates Adam. Adam generates Cain and Abel, who are not already copies of Dad. They have Mother Eve in them. I deduce that God wanted variation, not identity. And when nothing is stable, I conclude that it evolves. Now, it is not the variation that believers challenge, it is evolution.
That is to say that the human beastie would not have as its origin another beastie more or less stupid than it, and that it will not evolve towards a beastie with which it can no longer copulate. Because what annoys believers is copulation. Copulate or not copulate that is the question?
If we call what is intercopulable and interreproducible, then do we know who is and who is not? All that can be said is that it looks like human species, or not, morphologically, because who could check the reproducibility of all humans with all?
Why did evolution have to invent the belief? The stock of genes of the whole humanity today is far superior to that of a single couple of humans, which demonstrates the absurdity of the concept of fixism. Why, in inventing the belief, did Life need to deny its own functioning which is material and cultural evolution?
There are two things in religion, that is, in the invention of the "sacred." There is the content of religions that varies all over the world, and one thing that is the same everywhere in the world in almost all humans, this thing is the "mental function belief" which is a kind of software virus that blocks the thought on one religious content rather than another.
This content is cultural, it is an impregnation like Conrad Lorenz's chick, I believe in what my parents and my direct entourage tell me, my brain is impregnated with their explanations of the world, which is easy to realize on the mental mechanism of the baby that is born virgin of cultural meanings.
The religious is certainly associated with the needs of replication and nothing else, because it is necessary, for life to be perennial, that it replicates itself. It is therefore necessary to be able to explain to the children why they were forced to exist, whereas these same children obviously did not ask to exist.
We must admire the inventions of all the religions of the world which try to explain why we must thank parents and society for having given us Life, and all the dangers to which we expose ourselves if we do not respect Mom Dad and the Society (the homeland).
First, free will does not exist, hence our stupid functioning of animal and the state of the world that it generates.
Then we are forced to exist under any conditions and our own parents are indifferent to these conditions, conditions of birth (physical or mental handicaps) and environmental conditions in which they install us without having previously cleaned our cradle that is the planet.
And yet, evolution has nothing to do with intelligence, it is only interested in reproduction, it is indifferent to misery, suffering, and death. Life needs only perenniality, it is almost a pleonasm.
Animals reproduce without hesitation, without reflection, and without remorse, reproduction is only a mechanism that they accomplish in an innate way.
As soon as the capacities of reflection, reason, and conscience arise, therefore in the human animal,
as soon as innateness and instinct are controllable in part by a powerful nervous system, the reproducing human being realizes that he creates an existence similar to himself and that he proposes to him by existing, all the misfortunes, miseries, difficulties, sufferings he undergoes, and death to which he cannot escape.
To justify procreation under these conditions, the procreator must invent tales for the being he creates, which he will impose on him as culture, and which he himself will have to believe preferring thus to deceive himself. Hence the state of the world and the various human societies from the cultural and religious point of view.
Hence the fact that, from the evolutionary point of view, beings, who reproduce themselves less or not at all, disappear with their ideas in favor of those who reproduce in greater numbers.
To summarize, since the idiot reproduces itself more than the intelligent, the ideas of the many idiots develop to the disadvantage of those of the few intelligents, drowned by number, which remain punctual and cannot impose themselves even in the human world where the culture is memorized in books, the idiots submerging the cultural world of their stupid ideas.
Egalitarian and libertarian world, one must not dream, birth is already a constraint of existence.
I do not see how you can dream of a fair world, when the departure is flawed. There is no valid reason to justify the constraint of existence to your child, and to yourself who are the child forced to exist from your parents with social complicity, strong social incentive, when it is not the patriarchal rape.
You cannot on one side be against slavery, obviously your own servitude, and, in total contradiction with this ideology, create an existence to serve you, because to create a being that obviously has not asked anything is to create it for the service of the existing one.
Moreover, as you do not master the creation of this existence, the procreation that occurs in nine months in the night of the uterine laboratory, well you can produce any disability, a terrible handicap, for the one who did not even ask to exist.
How will you repair and compensate for this person, the one you call your child, of the life of pain and misery you offer him, which is not even what you live, even less what you hoped for him in your dreams of living with him and through him?
Maybe must it be remembered that we are all born out of obligation. We exist because our parents, encouraged by society, force us to exist, whereas no one mastered procreation, and that the procreated being has not asked for it.
Maybe it is necessary to remind moms and dads that the endangerment of the life of others is an offense and that the crime by imprudence is penalized.
Maybe governments should be reminded of their share of responsibility in this incitement, and the need for work fodder, tax fodder, and cannon fodder; which states are fond of, for the sole purpose of fighting against other nations, who do the same.
They must therefore also pay, and be penalized when the crime of disabled existence is committed with full knowledge of the cause and effect, for conceiving is more than rash, and it is always on the back of others.
Everyone has the right of interference when a crime is committed, and this imprudent crime, perfectly conscious, of creating existences, is committed nowadays 4 times per second. Life is no sinecure for any living being, it is a permanent struggle. Life is not given, it is imposed. Life is not a gift.
Everyone has the right to be born at least in good health since this existence is imposed on us, how can you ensure this vital minimum, moms, dads, and societies, criminals according to your own laws? Your car is insured; But before you conceive it, is your future baby insured?
If a watchmaker is needed to make a clock, and we consider man as a clock himself, that is a tool, then God is like a clock himself, also a tool, and he needs a watchmaker, etc., etc. Why stop the comparison? Has the initial clock built a clock?
Can a tool build a tool? Yes, of course, that's what our computers do today. The clock is the evolution of the initial clock which was only a simple stick planted in the ground. It is a simple extension of our body. And still a story of evolution.
Man is part of a constantly evolving system, his culture has also evolved and his tools have evolved with him. If it does not need a creator to create the creator, why would there be one for the universe that is not as perfect as the creator you suppose?
Adding an element to explain it, only complicates the explanation, which is contrary to the principle of parsimony, or Occam's razor.
But if believers compare us to tools, does it mean that a machine can have free will?
Why would there need a "thing" which creates to make the universe? First, what does "creation" mean? Nobody knows; Therefore, where does this term come from, and what does it hide? We see evolution taking place, but never creation.
Then, if a "thing" as complex as a god exists from the outset, and therefore does not need to be created, why could a universe that is only mechanical and hardly less complex, could not exist from the outset? The "thing" which creates must be of a complexity in relation to that of the universe, in order to be able to create it.
If there is no need for a god to exist, why should there need something for the universe to exist? Intelligent Design: If a god has launched the universe by the bigbang and that everything has ensued and life and us, this means that this chain of events is possible.
If it is possible, why in eternity and infinity (supposed for a god, therefore able to be supposed for the universe), this supposedly special mechanism, which is not necessarily so, which led to life from the bigbang, could it not have been created on its own, simply because the universe is a superconductor, since it is "All" and therefore cannot lose energy?
In fact, all mechanisms must necessarily occur if they are feasible in eternity and infinity, this is statistically mandatory. If infinity and eternity are supposed for the one, they must be for the other. If this can be generated by a god, this can be generated alone.
(Subsidiary question: how does free will arise from a mechanism, or even from a god? Free will cannot exist (it is demonstrated) even for a god, thus nullifying the notion of deity.)
[By the way: to verify, if you have the same belief that your coreligionist write on paper (on computer) about ten pages, on what your god is, creation, life and death, immortality, soul, and paradise; Do not forget to pray for your god to lead your pen; Then compare! If you do not have the same text, you can each base a new religion ...]
Evolution has fabricated the belief to curb knowledge. Why does total knowledge need to be controlled? Why, in fact, does it need to be distorted? Why ? Because total knowledge leads human beings to ask questions about the usefulness of their own existence and therefore on the usefulness of conceiving children who are different and sensitive people.
There is neither god nor devil, neither one nor many. But compared to a god (supposedly good and just) that would have created us inferior to him in all areas, we would be physically and mentally handicapped. By creating us handicapped from birth this god would therefore be a child abuser.
He would therefore be a great and ignoble sadist, and an infamous slaver, since a created being is created to serve. Evolution has produced the mental function "belief" to curb our reason that tells us that life is useless, ever. Constrained to practice the game of Life and the social game that we have not chosen, we have the right, and even the duty to revolt so that it ceases.
The law as it is, allows us to sue our parents if we are mistreated, we are constantly. The society is an accomplice. On the pack of 350 000 births of the day, 30% of the babies are born handicapped (abnormal) (and 100% of these babies-objects are handicapped compared to adults).
Humans have to provide elsewhere to another wholesaler or better than they stop procreating. Leaders and parents are disgusting to think that this 30% is only collateral damage.
Is the eye as complex as one wants you to believe? I cannot imagine that a computer can be born by simple evolution of life, but an eye is far from being as complex and elaborate as a computer. Nature has not even been able to invent the equivalent of the integrated phone, whereas it is feasible since we have done it!
The eye seems to me less elaborate than the auditory system. The eye is made in spite of common sense. An apprentice mechanic would not get his certificate if he proposed the plans for such an object. Signal reception systems such as the eye and ear are only an improvement of what makes the matter which is the interaction.
Dear believers, the society does not ask your opinion to vaccinate your baby with the vaccines in accordance with the principles of evolution...
If a believer tells you that scientists have not found all the links of evolution which would demonstrate that evolution is a foolish hypothesis, you can tell him that we have not yet seen the slightest pen of only one supernatural being...
Intelligent Design: If a god had invented evolution, that would certainly not be to stop there and get a species as stupid as the human being.
The problem is the "creation" which implies the omniscience, the absolute, the eternity (etc.) of this entity, which contradicts the intention. The intention implies the future whereas for an omniscient being the future does not exist, its omniscience implies that it "knows". This future is no different for him from the present to us, and therefore from an established fact.
Besides, what is the use of creation, when one knows, when one sees precisely as if the thing in itself really existed, in this case knowledge is worth the fact, and when there is no one but yourself to enjoy the job? The god of believers is like a toddler all alone in a sandbox...
But this new god of Intelligent Design, what is his religion? Who is going to be his prophet? What's going to be his Holy-book? What wars will it generate?
Evolutionary priority is no longer based on adaptation to nature which has become secondary, but adaptation to the species itself.
The female elements of hereditary transmission being more numerous than those of man, their evolution is certainly much more important for mankind!
The Y chromosome is transmitted only by men: There is certainly an evolution of this Y chromosome and therefore an evolution only masculine. It is therefore possible that men evolve (again) on some specific characteristics independently of women.
Why menopause? From an evolutionary point of view, how did it take place when, in the old days, most women died very young before menopause? What is the usefulness of a "female" who lives 100 years when she is menopausal at age 50?
The society of female human cells maintains a reproductive system that no longer has any reproductive utility; it is as if the queen of the bees was kept gratis by the workers when it was no longer able to lay its eggs.
Charles Darwin had 4 children, 4 sons. This shows that one can cogitate intelligently in one domain and be totally absent intellectually, totally silly, in a field even more important than the field that one explores, since this domain which is the conception of a human being covers all the others.
Einstein with his IQ of 160 participated in the "Bomb" and made three children, two very seriously handicapped by birth (thus two failed out of three). How did he compensate these two sabotaged lives for his egoistically reproducing principles in fact totally unreflective? Today (this day), more than eight hundred women will die in childbirth, their geniuses of husbands did they copulated by love?
The multicellular being, like the human being, is essentially a vehicle for the billions of bacteria and microbes of which it is a carrier, whereas it transmits only a few cells containing its own genome. For Life, as a whole, the multicellular being has little interest in its genome.
Human will probably have the sole interest of making tools, interstellar rockets, that will allow Life to swarm out of the planet. Life is very "applicant" for perenniality.
Frankly, you can always look at the sky, like a meerkat, but you'll never see any intelligent E.T, so beware of what arrives on Earth.
Why will there never be intelligence coming from space? Well, they will do as we do when we become intelligent, they will cease to make children, because by becoming intelligent we understand that life serving only those that already exist. It is totally ignoble to create an existence without asking him in advance his opinion on his desire to exist, with the enormous risks that we make take to someone, who has not asked for anything, which is perfectly out of our human rights... to say it in passing. I think there are certainly little or big men gray or green who scrutinize their sky.
And for billions of years that "pseudo-intelligent" life has developed here and there, the SETIs of out there have stopped waiting to act, or have fallen asleep, expecting to be shaken in their sleep ... If there are watchmen, they are certainly not biological ... because evolution, for a long time, has demonstrated to them that they were sapiens only very temporarily.
If somewhere in the universe, an intelligent civilization, has a billion years of existence, it is likely that it will have done during this billion years, the experience of evolution on a virgin planet. We may be this ongoing experience.
To make a computer on Earth, it takes 4.5 billion years of existence of the planet, 3 billion years of evolution of life, and 100 billion people accumulating knowledge and culture. And how long will it take for an evolving "evolutionary software" to concoct a conscious system?
Can a daughter species be born in the middle of its mother species? The 'Noble' species did not succeed in France because one has cut off its head. Can a 'Billionaire' species be born in the midst of the human species of the poor? Will the poor species let itself be ripped off by the sadism of the billionaire species?
The evolution by natural selection is already supplanted by the evolution by artificial selection which is much faster.
After a million years and 100 billion human beings, these damned guys ended up inventing morality, rationalism, then human rights, without noticing contradictions and that it put an end to the Humanity at the same time. I find it very amusing.
An individual has the impression of belonging to a species because he lives much shorter than the successive generations of individuals from which he is born. If he lived longer than, say, a million generations of successive individuals, he would see these individuals evolving and therefore would not have the impression of belonging to something stable.
Can we say that the human species, called "sapiens sapiens" by itself, is a culmination of evolution? Yes, if we consider that it is capable of analyzing the world very finely and philosophizing on the usefulness of its own existence and of having total empathy, which should involve the end of this species and therefore of Its improvement.
Why is the animal principle of the struggle for life and of dominance applied to us under the same conditions as for animals, if we are not animals? Why claim difference and intelligence if it is to do the same thing as the beasts?
A human being walks upright on two legs, and to distinguish him from the ostrich, he thinks on what is thought, universe, matter (TUM).
Evolution invented morality before religion. It is not necessary that people have a religion to be moral. But there is no morality in imposing on someone to exist. The morality we have invented is a superficial morality which does not hold water, hence the state of the human world. This will always be the case until involuntary or voluntary extinction.
Conclusion: Unlike the Cro-Magnon who got rid of the Neanderthal by probably phagocytating it in pain, the Sapiens Analensis, of which I am currently the only copy known to me, must delicately and surreptitiously get rid of the Sapiens Sapiens without conflict, without pain, without suffering, without misfortune, without illness.
If there was only one question that all those, who wish to manufacture a new life, were to ask themselves, it should be this one:
"Now that I have made a suffering being, how to undo suffering? "
Dead end
E. Berlherm (November 2016)
