Deduction for Future Evolution of Species

Technology Encourages Advanced Intellect

Knowledge presented by the scientific method shattered scholastic consideration for real-time events. Society began to question instead of take for granted the origins and purpose of life. {Peer} wrote: “The changes that are sometimes so hard for the scientific community to make in the society at large can be even harder to make within the scientific community.”

Yes, changes that greatly impact human existence are difficult to accept or reject, depending on one’s stance. Science not only discovers empirical fact, but they then have to figure out how to introduce new truth to society after they battle it out with their peers.

I like to do comparisons to see if we can predict any future historical happenings via deduction. Evolution and the printing press, if we allow these to be classified as encouraging progress, prepared humans for modernism. Once modern, humanity took a step back and developed post-modernism to correct the errors created by aggressive reason (rising ethics and repulsion to barbarism). Around this time, society received new input from offices of authority – the Internet piggy-backed off the printing press and Quantum Theory came roaring in to make evolution look like Link-in-Logs. One of the most cliché sayings, “History repeats itself,” is lingering…. If the printing press (15th c) presented the ability to issue in the scientific revolution (17th, 18th, 19th c) then we may deduce that approximately 200 years after the Internet (20th c) – maybe less if we account for the advancement of the human brain as means to reduce the rate of improvement – so…let us allot for exponential growth, say 115 years… with this rough estimation, science (though it might be called something different by then, think “natural philosophers” becoming specialist scientists) may expect another revolution around 2131 c.e.

This, of course, is under the assumption that Isis does not behead or blow up humanity, and that overpopulation has not encouraged the other organic systems to eradicate the human species as means of defense. The good news is that the advancement of species displays the immense possibilities for the future, but the bad news is that our intelligence may lead to unimaginable morphisms, which current consciousness fears the loss of human nature. I do not think the latter will happen. Human nature is adaptive, it will undoubtedly change but it will not disappear. Religion will also change, adapting to the demands of society – it has to because it is a human expression and a collective effort that creates society.

In one realm of existence, religion may stay the same until the people who believe its mantras no longer exist, but quantum theory tells us that there is a realm where religion merges with science, a realm where religion dies as well as one where science ends, and realms where chaos or harmony may be the result. In 115 years, human intelligence may balk or embrace multiple dimensional realms – we, unfortunately, are not yet evolved enough to accept the truth of the future.

Picture c/o:  http://www.lightworkersworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/move-on-483×300.jpg

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “Deduction for Future Evolution of Species

  1. I thought this was such a fascinating post. I agree with you that human nature will survive that it will adapt to the circumstances that confront it. I also think religion will undergo either another reformation or as you say die out. Who knows what the world will be like in 115 years, its a scary thought when you think of the state the world is in in 2016.
    There seems at the present moment a move towards a form of barbarism that is worrying. I see it in the Middle East with Isis and unfortunately within the US with the rise of Trump and his brand of fascism.
    I also think that despite the best efforts of all those who think otherwise, goodness will survive and never be crushed by evil.
    I enjoyed reading this post. Thanks for the follow I shall reciprocate. Michael

    Liked by 1 person

    • Yes, Michael, I see what you mean. Although I personally am not religious, I see the value and purpose of religion {means to unite individuals in society} – however, the Middle East is souring the taste of religion for the rest of the world. A catastrophic result could be a huge rejection of any religious efforts due to the barbarism of the Muslim “belief.” Many philosophers are aware that morality is inherent, but the mass populace of humanity relies on “direction from above” or religious method to govern their lives. Removing that foundation could be detrimental.
      I do not agree with your fear of Mr. Trump. He is a successful businessman who has the ability to fix our tragic economic situation. He wants to secure our nations borders in efforts to prevent Illegal Immigrants – he has nothing against Legal Immigrants who follow the rules, proof in his marriage – his wife is an Immigrant. He is a capitalist and will remove the unconstitutional practices of our current Commander in Chief as well as steer our country away from the evil cloud of Socialism that has been lurking around in the guise of “change”.
      Goodness requires effort. The human condition is one of selfish intent, it is the individual’s option to strive to be good. But, as Herr Professor noted, what is good if it refuses to alter for growth?

      Liked by 1 person

      • I agree with your statement that the Muslim faith is being eroded by radicals.
        I hope your thoughts on Trump are proved right for all of humanity. It interesting to meet a blogger who agrees with his ideas.
        Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I really enjoy philosophical discussion even if I’m a tad ignorant of so many things.

        Liked by 1 person

      • De rein, thank you for the philosophical hangloose. I recognize what you are saying, I have not seen much pro-Trump blog talk, but then again – the one’s I’ve read opposed to Trump are typically Canadian. Americans are not known to openly discuss politics, and I think that should be an area of concern. If the citizens were involved, then the ideal of “We the People” might actually be attainable.

        Like

  2. Happened upon your blog and it looks interesting and your 2017 degree achievement is admirable. I’ve never bee able to discuss philosophy,but I did notice the discussion and comment “Americans are not known to openly discuss politics, and I think that should be an area of concern. If the citizens were involved, then the ideal of “We the People” might actually be attainable.” and as an American I can’t help attempt to dispel that myth, lest other countries might take that to heart. I’ve been involved in Presidential primaries and elections for 40 years and I want to say that never have there been here more citizens involved. And THIS year–the “year of Donald Trump” and Bernie Sanders, have brought more involvement than ever. I attribute this to the advent of social media, where people are sharing their thoughts en mass. I’m sitting here right now watching the Republican debate and Trump isn’t able to say anything about foreign policy because he has no experience. Even his money and experience in making business deals will not give him the qualifications to be president. If we thought George W. Bush was dangerous–and he was the beginning of the end of our country–DJ Trump will surely be the end, if elected.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Hi, Mandy ~
      Thank you for the comment. What I meant about Americans and “mum’s the word on politics” is that politics is a noted topic to avoid when dealing with the public. The social agenda is to keep people from forming “political salons” I deduce, a way to keep Americans from dissenting. I’ve heard many a time, “never discuss politics or religion for fear of offending someone.” The real issue is authority does not want the public united or involved – that is demonstrated by the electoral voting process. Few Americans have ever read the US Constitution. It is an ugly truth, but a truism all the same.
      You wrote: “Trump isn’t able to say anything about foreign policy because he has no experience. ”
      I say, “excellent.” Because the shinnanegans that have been rolling in government needs to end. This contemporary push for socialistic ideals is not American. We are a republic, and a capitalist nation. Socialism – even the fictive “democratic socialism” lamented by lobbyists – is the front porch of communism. Capitalism is able to be reformed with the participation of the nation. Turning to socialism is the stuff of nightmares – read “1984” and recheck your chocolate rations. No, Mr. Trump does not have presidential experience, he was not a senator…but guess what? He has worked a job. He is gainfully employed – that is more than our current Commander in Chief who – before inauguration – “never worked a day in his life.” Foreign policy – I bet Trump, being CEO and head of a multi-million dollar company, has dealt with international affairs and will be able to absorb political measures on-the-job . America needs an intelligent businessman to handle our severe economic crisis. Once we fix the money, other policies will follow, because our own country needs attention. Improvements? Start here, America…the land of the free…needs to take care of herself before helping others. Basic law of survival.
      Again, thank you for the comment!
      @MmePhilosopher

      Like

Leave a reply...Share your thoughts on my thought:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s