Pseudo-science, why we love it. And how it has contributed

- to the unmistakable devolution of mankind, genetically speaking.
Lately I've had an obsession with pseudo-science and its degenerate effect on humans, in a similar manner to religion in general. However the funny thing about pseudo-science is how it presents itself to seemingly intelligent people, that openly detests everything that have to do with ignorance and religion. Essentially Pseudo-science is just another way to trick humans into the inevitable decline of human genetics - tobacco is a classic example of pseudo-science's destructive behavior. Children smoked it, the crippled, the insane. It's considered healthy, just as radioactive medicine, of all things. As "god" dies humans manifests their stupidity in pseudo-science, and this seems to be greatly correlated with the Industrialization of mankind, as our surroundings takes a great leap or ignorance seems to stay where it has always been - in the stone ages.

Personally this affects me to great extent, on a daily basis I worry about cancerous cysts that just waits to bite me in the ass, in other words our brains incorporate fairly futuristic surroundings in a primitive braincase, and although some people are more distant that others, it seems to be rather wide-spread, regardless of so called "medical" advancements. In other words we are living in a massive hoax, on a daily basis I see people full of themselves completely ignorant of their primitive origin. Basically what I am getting at is that humans are notorious for making the context evolve, while the "creators" devolve as a result - take Chernobyl for instance, a sabotage attack on the soviet union, which appeared man-made, however that was not the case, it is rather obvious that it was a sabotage attack in order to create a chain reaction within the soviet union which eventually caused the end of the cold war, and the fall of USSR. The release of nuclear waster would be equivalent to 400 atomic bombs, now think about the genetic effect on such a waste flow of radioactivity all over Europe, this CIA-sabotage has caused numerous cancer-related afflictions, mostly contributing to the undeniable devolution of mankind genetically speaking, as if the culture is not contributing enough, It is fair to say that the increasing numbers of autism and add, is directly correlated with man made pollutants like Chernobyl, and radioactive medicine widely distributed during the interwar period, to be frank.

I would say that, people born after this disaster should not be allowed to have children due to its degenerate effect on future generations, the 1986 generation and upwards are all living breathing mutants, being born in 1993 I am in the same club of misfits. Not only that but humanity has smoked every harmful plant on the fucking planet for thousands of years, the creation of civilization has only contributed negatively on the human genome, during the last 10000 years our brains have shrunk drastically, the very center of human complexity. As I type this I end up stopping every 2-second due to typos, dyslexic perhaps? NO NO NO JUST A FUCKING GRADUALLY DEVOLVING HUMAN, and that is the bottom line. PROVE ME WROOOONG....

Structure your post and someone might actually take their time to read it.

And on topic: Not only pseudo-science is to blame for the genetic downfall of humanity. "Real" science is more to blame since with medication we have been able to step outside of the entire concept of natural selection.

The increased rate of things like autisim and asbergers would also be part of this, a hundred years ago someone with autism or strong cases of asberges would not be able to function in society. With the medication, treatment and understanding we now have of these handicaps people who otherwise would most likely die without spreading their gene on is now able to do so, contributing to the increased rate.

Oh wow, its so long i don't think I can read everything. Your'e passionate about this topic huh?

I can't even tell if it's just copied and pasted, let alone take it seriously.

This is obviously not copy paste fyi, and chlor basically sums my post up, being slightly autistic myself, I know how humans are declining, genetically speaking.

What exactly do you mean by "psuedo-science"? Assuming that everyone knows what you're talking about doesn't make for a very good discussion, as there will inevitably be misunderstandings.

On the subject of weakened genetics, if you want to push the issue, you can say that our entire society itself is detrimental. "Survival of the fittest" no longer applies to us, unless you define "fittest" in a very abstract way. Mankind as a whole does not have to run from wild animals or use brute strength to accomplish everything. Most of the people that suffer and die off (what used to be "the weak") don't die because they lack talent or ability or strength; they die because they're poor, because they don't have the money to what what they want or need to do. You can argue that acquiring money is a necessary trait and can thus be considered strength, but that ignores the many problems that arise from trying to get money. One such problem is the dilemma of college - you need to get a well-paying job so you can get out of poverty; you need to go to college to be able to get a well-paying job; you need money to go to college. If you do not have money, then you cannot go to college, thus you cannot get a well-paying job. (That is very simplified, of course.) The saying, "You have to spend money to make money" is very true, but how is one supposed to make money when one has no money to begin with? So, a person born into poverty may be unable to escape it due to the very simple fact that he was born into a bad situation. Strength has no role; even if the person is incredibly smart, he would have to rely on the strength of others to be able to go to college, through grants and scholarships and the like.

God, this is getting long.

People can be useful in many ways, and as a society, we try to make use of many different kinds of people, though we do not show them all the value they deserve. Movie stars make an enormous amount of money, but they are relatively worthless, whereas construction workers earn a lot less despite being incredibly important. So, people learn that it would be better to be a movie star than a construction worker. Their view becomes askew. Isn't it better for the human race to have houses and roads than movies and TV shows? Sounds like a silly argument, but that's what "survival of the fittest" is. It's all about what it takes to survive, nothing more. If we wanted to truly only have the "fittest," then we would kill all intelligent people and keep only those that can survive in the wild.

Then again, we came to this point where we don't live in the wild through evolution, so maybe I'm full of shit. My point is, saying that one person is more fit to be alive than another is just asking for problems. That's not how we live. Every kind of person has problems that another kind of person can point out. Physical people can't build guns, while smart people can't fire guns - that sort of thing.

Also, some say that autism is a form of evolution, with those on the lower-end of the spectrum being "failures." It may be neurodiversity, the brain trying something different to achieve better results than what we currently have. One could use Albert Einstein as evidence of this; he is regarded as one of, if not the, most important scientists of humanity, and he is believed to have had Asperger's. (Then there's the kid that recently appeared that could possibly go beyond Einstein, who has Asperger's.) In fact, a lot of incredibly intelligent and important figures are believed to have had some form of autism. It's an interesting field of study, though one does have to watch out for the crazies that are more concerned with making themselves feel better than any actual science.

Regarding Einstein and his autism - he was a barely functioning individual from a practical point of view, if it had not been for his subordinates he would have perished, basically the notion I am getting is that autism may have a positive effect on a certain few individuals, but the fact of the matter is that TOO many people have it, and their so called intelligence does not come to fruition being that autism for most people is detrimental, me being one of many suffering as a cause.

[font=verdana][color=green]I fail to see how you can make such a bold claim.

Just because autism exists, does that mean that the human race is declining? Of course not; in fact, as has already been said in this thread, it could be seen as a evolutionary step. Sure, it does have detrimental effects, but that's what evolution is about; random genetic anomalies appearing and, those that positively effect the species, stay with us and those that don't benefit the race eventually die out.

I don't know how I missed this the first time (I apologize for not spending enough time reading it), but this stuff stuck out just now:



Can you really talk about pseudo-science (which has still not been defined; to me, pseudo-science is stuff meant to appear truly scientific when it is not, such as diets that claim to understand body chemistry but actually don't, but it appears to be something very different in this thread) while throwing out a theory such as this? Many 9/11 theories hold more water than the theory that the US caused the Chernobyl disaster.



No, that isn't fair. Do you have even one scientific study that suggests that the increased rate of autism diagnoses are related to pollutants, let alone what happened at Chernobyl? That's even crazier than saying that vaccines cause autism, which itself is a major misconception due to people believing that correlation equals causation.



So, the human race should be allowed to end? Because that's how reproduction works, one generation produces another generation, and that generation produces another generation, and so on. If every member of a generation stopped having kids, there'd be no next generation and no continuation of the human race.

[quote="erikj1508"]Not only that but humanity has smoked every harmful plant on the fucking planet for thousands of years, the creation of civilization has only contributed negatively on the human genome, during the last 10000 years our brains have shrunk drastically, the very center of human complexity.[quote]

First, if we smoked every bad thing on the planet for thousands and years yet continued to exist, doesn't that mean that those things aren't very bad? Or maybe they are bad, but the entire human race doesn't smoke them to a detrimental degree, so it doesn't actually affect the human race as a whole.

Second, civilization could be said to be a product of evolution. It is, after all, what we've worked towards over the course of many, many centuries.

Third, if our brains have shrunk, is that really a bad thing? Maybe they're more complex and can thus take up less space. I think that'd be good. Whatever the reason, I doubt modern-day humans are less intelligent than cavemen. It boggles my mind that anyone could even suggest that people 10,000 years ago had it better than modern-day people.

Finally, is there an ideal genome or genetic structure? You seem to be implying that there is, but you never define it. If we're so shitty, then what is better? If modern-day society is degrading, then what would upgrading be like?

Yes, most definitely it is a paradox but humans that lived 10000 years ago during the last ice age, were way more intelligent in terms of natural selection - the conditions where extremely harsh to say the least, thus women mated with men that were capable of killing bears and lions with just some puny stone tool, they were brutes in our eyes, but in reality EXTREMELY intelligent physically and mentally, as opposed to today's men that sits inside all day with multiple mental disabilities, and not to mention all the physical handicaps like asthma, allergies etc. If you don't see what I am getting at humanity is truly doomed. But the upside to this inevitable decline of man is that we make it possible for certain individuals to blossom, like einstein etc. which comes up with new tools that makes us decline even more due to decadence as a byproduct of these tools. like vaccines for instances, by vaccinating nations we end up with people that never should have existed. They were supposed to die in a natural manner through smallpox or something along those lines, the fact that we don't have any plagues or famines is a disaster for natural selection. Now what could possibly end this disaster? Well in my opinion the answer is simple: a nuclear war - if a new war emerges it will most likely wipe out 90% of the human population and the remainder will end up living in a so called "primitive" manner, it is simply our way of prejudice towards the stoneage, just like we look down on niggers. These individuals will be what Hitler sought after: "ubermensch".

Not to be rude but, I think that you are misunderstanding how evolution and natural selection works. There is the common misconception that natural selection chooses the strongest and the best individuals, this has never been the case. Natural selection works on the basis of fitness. If a being is fit enough to survive and pass on its genetic code to the next generation, then it does.

Since large scale evolutionary changes are difficult to see within a few generations I will use a viral resistance as my example. Specifically, I am taking about malaria. In areas of Africa that have large outbreaks you will find that the bulk of the population is heterozygous for sickle cell anemia. The reason is that the cells sickle when the virus attempts to infect, thereby losing the host and the virus is later destroyed. Giving the person a better chance of survival.

But natural selection is not a kind mistress. Those that live in areas with outbreaks of malaria the are homozygous for sickle cell anemia have forced to live with that pain of the disease, and may still die young. Those that are homozygous for "normal" red blood cells are under the most risk for dying form malaria. Even two parents that are heterozygous for sickle cell anemia only have a 50% chance that their children will be heterozygous for sickle cell anemia and have the best chance of surviving to adulthood.

As for attaining the "ubermensch," it is the same as attaining perfection. Perfection is not a fixed constant as our minds would like to think. Perfection is dependent on the environment in which it exists. Even the ubermensch would be in danger under the sea should his underwater environment take in water and be in want of gills. Or should he be in space and the hull of his ship rupture he will curse his vascular system as his blood boils.

Autism isn't going to help anyone if you still have the communication skills of a 2 year old...