When Will Our Specie Die Out?

[MagnetMan]

Metropolis and Modern Times are nearly a century old; they were close. We can know the future as certainly (or more) than we know the past. Star Wars is coming. If we survive global capitalism, and baring a Dark Matter wave destroying the local Universe at any time, we cannot just stay on Earth like this living off the plenty; that could last a few billion years at most before the Sun explodes. (Why does this concern us at all?) Population will increase and increase into cubes of trillions and zillions that are only tiny parts of larger components etc. Drugs, brain and genetic surgery, cyborgification, virtual reality, arcologies, star ships; then nothing will remain of the familiar body and mind of Alex Bowman. Capitalism will only be a brief phase in universal human history; "tech" is a backwards looking word for the machinery of nature that we are now alienated from. Presumably capitalism represents our alienation from our worth: you are worth a billion dollars, that value via transference is now in the money, or mediated through the money (because a robot can use money); at some time in the future we will cash in that value for ourselves. Maybe once one person (corporation) has all the money that will happen? Eg.: They always want to keep you addicted, a capitalist liberal welfare society will always give you at lease a little money, enough to survive, only mechanistic corporatism could take all the money for itself, hence capitalism contains the antithesis of its synthesis: a century into the future and the corporation will have all the money, the people will have none, then they are finally free of money and capitalism!

People seem to think that our life here on this planet
barring a total balls-up
will go on infinitely
or at least until we are engulfed by our star

that is so wrong
it might be true for all other life forms
but not ours
we have a special destiny
different from all others
or has nobody noticed it

At most
we have less than a couple dozen generations left
before our cycle comes to an end
the evolution of human consciousness
is not caught up in a circle
its is a tightening spiral
we are maturing ever faster

Check the spiraling dates

Stone Age 2.5m BC - 20,000 BC = 99,000 generations
Bronze Age - 20,000BC - 4000 BC = 560 generations
Iron Age - 4000BC - 500 BC = 160 generations
Steel Age - 500BC - 1900 AD = 100 generations
Nuclear Age 1900AD - ?
Solar Age ?
Cosmic Age ?

We are already talking about no more children

[MagnetMan]

]

Check the spiraling dates

Stone Age 2.5m BC - 20,000 BC = 99,000 generations
Bronze Age - 20,000BC - 4000 BC = 560 generations
Iron Age - 4000BC - 500 BC = 160 generations
Steel Age - 500BC - 1900 AD = 100 generations
Nuclear Age 1900AD - ?
Solar Age ?
Cosmic Age ?

Some people have said to me that these numbers seem to have been created arbitrarily, and not founded on any evidence, solely for the purpose to reinforcing the conclusion I have already come to.

Stone Age 2.5m BC
I have explained in the Birth if Mankind thread
why I selected 2.5 m BC as a start date

Bronze Age 20,000 BC
There is archeological evidence as to the start of agriculture
in seed bins that date back to 15,000BC
I added another 5000 years as a contingency for new discoveries

Iron Age 4000BC
The earliest script dates back to 4000 BC
clan farmers were governed orally
they had no need for script
so Scriptural dogma marks the start of kingdoms and the Iron Age of industrialization

Steel Age 500BC
Aristotle began the intellectual protest against religious Scriptural dogma around 500BC
which then initiated the scientific concept of empiricism
and the Steel Age of Religious protestation

Nuclear Age 1900 AD
The Nuclear Theory and QM revealed the true nature of energy and the limitations of Newtonian physics
which initiated a New Age consciousness of ontological inspiration and a devotion to sustainable planet management

Solar Age ?
My thesis argues that our evolution of consciousness is on-going
that once we get this planet running on its own energy
an Age of Terra-forming lies ahead

Cosmic Age ?
beyond that
beyond the limits of the speed of light
is a transcendental stage of cosmic unification

So I would say
I have a reasoned basis for supporting my conclusions

[MysticRose]

I would have said, “never”.
But it’s true that less and less people want children.
Young single parents get given a hard time these days.
Who knows maybe they’ll be the ones to save the world!!

[MagnetMan]

I would have said, “never”.

I am saying it too
Transcendental sages never die
they roam the Cosmos
traveling beyond Time and Space
now and then
some appear and disappear again
here
our lore is filled with such magical meetings

[i blame blame]

Stone Age 2.5m BC - 20,000 BC = 99,000 generations
Bronze Age - 20,000BC - 4000 BC = 560 generations
Iron Age - 4000BC - 500 BC = 160 generations
Steel Age - 500BC - 1900 AD = 100 generations
Nuclear Age 1900AD - ?
Solar Age ?
Cosmic Age ?

What society used Bronze 20,000 years ago?
What society used Iron 6,000 years ago?
What society used Steel 2500 years ago?

I propose:
Bronze Age: 3300 BC - 400 BC: Earliest manufacture of the bronze alloy in the Near East to earliest manufacture of iron in the Korean peninsula
Iron Age: 1300 BC - 400 AD: Earliest manufacture of iron in the Near East to latest time significant amounts of historical knowledge is gained by archaeology, rather than historiography
Steel Age: 1200 AD - 1900 AD: Manufacture of steel wasn't convenient until the 1800s.

[MagnetMan]

Stone Age 2.5m BC - 20,000 BC = 99,000 generations
Bronze Age - 20,000BC - 4000 BC = 560 generations
Iron Age - 4000BC - 500 BC = 160 generations
Steel Age - 500BC - 1900 AD = 100 generations
Nuclear Age 1900AD - ?
Solar Age ?
Cosmic Age ?

What society used Bronze 20,000 years ago?
What society used Iron 6,000 years ago?
What society used Steel 2500 years ago?

I propose:
Bronze Age: 3300 BC - 400 BC: Earliest manufacture of the bronze alloy in the Near East to earliest manufacture of iron in the Korean peninsula
Iron Age: 1300 BC - 400 AD: Earliest manufacture of iron in the Near East to latest time significant amounts of historical knowledge is gained by archaeology, rather than historiography
Steel Age: 1200 AD - 1900 AD: Manufacture of steel wasn't convenient until the 1800s.

Blame, you have no idea how pleased I am to have somebody else actually thinking about how human consciousness evolved

I have used existing Age designations simply for convenience
I did not want to launch a brand new theory on human development with too many digressions from the norm

I would preferably have based the date of each mass Shift of consciousness on the adjustments to our social and spiritual cooperatives rather than on our tools and weapons

Hunting Age 2.5M BCE - Animism
Farming Age 20,000 BCE - Shamanism
Crafting Age 4000 BCE - Religious Orthodoxy
Technological Age 500 BCE - Religious Protest

New occupational and theological ideologies resulting from populations impacting exponentially on regional environments forced us into mass shifts of consciousness, the survival tools and weapons needed, followed naturally.

Thanks again for your input

[i blame blame]

Hunting Age 2.5M BCE - Animism
Farming Age 20,000 BCE - Shamanism
Crafting Age 4000 BCE - Religious Orthodoxy
Technological Age 500 BCE - Religious Protest

Do we have any evidence of the shift in religion that you claim occurred 20,000 BC? And aren't many religions both animistic and shamanistic at the same time? By religious Orthodoxy, do you mean rigorously organized religion, imposing its world view on the population of the region?
And my protest, I assume you mean earliest records of thinkers questioning the religion of their culture.

New occupational and theological ideologies resulting from populations impacting exponentially on regional environments forced us into mass shifts of consciousness, the survival tools and weapons needed, followed naturally.

Thanks again for your input

Interesting hypothesis. It warrants research. Surely someone has done some work on this field already, from which we could learn and then refine pre-existing theories.

[MagnetMan]

Hunting Age 2.5M BCE - Animism
Farming Age 20,000 BCE - Shamanism
Crafting Age 4000 BCE - Religious Orthodoxy
Technological Age 500 BCE - Religious Protest

Do we have any evidence of the shift in religion that you claim occurred 20,000 BC? And aren't many religions both animistic and shamanistic at the same time? By religious Orthodoxy, do you mean rigorously organized religion, imposing its world view on the population of the region?

There is some archeological evidence of seed bins dating 15,000 BCE
I added another 5000 years back as a contingency for later discoveries

A quantum leap in consciousness is required
to move from the naive psyche of the hunter/gatherer
who relies on the day to day fortunes of the hunt
to that of an expectant farmer
who willing to toil in the soil for months in expectation of a future harvest
Original hunting families and to rely on extended family cooperation
both for harvesting as well as protection of the precious crops
thus the formation of clans, clan totems and and clan management
become the new social order

In this evolving process of the increased technological expertise
required to domesticate Nature and improve on Her produce
a mental switch into relative measure measurements of time and space
had to take place
this increased reliance on left brain analysis for survival
resulted in a consequent lessening of the naive purity
of right brain intuitive perceptions
of the here and now

As the human psyche gradually evolved into a farming mentality
our faith in the luck of the hunt
and natural ability to intuit the presence of spiritual forces lessened (animism waned)
The clansmen had to rely on a small percentage of children
born with the seer's gift (right brain predominant)
who trained to become shaman mediums
who could then
via the offering of sacrifices
intercede with ancestral spirits
who would in turn implore the weather Gods to be kind

A more complete explanation of each mass shift can be found in
Psyche-Genetics
The Metaphysical Implications of Human Evolution
used copies can be obtained cheaply on Amazon of you are interested

And my protest, I assume you mean earliest records of thinkers questioning the religion of their culture.

When clannish farm divisions and endless fueding over border infringements
became uneconomical due to population expansions
national industries became a survival imperative
Nationalizing the clans usually began with a ambitions of a ruthless warlord
who lusted for supreme paramountcy

The dynasties that followed had to be held together why more than word of mouth
thus the invention of an orthodox scripture
became the next quantum leap in mass consciousness

In order for the king;s written word to be obeyed at the far end of the Kingdom
and his totem image not be challenged by rival chiefs
his birth and his birth signs
had to be seen by all as ordained by an Almighty Godhead
thus the scripture had to be sold by his bishops
at the Word of God
and any tampering with it seen as heresy
punishable by death
and so orthodox religions
ministered by learned scribes emerged

Around 500 BC the intellectual Greeks began to challenge the Religious view
Aristotle, refuted Plato and all before
and initiated the scientific Protest
and our democratic argument that no one is the favored son of God

New occupational and theological ideologies resulting from populations impacting exponentially on regional environments forced us into mass shifts of consciousness, the survival tools and weapons needed, followed naturally.

Interesting hypothesis. It warrants research. Surely someone has done some work on this field already, from which we could learn and then refine pre-existing theories.

there are none that I know of
that are so explicit regarding the vital inter-relationship between social and spiritual evolutions.
None give us the origins of ego
of war
of scripture
of protest
Psyche-Genetics presents a generalized theory on all of that
all my research on pre-literate cultures was done in Africa
most readers argue that I have no right to presuppose
that existing Stone Age and Bronze Age groups
resemble the behavior of paleolithic ancestors
I beg to disagree
The environment dictates the necessities and realities of survival behavior
Common sense needs in similar conditions are timeless and unchanging
any modern experiment can easily prove that

The Phenomenon of Man by Tailhard de Chardin
traces the evolution of consciousness
is the closest to agreement with me on spiritual development

[keithprosser2]

'Specie' is another word for 'coin' and has nothing to do with 'species'.

[chaz wyman]

'Specie' is another word for 'coin' and has nothing to do with 'species'.

Coin means common (Latin; in the same like or type), and species is that with which we have in common with another of our species, hence specie has everything to do with species, because what defines us as a species is that which we share in common with others of our kind.

[keithprosser2]

I don't think there is any dictionary that gives 'specie' as the correct singular of 'species' in the biological sense. The ones I have looked up indicate 'specie' is most definitely incorrect in that context. The title of this thread should be "When Will Our Species Die Out?", unless, perhaps, we are discussing our system of coinage...

It's not one specie, two species.
It's one species, two specieses.

[chaz wyman]

I don't think there is any dictionary that gives 'specie' as the correct singular of 'species' in the biological sense. The ones I have looked up indicate 'specie' is most definitely incorrect in that context. The title of this thread should be "When Will Our Species Die Out?", unless, perhaps, we are discussing our system of coinage...

That is NOT what you said though is it? You said it "has nothing to do with 'species'."

It's not one specie, two species.
It's one species, two specieses. (THIS IS NOT A WORD AT ALL)

There is no reason why this should not be so. The only reason we tend not to do this is because during the Victorian age the word specie was often used for money. As thus to void confusion tended not to be used in everyday language. But I can assure you that when used quoting the Latin name of a plant or animal 'specie' was used correctly to note a 'species' as such.
I can quote you verse and chapter from Darwin Online if you want. Here from AR Wallace.

Alfred Russel Wallace letters and reminiscences. New York: Harper & Brothers. 1916, p85
distinctive peculiarities in some individuals which have thereafter become propagated through an entire race. Now, I should say that, a permanent peculiarity not produced by external causes is a characteristic of 'species' and not of mere 'variety,' and thus, if the theory of the 'Vestiges' is accepted, the Negro, the Red Indian, and the European are distinct specie.1: of the genus Homo. An animal which differs from another by some decided and permanent character, however slight, which difference

[keithprosser2]

It's one species, two specieses. (THIS IS NOT A WORD AT ALL)

Just my crude attempt at a facetious closure to a dull topic.

I would view the appearance of the occasional 'specie' as a singular for 'species' is an indication of how easy it is for even educated people to make this mistake, rather than it not being a mistake. I would certainly discourage people from writing or saying specie when they mean species in the singular sense. It is a smaller error than 'specieses', but only just.

[chaz wyman]

It's one species, two specieses. (THIS IS NOT A WORD AT ALL)

Just my crude attempt at a facetious closure to a dull topic.

I would view the appearance of the occasional 'specie' as a singular for 'species' is an indication of how easy it is for even educated people to make this mistake, rather than it not being a mistake. I would certainly discourage people from writing or saying specie when they mean species in the singular sense. It is a smaller error than 'specieses', but only just.

Gee - and I thought that I'd shown that using specie as the singular was grammatically correct, though uncommon - and only used when referring to a single instance of a species. Shame no one told Wallace, the co-discoverer of evolution by natural selection, that he was wrong all that time.

And, for what it is worth, I don't buy your excuse about your misspelling of "specieses."

[keithprosser2]

Wallace, for all his undoubted merits, was not a grammarian. I would not take Webster's word on evolution as definitive - would you?

It may be that 19th century dictionaries and grammars allow 'specie' (although I doubt it), but I defy you to find a modern reference that does not deprecate it.