The Genetics of Oppression
65Good to the Very Last Drop
Coincidence, Synchronicity or Just Plain Luck?
In my web wide wanderings, I often find one thing whilst looking for another. It’s one of the small joys in life in world that seems to be growing daily more grim.
While scrolling down any given web page, reading an article relevant to the current research, I may notice a heading, a link to another article, which I find irresistible. Often it’s just a waste of time, sometimes it’s so enticing that I abandon what I’m doing and jump right on the new lead.
In several of my essays and comments, I have alluded to my opinion regarding the psychopathic condition of people who seek dominance over all others being a genetic aberration. It seems my fanciful musings may not have been far off the mark.
In a comment the other day, I said that I believed that the predacious, oppressor trait was not dominant and that it only manifested in a small portion of the population. I also stated that it is our basically cooperative nature and our innate desire to be helpful that makes such a large segment of the human race susceptible to victimization by a small minority of individuals who are afflicted with what I believe to be a genetic deficiency.
My comment:
"For my part, I will say this; I do not believe that human morality, for the vast majority, is based on hate, envy, greed or self-interest. In fact, to the veritable contrary, the basic benevolence and cooperative nature of most people is what has allowed a very small, aberrant and abhorrent group to prey upon the majority of the species for millennia. I like to think that this negative trait will eventually be eliminated by evolution, provided our species can survive long enough. The small group of deviant individuals is like a parasite within the body of humanity. They have managed to pass on whatever genetic flaw they possess through the ages. They can only survive if there is a significantly larger population of healthy, sane and basically good people to maintain them."
I recently found some agreement and support for this opinion.
“You see, evolutionarily speaking, psychopaths should not exist. Throughout history it can be seen that human beings have needed to co-operate and care about one another in order to survive and produce a new generation that will carry on the processes of society. Most human dynamics are based on people trying to work out their problems and come to resolutions agreeable to the greatest number or, at the very least, in the interactions between two people. The issue of trust is paramount. Someone who betrays your trust is someone you cannot live or work with. Therefore, psychopaths, who are untrustworthy, should have long ago become extinct. But that isn't the way things are. It appears, in fact, as if psychopathy has increased!”
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/160925-Tunguska-Psychopathy-and-the-Sixth-Extinction
So how is it that a few parasitic individuals, who are incapable of providing for their own needs, manage to carry a recessive gene forward for so many generations? As I postulated in my comment above, this small minority requires a large, non-defective population to support their existence.
“Evolutionary psychologists regard psychopathy as an inherited personality style that has evolved because glib, deceitful individuals—as a minority within a larger population of trusting folk—often reproduce with much success.”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_24_170/ai_n26711276
From the same source:
“Other investigators, such as neuroscientist R.J.R. Blair of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) in Bethesda, Md., regard psychopathy as the result of a still-unspecified genetic disorder. The inherited defect interferes with the workings of the brain's emotion system, which is centered in the amygdala, A structure especially concerned with perceiving dangerous situations.”
Personally, I see no conflict between these to two conclusions. They seem to me mutually inclusive. The second gives us the source of the defect while the first explains how those inflicted with it have managed to pass it on through the centuries.
There are other examples in nature of parasites with evolved dependency upon a specific host species. If the host species becomes extinct, so does the parasite. It is unable to survive with any other host.
“Some species of parasites are termed species specific. This means that they can complete their life cycle in only one species of host. Should they enter the wrong species they are unable to complete their life cycle and die, all generally without the host requiring treatment.”
http://ratguide.com/health/digestive/endo-parasites.php
It seems clear to me that the psychopath/society relationship is that of highly specialized parasite/host. That the psychopath operates externally to the host in no way disqualifies it as a parasite. The common mosquito is without question parasitic as are the tick, the leech and many other bloodsuckers. I think this arrangement is unique in one regard however. I know of no other situation wherein the host and parasite are, apparently, of the same species.
The psychopath/parasite cannot survive without non-psychopathic humans to prey upon. It needs the support of other humans, as do we all, but is incapable of functioning as a cooperative member of the population. Nor can it survive on its own or within a group comprised only of psychopaths. Although often highly intelligent, they frequently lack any real abilities or skills other than deceit, malicious cunning and ruthless self-interest enhanced by a complete absence of conscience or remorse.
In its extreme form the psychopath simply resorts to outright violence to satisfy its needs. These cases are by far in the minority however. They may be a separate variety, a sub-group, which is not completely parasitic in some instances. In any case, however horrible their acts may be, they are not nearly as deadly as those who function within the system of government and business disguised as “aggressive”, “ambitious” and “savvy” type-A go-getters.
"There's currently a bull market in corporate psychopaths, according to psychologist Paul Babiak of HRBackOffice, an industrial-consulting firm in Hopewell Junction, N.Y. Organizations undergoing major changes, such as downsizing or mergers, provide a chaotic atmosphere that savvy psychopaths exploit, Babiak holds. They cozy up to a firm's power brokers, manipulate coworkers, and intimidate underlings on their way up the corporate ladder, stealing everything possible along the way."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_24_170/ai_n26711276/pg_2?tag=content;col1
"Not all psychopaths resort to violence, however. Highly intelligent people with psychopathic personalities find fertile, nonviolent opportunities in conning and manipulating others, in Porter's view."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_24_170/ai_n26711276/pg_2?tag=content;col1
The ratio of parasite to host must be kept quite small or the entire host population might be wiped out leaving the parasite unable to survive. In the past, when the drain on the host has become to great, the population has attempted to exterminate the parasite, hence the repeated cycle of bloody revolutions throughout history. Evidently, the effort at eliminating the parasite has never been fully successful.
Threatened with extinction, the psychopath displays great skill at hiding in plain sight. A psycho-camouflage of sorts is employed, allowing the parasite to mimic the sense of sorrow, dismay or other feelings not actually present in the psychopathic character. Some always manage to survive by temporarily blending with the host population.
The most ironic aspect of this paradigm is that these life draining parasites, riding on the body of humanity like great, bloated ticks, are the first to cry bloody murder should anyone express favor for any action, program or institution that can be seen as a social safety net of any kind. Such people, they scream, are freeloaders, moochers and a drain on society. The hypocrisy is breathtaking. Part of the skill set I suppose.
I fear we are now approaching that point where the parasite is perilously close to overwhelming the host. I only say approaching since I think it will take a little time yet to reach that Rubicon but have no doubt that we will if things continue on their present course. That, of course, means death for all, including the parasite.
Governments of the world and monolithic global corporations have become overrun with psychopaths in the highest positions of power. Their insatiability threatens to consume our species.
It has always been my hope and abiding conviction that humanity would evolve beyond the juvenile, even primitive stage in which we currently seem to be mired.
It seems, at the very least, that we are about to enter into a great transitional period. It promises to be a time of unthinkable hardship, possibly leading to our extinction.
A second possible scenario might produce a small number of human survivors who arise from the rubble, free at last from the oppressor gene to build a new world and the very first human civilization.
The third and sadly most probable possibility is that within that small tribe of human survivors will be two or three, hiding in plain sight, waiting for just the right moment to begin the cycle all over again.
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
I agree with you on this. (Well, I usually agree with you, so no surprises there!) Seriously though, I've been thinking a lot about this lately--about how so many people in the U.S. now elevate intolerance and selfishness to the level of some supreme virtue when the best thing that can be said about it is that it's dysfunctional and immature, and in extreme cases pathological and dangerous.
I don't wish anyone ill (well, I try not to) but it will be interesting to see how these 'let's all live off the land and do whatever we want' types fare when they get their wish. Which they will. Soon.
Hope they've honed those shoe-making skills.
Thank you justmesuzanne. Glad you enjoyed my graphic.
Hey pgrundy. Sorry again about the delay. Hopefully you've already read my explanation in my response to your other comment.
The thing I love about this is that I now find seriously credentialed "experts" who are finally reaching the same conclusions that I, a high school drop-out, came to a long time ago!
If you haven't yet, please read Shock Doctrine by Naomi Kline. It lays out in very clear, specific and historically accurate documentation what I've been babbling about all this time. "Chicago School" economics, from Smith to Friedman, based on completely pathological beliefs, has been behind a great deal of what has led us to where we are today.
If you like, I have a PDF version I could probably email to you.
Another solid read CWB, and top marks for readability. Dirty DNA in mankind will not be changed when it becomes scientifically plausible to do so in the near future because antiquated thinking in the populace cannot stay up with science. Professor Hawkings and many others believe that it will take society hundreds of years to make changes to the human condition simply because that very DNA is the apologist for itself, and we live so that dirty DNA can live. Our DNA does not care if we live, just that it is passed on to another generation.Living in a modern world with outrageous stress depletes serotonin and therefore this type of low self worth (disregard for others) will continue as long as we continue in ignoring what would be obvious if humanity was not blinkered by all sorts of bunkum like religion and other mentally crippling beliefs where credulity is tested to breaking point. see "The hedonistic Imperative"
Thank you earnestshub.
Human evolution, like any of the larger more "complex" life forms of Earth, is a long slow process. "Simpler" creatures, bacteria, viruses, insects, adapt much more rapidly thanks to their short and prolific reproductive cycles.
For any really dramatic changes to take place within the human species it seems we need a major, near extinction event to occur.
Looks like that may soon be in the offing so who's to say what the results may be?
I've just jumped quickly to the Hedonistic Imperative. At first glance it looks pretty scary.
Seems like another ill advised attempt at playing god. Since, IMHO, there is no god I suppose we might be able to play the part of the character we've invented in the first place. I just don't know if it's such a great idea.
I will definitely bookmark this site and give it a thorough study. I don't want to jump to erroneous conclusions and wrongly judge the book by the cover.
Thank you for bringing it to my attention.
@ earnestshub.
I've been taking a preliminary look at Hedonistic Imperative. Is this thing for real or just some colossal parody?
How much of it have you read? Do you get to the section on "Liberal Eugenics"? The moment I even see that word, red flags go up and warning sirens start sounding.
This appears to me, so far, to be nothing more than a very high tech, intentionally esoteric and deliberately misleading version of the Nazi dream of a super race made in the image of a small group of ideologues.
I will attempt to dig deeper but, so far, I've got a bad feeling about it. No species as defective as humans has any business attempting to take command of functions, such as evolution, which Earth has billions of years of "experience" at. That sort of human arrogance has gotten us to the verge of extinction.
"For my part, I will say this; I do not believe that human morality, for the vast majority, is based on hate, envy, greed or self-interest. In fact, to the veritable contrary, the basic benevolence and cooperative nature of most people is what has allowed a very small, aberrant and abhorrent group to prey upon the majority of the species for millennia."
Very well said. I'm with you on that. Kinda why it seems our politics are one-sided and driven by cash anymore.
"Governments of the world and monolithic global corporations have become overrun with psychopaths in the highest positions of power. Their insatiability threatens to consume our species."
You just keep hitting point for point. I remember a sign my father had hanging up in our garage when I was younger...
"Money is the root of all evil...I wonder where I can find some of that evil."
Genetics...from Hitler to Planned Parenthood and back again..disgusting stuff.
Thought you might appreciate this video. I think it would only help make this article "pop" more:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=174QiTrzFV8
Its about eugenics.
By the way, great art work. Ever do anything on the side? When I complete my next EP I'd like to have some competent artwork. =)
Thanks for this thought provoking article.
Sincerely,
G|M
I'm very familiar with Naomi Kline's work. I think she has pretty much nailed it. The 'Greed is good' credo is finally unraveling. Too bad for all of us it took so long.
Great work, CWB - I will have to look a little more into that, when I have time, but it is an interesting analogy. I suspect that nurture has a little to do with it, too - the parasites are also educated about how to be effective parasites in a not so virtuous cycle.
Agree with you about the Hedonistic Imperative - echoes of 'Brave New World' there. I was not very happy with that at all - perhaps I have read too many Greek tragedies, but 'one must suffer to be wise.' How can you have pleasure if there is no pain to contrast it against?
I appreciate your feedback G|M. It's nice to have a few like minded folks responding.
Eugenics is forgotten but not gone. Thanks for the link. I'll bookmark it and check it out later.
Thanks re the graphics. I try to do all my own art for each essay. Let me know what kind of image you have in mind and I'd be happy to see what I can come up with. Gratis.
Yes she has pgrundy.
She's very meticulous with her research and that makes it not only valuable as a motivational work but also an historic document.
Hey Sufidreamer! Thank you.
I was just really excited to see my pet theory validated to some extent by somebody with "credentials". It's amazing how people will blindly deny something that can be clearly seen with a little common sense, can you say climate change, but will accept even the most absurd rubbish from someone simply because they have some letters after their name.
Yeah, that Hedonist thing gives me the willies! I love science but, come on!
And yes, life is a stew of contrasts. It's really the only way we can learn to evaluate things.
lol - the Milgram experiment shows that scientific authority is as easily abused as any other. I think that the most important part is the subgroup that you pointed out. I have a few links for you to look at - they support the idea that some people will always do their master's bidding (only the first one is slightly self-serving!).
http://www.experiment-resources.com/asch-experimen
http://www.stanleymilgram.com/milgram.php
They all support your idea of a controlling minority and a sub-group who blindly obey. A historian such as yourself will have no problem matching this up with the various regimes :)
Thank you very much Sufi. I'll bookmark these links after I give them a look, which I'll do right now.
Information, knowledge, is my, dare I say, obsession. I have a problem keeping up with Hub Pages because I'm always digging for more knowledge.
I've actually become quite addicted.
Wow! This is like the Matrix. Mind boggling even though I can see it very well. How cunning it is that if the world wanted to survive it would take a total psycopath to destroy a psycopath.
Though I agree with nearly everything you said one thing does come to mind about this parasite/host... neither seems to survive withoute each other...
Thus your conclusion that destruction is enevitable. Lest that worst case scenario happens and a psycopath becomes the hero.
Seems to me that all humans are host and parasite. Non conformity is just as crimpling as total comformity. Though I had thought I made this up... I was looking into my own thoughts about devolution.
That in order to survive or for evolution advance, we would have to take a huge step back...wayyyyyy back. My theory. It was perfect, became defective and becomes more defective and fragile with time... like thining the tension rod and resorts to the most basic form of "civilization" but also holds with it "every bit of knowledge".
However, I also can't wait to finally be a civilized species.
Well sandra, I think you're confusing the host/parasite relationship with the symbiotic relationship.
There are numerous examples in nature of two species that "use" each other to survive. The difference is, the relationship is beneficial to both parties. A parasite will always ultimately kill its host.
For example, there are bacteria that live in the human gut. They help us digest our food and are crucial to our survival.
The relationship between plant and animal life is another example of a mutually beneficial exchange. We and most other animals breathe oxygen. Plants breathe carbon dioxide. We and most other animals exhale carbon dioxide. Plants exhale oxygen. Symbiosis.
No, not really. It is a symbiotic relationship. You said in your hub that there are two psychosis, violent and non violent and you also said that the parasite (in this case concerning psyc..) that the parasite will not kill it's host... its threat is primarily external...(as is human waste to our environment and so on it goes)
In this case the the "bad" parasite views external host as a "threat", which can be considered also a parasite... the original parasite is beneficial to both parties, itself and its host... I think with regards to this hub, that it depends on your perspective... we have all inherited this oppressor trait and it is dominate.
non violent or violent, in the end ( like you said before in your comment, the parasite ultimatly kills the host) but it seems rather backwards... the host kills always kills the parasite. (as human waste is to our enviromnet).
the deplorable circumstances when it comes to pyschosis or the "oppressor gene, or trait" is that neither party can see it in themselves... like a mirror that has no reflection.
sandra.
"For my part, I will say this; I do not believe that human morality, for the vast majority, is based on hate, envy, greed or self-interest. In fact, to the veritable contrary, the basic benevolence and cooperative nature of most people is what has allowed a very small, aberrant and abhorrent group to prey upon the majority of the species for millennia. I like to think that this negative trait will eventually be eliminated by evolution, provided our species can survive long enough. The small group of deviant individuals is like a parasite within the body of humanity. They have managed to pass on whatever genetic flaw they possess through the ages. They can only survive if there is a significantly larger population of healthy, sane and basically good people to maintain them."
I know CWB. Maybe what I am trying to say is the a parasite always needs the host to survive. Without the host there is no parasite.
You said parasites always kill the host. I said, the host always kills the parasite. in other words, the host is the parasite.
People can oppress themselves as much as an external oppresor can. You have heard the term that people are often a lot harder on themselves then others are, right?
Know I am not trying to fight you or anything like that but with all this information you have given read in succession with your Liberitarain hub... it does seem that there does exist a master host-parasite, a perfectly symbotic relationship...and possibly two of them.
Are they good or bad? That is my question. I know the battle of the gods methaphore doesn't play well with a lot of people, but look at the similarities. (semantics of course)
If a host and a parasite are able to exist without either harming the other then, by definition, they are not host and parasite, they are symbiotic.
Symbiotic relationships are inherently good for both parties. Parasitic relationships only benefit the parasite. Living within the host and depleting it of its life force enables the parasite to complete its life cycle while usually causing the early termination of the host life. That’s the difference between parasitic and symbiotic relationships.
Some external parasites, such as mosquitoes, may not kill the host since the drain on the host system is temporary. When I talk about a specialized host/parasite scenario, I’m referring to things that actually enter the body of the host and take up permanent residence there in order to complete their life cycle.
Things like leaches, ticks and black flies, although they still qualify as parasites, don’t have the same extreme, highly specialized dependency on a specific species. I guess I should have been more precise. Sorry.
When I describe the psychopathic element of the human population as a parasite, I’m referring to it in relation to the entire human race, not with any individual person. The non-psychopathic body of humanity is like a single organism that has been infected with a number of life draining parasites, the oppressive psychopaths.
Ah, okay now I get what your saying. Thanks for taking the time to clear up my confusion.
And I still think this is one of the most intriguing hubs or articles I have ever read... into the human psyche. Awesome!
It's my pleasure sandra. As I said, I should have been more explicit in the hub.
Thanks for being here.
amazing thoughts here, really interesting, would you agree that there is a dimension of the chicken or egg scenario at work here?
the reason i suggest this is perhaps because many people get into politics for the right reasons but then turn into corporate tools,
so is it the power which they gain which releases what you term psychopathic tendencies, or is it infact the system as a whole, whether it be a corporation or the overlying structure of capitalism. If it was the latter then this would suggest that it is an amalgamation of society that influences these people in power and one which we all contribute to...
thoughts please!
Greetings Cellar Door and thank you.
I don’t really see this particular situation as an “either-or” paradigm.
In some cases there is undoubtedly the corruption of a good Samaritan involved. It’s a bit like people being converted from one religion to another.
I would say that those who are corruptible already had the seeds of their corruption planted in their genetic makeup. In business or politics there are occasionally those who refuse to play the game. They are driven out of office, resign in disgust or, in the worst case scenario, murdered.
It's similar to what happens in the case of fundamentalist religious conflicts; if you will not renounce your religion and convert to mine you’ll be burned at the stake as a heretic.
My main focus here is the fact that science is beginning to reach a conclusion that I theorized some time ago; the psychopathic need to dominate, oppress and enslave is in fact a genetic aberration.
Apparently it presents in different degrees so some people become serial killers, some never get beyond school yard bully. Some find their way into government, some into the corporate hive.
The primary point is that this condition is genetic.
These psychopathic individuals are a small minority. They are able to dominate a vast majority due to the fact that most of us are inherently cooperative and helpful by nature. It leaves us very vulnerable to those who, lacking any real productive social skills or conscience, resort to guile and manipulation to create a situation in which they can exploit the productivity of others.
In other words, they get to sit back and enjoy all the fruits of labor while they do absolutely nothing to earn them. They are in fact parasites.
For me, it makes the cycle of human history more easily understood. It helps explain why we keep repeating the same mistakes, a conundrum that’s had me banging my head against the wall for years.
When one considers the human race as a single entity, then it’s not actually comparable to person making the same error repeatedly. It’s more like a person being afflicted by the same disease repeatedly over time. Until a cure is found, the disease will keep recurring.
I actually see only two possible resolutions to this situation.
The “psychopath gene” is an evolutionary cul de sac. A society comprised of only such individuals would not be able to survive. The human race will either struggle along until all individuals carrying this gene, which is not useful to species survival, are selected out. Humans will then be able to continue along the evolutionary path to actual civilization.
The second and sadly most likely possibility is homo sapiens will simply become extinct.
Pragmatically I see the latter scenario as the most probable. Nevertheless, I still hold out hope for the former.
I feel as though I'd need to swot up on a lot of science before giving as erudite a response as many here. I will say this, however. It makes bloody good sense to me and I've thought the same for years now.
You won't be surprised that throughout the Bush reign, I heard co-workers, bosses, neighbors, and strangers say things like, "So what's wrong with the Patriot Act? I have nothing to hide." They say the same about police brutality, torture, racism, gay-bashing and on and on ad infinitum.
They are, of course, blind to the fact that this makes them equally guilty and inhumane as those beating the prisoner.
And I'm not surprised in any way that 'believers' in far greater numbers are all for torture, long prison sentences or (better yet, in their eyes) the death sentence. These are the very enablers who have already given their freedom of thought and action over to false gods and, like converts of every stripe, will bash you into the ground to make you do the same.
MindField, there’s nothing wrong with absorbing a little science from time to time. It’s been my experience however that, as often as not, things are much simpler than they appear at first glance.
Common sense and the ability to interpret observable phenomena impartially are usually sufficient to reach a state of awareness that will result in clarity and understanding.
It has been the objective of our upper class, for many generations, to turn off that observational and analytic skill. They have sought quite successfully to indoctrinate, through educational and marketing propaganda, the majority of society to accept without question the status quo that they create to facilitate their agenda.
Critical thinking has been all but eliminated in a sizable portion of the population.
These are the "believers" you speak of. They are out there it's true. However, I try to believe that their numbers are shrinking. There are many reasons I feel this way, too many to enumerate in a comment. Maybe I'll do an essay.
Anyway, this type of behavior is counter-survival for the species. Whatever else we may be, homo sapiens are still animals. A bipedal, mammalian omnivore with the primary purpose of perpetuating the species.
The force of nature that drives us is stronger than any human psychosis. Any individuals, which put the species at risk of extinction, will ultimately be weeded out, providing the species survives that long.
Given enough time, the parasite will be eliminated. The only question is, will we be given enough time?
Hi coldwar: It takes about 200k yrs for a noticeable change to occur "naturally" in a species ( although the rapid evolution of the human brain contradicts this.) If we dont, thru the processes of genetic engineering, quickly sublimate our bent for predation with a powerful, pragmatic desire to "survive," lack of time will take us to the brink of extinction.... Good presentation!
Thanks qwark.
I certainly agree that time is not our ally in the quandary we've created for ourselves.
The parasite gene is a real paradox. Those who present with it would not be able to survive in a world where all were of the same bent. It's traits are not beneficent to the species as a whole and it should have been selected out by now had it been present from the beginning of our evolution.
But if it hasn't been with us from the start, where did it come from and how long has it been dragging us toward extinction?
It has to be a freak mutation that provides a niche of survivability to a sub-group that would otherwise have died out within one or two generations.
Hi CWB, Fascinating read, as always. If psychopathology truly is genetic in nature, you would expect scientists to be working to isolate the gene or gene combo involved. A quick amnioscentesis and the parents could decide to birth a psychopath --- or not (just like other genetic mutations).
Meantime, it appears that not all psychopath behavior is "evil" per se. The scenario you described of the aggressive A-type in business -- that's actually a desirable trait for many companies.
Thanks Mighty Mom.
There is, in fact, research going on.
Meantime, what's desirable to corporations is almost always not in the best interests of the rest of the world.
Even within the corporate world this type of personality takes its toll. I'm sure you've heard the term "office politics".
During my years at the corporate HQ of Office Depot I saw quite a few more intelligent, more qualified candidates passed over for promotion in favor of the more manipulative, deceitful and unscrupulous "type-A" aggressors you speak of.
Hi Coldwar: "Modern" human behavior, broken down into four aspects: abstract thinking, planning, innovation and symbolic behavior (images and rituals,) has only existed for approximately 50k years. Considering that the processes of "natural selection" are slow, serpentine and tortuous, 50k yrs is a very short time to produce the genetic mutations necessary to create noticeable change in a species. Lesser (instinctual) creatures are not hampered by the four aspects of modern human behavior, they respond for survival. The human animal responds to stimulus utilizing both instinct and rationality, thus frustrating the processes of adaptation. Evolution is controlled by environment. If "modern man" can control his environment, he can control his evolution. Before this can happen, he must sublimate his genetic propensity for predation with a superior and purposeful desire to survive. "Infant man" is much too incipient a species for that possibility to exist. Mankind WILL suffer a calamitous reduction in human population in the very near future. It will be up to the remnants of that calamity to create a viable human species.
"Mankind WILL suffer a calamitous reduction in human population in the very near future. It will be up to the remnants of that calamity to create a viable human species."
I have suggested as much more than once in my maunderings here on HP.
Hi Coldwar:....and your past "suggestions" are correct! Was the use of the word: "maundering," a thoughtful choice? I do not find your writings to "maunder" at all. Your thoughts are precisely expressed. ..:-)
It's just my feeble attempt at self-deprecating humor. It was indeed a choice given thought.
justmesuzanne says:
8 months ago
Interesting thoughts and a fabulous illustration! :)