Georgia Guidestones

Sorry if it's jazzed

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/m...currentPage=all

  Quote

Called the Georgia Guidestones, the monument is a mystery—nobody knows exactly who commissioned it or why. The only clues to its origin are on a nearby plaque on the ground—which gives the dimensions and explains a series of intricate notches and holes that correspond to the movements of the sun and stars—and the "guides" themselves, directives carved into the rocks. These instructions appear in eight languages ranging from English to Swahili and reflect a peculiar New Age ideology. Some are vaguely eugenic (GUIDE REPRODUCTION WISELY—IMPROVING FITNESS AND DIVERSITY); others prescribe standard-issue hippie mysticism (PRIZE TRUTH—BEAUTY—LOVE—SEEKING HARMONY WITH THE INFINITE).

some anti NWO people just defaced the georgia guides tones, probably under the influence of the Alex Jones show

yeah the article covers that as well

cool shit. didn't know about this place. thx.

LOL at Martin keeping the secret documents in a box in his garage.

I'm gonna bump this.

Just finished reading this. Crazy fucking shit. Love stuff like this.

Though it seems like they would be easily destroyed in the case of a disaster. Also kind of a strange town to erect it in. You'd think after spending all that money they would at least ship it somewhere significant.

strange that they would include Hebrew as one of the 8 major languages.

And why would they have headings in Classical Greek, Egyptian hieroglyphics and Babylonian cuneiform, but not latin? If you're gonna have dead languages, at least have one that's common...

ALso, a good lack of understanding Darwinian evolution is on display...

  chenGOD said:

ALso, a good lack of understanding Darwinian evolution is on display...

What do you mean?

this:

  Quote

GUIDE REPRODUCTION WISELY—IMPROVING FITNESS AND DIVERSITY

Evolution is not some march of progress. It is a branching bush.

  chenGOD said:

this:

  Quote

GUIDE REPRODUCTION WISELY—IMPROVING FITNESS AND DIVERSITY

is an overtly simplistic and fundamentally incorrect view of darwinian evolution.

 

Evolution is not some march of progress. It is a branching bush.

i agree with what you're saying, but that's not necessarily what they're saying. 'guide reproduction wisely' could simply mean 'don't let fucking inbred 13 year olds have crack babies', which would improve diversity (by not being fucking inbred) and would definitely help the overall fitness of the people that make up society. :undecided:

  chenGOD said:

this:

  Quote

GUIDE REPRODUCTION WISELY—IMPROVING FITNESS AND DIVERSITY

is an overtly simplistic and fundamentally incorrect view of darwinian evolution.

 

Evolution is not some march of progress. It is a branching bush.

I don't understand your point. Reproduction can be guided humans have done so in other species of animals and plants to make them "better".

Dunno, it's not like they are saying guide evolution which I agree would be kindof nonsense.

the second part: improving fitness and diversity.

Implying that making things "better" is somehow the goal of evolution.

Do we know for sure that we've made those plants/animals better?

For example, purebred dogs for show are supposed to be the best of breed right? Those purebreds often have significant health defects.

In humans, the sickle cell example is often brought up. Would we have had the foresight to leave in the sickle cell gene mutation?

Humans would do well to view themselves not as some special organism, rather as one that will exist for only a short time in geological terms.

I don't see how it implies anything about evolution. evolution is only a description of how things happen, it could be adapted to include human needs. But at a basic level I don't think it does.

We know we've made those things better because it suits us best, maybe in the wild they would die but that's not the point, the point is that it can be done. We have big corn and horses because of this.

Pure breads are not supposed to be better by any rational standart that i know of, it's just another manifestation of snobism.

Humans ARE a special organism, humans can change their enviroment in the short and long term to suit their needs, we adapt the enviroment to us which is not a concept included in darwin's evolution as far as I know.

  GORDO said:

I don't see how it implies anything about evolution. evolution is only a description of how things happen, it could be adapted to include human needs. But at a basic level I don't think it does.

 

We know we've made those things better because it suits us best, maybe in the wild they would die but that's not the point, the point is that it can be done. We have big corn and horses because of this.

 

Pure breads are not supposed to be better by any rational standart that i know of, it's just another manifestation of snobism.

 

Humans ARE a special organism, humans can change their enviroment in the short and long term to suit their needs, we adapt the enviroment to us which is not a concept included in darwin's evolution as far as I know.

Humans are not the only organism at all to be able to change their environment. I just read this wicked essay about these parasites that take control of crabs by extending nerves into the crabs body, then castrating the male crabs to suit their needs for breeding and reproduction.

Beavers change their environemtn by felling trees and making dams. Nest builders. And they do it somewhat sustainably.

We are certainly changing the environment, is it better for us? By changing the environment, are we ensuring our species' sustainability? Changing things like corn and horses to suit us is not making them better. It's making them different, and we don't have any fucking idea what altering them will do in the long run.

  chenGOD said:

We are certainly changing the environment, is it better for us? By changing the environment, are we ensuring our species' sustainability? Changing things like corn and horses to suit us is not making them better. It's making them different, and we don't have any fucking idea what altering them will do in the long run.

Yes, breeding animals and plants does make them better for our purposes, no we're not trying to make the million dollar man out of a horse, but we did make them better able to coexist in an environment increasingly controlled by humans. Saying that we don't understand what we're doing by engineering plants and animals to fit certain niches of society isnt correct in my opinion, we perhaps do not understand it completely, but the only way we can remedy this is to continue to embrace, research, and advance these traditions and technologies. The road of science is filled with hurdles, and it frustrates me when it makes people want to give up (not to imply thats what you're saying).

I for one think there definitely needs to be regulations on breeding. We have to curb population growth, and if we can do it in such a way to ensure that the children will be well taken care of, all the better, unfortunately we're going to be in dire straits by the time that people actually start to think about doing this.

I'm talking long-term, like in evolutionary terms. Not 100 years from now, I mean like a million years from now.

We don't know that genetically modifying corn will be benficial in the long run.

And yes more research needs tobe done, but in the meantime, we just go ahead and do it anyways.

Its a bit silly to think that far into the future though isnt it? If the singularity really happens within the century, who cares if genetically engineered corn isnt perfectly sustainable or healthy? It gave us enough food and energy to get us to where we're going.

It would be silly to deny the population all forms of scientific progress that arent 100% understood and infallible

  42Orange said:

Its a bit silly to think that far into the future though isnt it? If the singularity really happens within the century, who cares if genetically engineered corn isnt perfectly sustainable or healthy? It gave us enough food and energy to get us to where we're going.

It would be silly to deny the population all forms of scientific progress that arent 100% understood and infallible

that is utterly ignorant. do you know where are you going? probably not. genetically engineered food has proven to malfunction human reproductive hormones (among dozens of other stuff). you probably wont realize it, but our offsprings definitely will.

the main thing is, by artificially augmenting or altering some of one's life properties you influence the behavior and functions of another, which are intertwined. these are the consequences that are not well known to humans who also happen to like playing god.

  chenGOD said:

  GORDO said:

I don't see how it implies anything about evolution. evolution is only a description of how things happen, it could be adapted to include human needs. But at a basic level I don't think it does.

 

We know we've made those things better because it suits us best, maybe in the wild they would die but that's not the point, the point is that it can be done. We have big corn and horses because of this.

 

Pure breads are not supposed to be better by any rational standart that i know of, it's just another manifestation of snobism.

 

Humans ARE a special organism, humans can change their enviroment in the short and long term to suit their needs, we adapt the enviroment to us which is not a concept included in darwin's evolution as far as I know.

Humans are not the only organism at all to be able to change their environment. I just read this wicked essay about these parasites that take control of crabs by extending nerves into the crabs body, then castrating the male crabs to suit their needs for breeding and reproduction.

Beavers change their environemtn by felling trees and making dams. Nest builders. And they do it somewhat sustainably.

 

We are certainly changing the environment, is it better for us? By changing the environment, are we ensuring our species' sustainability? Changing things like corn and horses to suit us is not making them better. It's making them different, and we don't have any fucking idea what altering them will do in the long run.

Yet beavers and (probably, no idea) these parasites live on specific kind of ecosystems.

Better is a relative term that depends on a human subjective view point so nothing is truly better or worse than anything else. My point is that human can guide reproduction to suit their short or long term needs. It can be done it has been done. And in the long run humans will keep doing it. Sustainability can be a goal too, I think it's even one of the guidelines on those stones.

  Godwin Austen said:

  42Orange said:

Its a bit silly to think that far into the future though isnt it? If the singularity really happens within the century, who cares if genetically engineered corn isnt perfectly sustainable or healthy? It gave us enough food and energy to get us to where we're going.

It would be silly to deny the population all forms of scientific progress that arent 100% understood and infallible

that is utterly ignorant. do you know where are you going? probably not. genetically engineered food has proven to malfunction human reproductive hormones (among dozens of other stuff). you probably wont realize it, but our offsprings definitely will.

Propaganda.

  Quote

the main thing is, by artificially augmenting or altering some of one's life properties you influence the behavior and functions of another, which are intertwined. these are the consequences that are not well known to humans who also happen to like playing god.

meh.. 42Orange is right: in the long run we're all dead. (and your grandgrandchildren too). And Nobody knows the full consequences of their actions.

Right, in the long run, we're all dead. So we're not any more special than the dinosaurs or millions of other extinct species.

After we're dead and gone, there will still be life here.

Why are you so stubborn? we're distinct to other species in many different ways that can be perfectly described, whether as individuals, as a collective, in our behavior, in the way we adapt non genetically to environments, in the way we adapt environments to us... You can't deny this. Youk know this.

And yeah in the long run there will still be life... human life.

viruses, bacteria, insects will all outlive us.

Why are you so stubborn? We do things differently to other species. Does that make us better? Does that make us special?

Here's a nice quote that sums it up: 'We crave progress as our best hope for retaining human arrogance in an evolutionary world.' - Stephen Jay Gould.

  GORDO said:

Why are you so stubborn? we're distinct to other species in many different ways that can be perfectly described, whether as individuals, as a collective, in our behavior, in the way we adapt non genetically to environments, in the way we adapt environments to us... You can't deny this. Youk know this.

 

And yeah in the long run there will still be life... human life.

Chen is right. Consider it from a simple point of view: if you had a garden and one lovely day there comes a russian family (or whoever else), chops down your lovely trees to make a cottage, digs a hole where your carrots grow to make a pond and uses your hanging towels to make the bed for family. would you just stand there and offer him a cup of tea for a warm welcome?

we are distinct from other living beings, but so are they from us. we all come from the same "source". your idea is to bring a sense of selfishness to the whole thing. if you can talk and make things work that doesn't mean you're something that is above other living beings. remember, humans are very fragile beings. without intelect we'd probably extinct long ago. our 'weapon' for survival are the brains. but that still doesn't mean we're are eligible to turn every single organic cell into a genetically altered one. or to turn the vast forests into deserts for that case.

even G.W. Bush once adequately put: "I think man and fish can coexist peacefuly". lol