Author Archives: jessica

The Future Of Hardcore Hedonism

Posted on by

"...the sensualist will discover that what had hitherto passedfor passionate sex was merely an agreeable piece of foreplay. In the future, eroticpleasure of an intensity that mortal flesh has never knownwill be enjoyable with a whole gamut of friends and lovers.Universal love is possible because jealousy, already transiently eliminabletoday under the influence of serotonin releasers like MDMA ("Ecstasy"), is not the sort ofgene-inspired perversion of consciousness likely to be judged worthyof conservation in the post-Darwinian era. In addition, designer love-philtresand smarter sex-drugs promise to transform our conception of personal intimacy. Today'sill-educated fumblings will seem inept by comparison. Sensualists mayopt for whole-body orgasms of a frequency, duration and variety thattranscends the limp foreplay of their Darwinian ancestors. Whether thesexual adventures of our descendants will be mainly auto-erotic, interpersonal,or assume rapturous guises we can't currently imagine is a topic for another night.But profound love of many forms - both of oneself and all other sentient life-forms - is atleast as feasible as the impersonal emotional wastelandoccupied by Huxley's utopians...."

THE MOLECULAR BIOLOGY OF PARADISE01 : 02: 03 : 04: 05 : 06: 07 : 08: 09 : 10: 11 : 12: 13 14 : 15: 16 : 17: 18 : 19: 20 : 21: 22 : 23: 24 : 25: 26

HedWebHedonismBLTC ResearchFuture OpioidsSuperhappiness?Wirehead HedonismThe Good Drug GuideUtopian PharmacologyThe Hedonistic ImperativeCritique Of Huxley's Brave New WorldWhen Is It Best To Take Crack Cocaine?

See more here:

The Future Of Hardcore Hedonism

Transhumanism – Catholicism.org

Posted on by

Having fouled Earth with the works of their modern substitute for religion, science and technology, liberals imagine they can build a perfect world in outer space by means of science and technology that are now more advanced than they were in the past, or so it is boasted. It is what NASA has been about since the agencys inception. The effort has been joined in recent years by billionaires like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos with space projects of their own financed by them. However, there is a fly in the liberals ointment.

It is that their planned perfect world would be inhabited by imperfect human beings, men and women who are often irrational, some to the degree that they persist in holding to the preposterous notion that a Palestinian peasant two thousand years ago was God, and all of them subject to emotions which can be unruly and lead to messy situations. This, despite liberalism with its belief in the perfectibility of man, having long ago replaced religion as the core around which the life of society is lived.

Some very rich and powerful men, not to speak of scientists and technologists of like mind, think there is now a solution to the problem (as they see it) of human imperfection. It is called transhumanism. Perhaps you have heard of it. The literature of transhumanism is quite extensive. Heavily funded foundations promote it. References to it show up regularly in mass media. Persons under forty are apt to talk about it at social gatherings when they want to appear to have intellectual interests.

Like Christianity ever since the so-called Reformation shattered the unity of the Faith, sectarian differences exist within transhumanism, but all its adherents believe in, work toward, or otherwise support an undertaking of the kind that could only be conceived in a post-Christian age like ours: melding human beings and computers. The idea is to upload artificial intelligence (A.I.) into men so they will become, transhumanists say, more than human. Christians would say it will make them, if successful, less so, but were not going to get into that here.

Not all Christians would say it anyway. Although most transhumanists are atheists, they recognize the Jesuit paleontologist Teilhard de Chardin as a precursor. To anyone looking for clarity of thought and expression the woolly verbiage of Teilhards writings make them difficult to read, but it is possible to get his drift. It appeals to the kind of Catholics who strive to reconcile truths taught by the Church with science and technology in order to rationalize their dependence on machines to transport them, cool them, make things for them, entertain them, keep them alive in some circumstances, do more and more of their thinking for them.

Being a paleontologist, Teilhard was a great believer in evolution. What he envisioned, decades before the development of the internet and worldwide web, was all machines linked in a network by which, and in which, human minds would merge, all consciousness becoming unified so that it would eventually break through the material framework of Time and Space and arrive at what he called Omega Point the Divine, Christ. Of course at that point human beings would not be as we know them and as they have always existed.

Julian Huxley, the famed British eugenicist, was a close friend of Teilhard, but a non-believer. In a 1951 lecture he presented a secularized version of Teilhard: Such a broad philosophy might perhaps be called, not Humanism, because that has certain unsatisfactory connotations, but Transhumanism. It is the idea of humanity attempting to overcome its limitations and to arrive at fuller fruition

Oh, those irksome limitations! (i.e., irrational beliefs and emotions.)

Many transhumanists see Christian belief in particular as positively threatening. Simon Young, one of their leading thinkers, has written: The greatest threat to humanitys continued evolution is theistic opposition to Superbiology in the name of a belief system based on blind faith in the absence of evidence.

Perhaps the most influential transhumanist thinker is Ray Kurzwell, a director of engineering at Google. A book he wrote in 1999, The Age of Spiritual Machines, is a kind of bible of the movement. The twenty-first century will be different, he said therein. The human species, along with the computerized technology it created, will be able to solve age-old problemsand will be in a position to change the nature of mortality in a postbiological future.

Change the nature of mortality? He means his spiritual machines will live forever, their bodies incorruptible, immune to disease and decay. To acquire knowledge, all theyll have to do is upload it effortlessly to their brains.

Kurzwell calls the point in evolution where this happens Singularity. It is analogous to Teilhards Omega Point.

Some transhumanists, including Kurzwell, talk about resurrecting the dead. Theyll do it, they think, using the DNA we all leave behind. This is where space travel comes back into the picture, though in a way unforeseen by the men who launched NASA: What with the dead being brought back to life and everybody living forever (as spiritual machines), it wont take long before Earth really is overpopulated. Migration to other planets will be necessary.

The billionaire Elon Musk identifies as a transhumanist. Besides developing the Tesla electric automobile, he is best known for Space X, a project for developing reusable rockets with a view to their eventually transporting men and material to Mars for human colonization of the Red Planet. (Since there is no oxygen on Mars, vehicles on the planet will have to be powered by electricity. Hence the Tesla.)

Peter Thiel is another billionaire transhumanist and financial angel to enterprises like Future of Humanity Institute and Singularity University. Although he was given a speakers slot at last years Republican National Convention, he is less well known to the public than Elon Musk. Born in Germany and now a citizen of New Zealand, he was a co-founder of PayPal and early investor in Facebook, is openly gay, a huge fan of Tolkein (he says he has read Lord of the Rings more than ten times), was a member of the Libertarian Party until 2016, and seems to have an unerring instinct for placing himself where power and influence can be had. His membership on the Steering Committee of the Bilderberg Group shows that. So did his being named to the executive committee of Donald Trumps transition team after Trump won last Novembers election (he had contributed $1.25 million to the Trump presidential campaign). It is known that he is a partner of Jared Kushner in one of the latters investment operations. Oh, he also describes himself as a Christian but acknowledges that his beliefs are not orthodox. His financial contributions to transhumanism are weighted toward life-extension and age-reversal projects. (At one point, pre-PayPal, Thiel was a speech-writer for William Bennett when the former drug czar and U.S. Secretary of Education was marketing himself as a morality guru with books like The Book of Virtues and The Childrens Book of Virtues, but grew tired of the job and quit before the public learned that Bennett was a compulsive gambler who had blown millions of dollars at Las Vegas casinos.)

The defense of civilization requires vigilance, but guarding against treachery from within is hard. Western Christian civilization has been undone by leaders who were really Judases, beginning with the priests, bishops and princes who led millions out of the Church at the time of the Protestant revolt commonly called the Reformation. They were followed by the Revolution which first overthrew Christian government in France in 1789 and has continued to unroll so that it does not now exist anywhere. More recently there were the culture wars, which Christians could never have won, not with the weight of modernity against them.

Why? The Judas factor again. Christianity demands sanctification for entrance into Heaven; and self-denial, self-abnegation, self-discipline are requisite to it. Too many modern Christians, faith and belief run out of them, including belief in Heaven except maybe as a place where everybody will go anyway, have preferred self-aggrandizement instead. What they want is all that will make things easier for self or, better yet, enhance it. What could do that to a greater degree than the promise of immortality, especially immortality without pesky emotions and irrational beliefs to mar its perfection?

The trouble is that only a computer could see such a state of things as perfect.

Footnote: Transhumanists argue among themselves as to whether the right of anyone to stay human, especially for religious reasons, should be respected and protected. If these people ever exercise more power and influence than they already do, the argument will probably prove pointless. When most remaining Christians arent Christian enough to face life without the benefits of modernitys existing appurtenances smartphones, processed foods, automobiles, television, air-conditioning, etc., etc. how many will choose Heaven in whose existence they can believe only by faith over the scientific certainty of life in the here and now forever and ever?

Related

Read more here:

Transhumanism - Catholicism.org

The Long Read: The Germ Warfare Island Abandoned by the …

Posted on by

Thread Starter

Join Date: Oct 2012

Posts: 4,055

"During the Cold War, Vozrozhdeniya Island was a top-secret testing ground for deadly Soviet super-pathogens. Despite over two decades of abandonment, their legacy lives on."

Amazing story.

Join Date: Mar 2004

Location: s.e. pa

Posts: 705

Not much worse than aberdeen proving grounds.Aberdeen gets enough rain for vegetation and run off.

Senior Member

Join Date: Jul 2016

Posts: 208

D'ont worry bout the Russians,He told us when he embarrassed Romney,that the cold wars been over for 20 yrs.You know who?,the guy that said tell Vlad I'll have more leeway after the election,Carry on!Another terror attack in London,Hello!All the best!Vinnie

You may not post new threads

You may not post replies

You may not post attachments

You may not edit your posts

HTML code is Off

Read more here:

The Long Read: The Germ Warfare Island Abandoned by the ...

Christianarchism | the bastion of Christian anarchism!

Posted on by

Anarchists and minarchists do a lot of bickering, but they have more in common than not. They are both for radically less government, and both often call themselves libertarians. While we should strive to, as much as possible, put aside the ideological differences and work towards our mutual goals, there is always some benefit to having friendly discussions about the virtues of the two philosophies. What follows is a sort of intro to anarchism (more specifically,anarcho-capitalism, or one of its plentiful synonyms such as capitalism, voluntaryism, or anti-statism) for minarchists.

The basic moral premise ofanti-statism is that no man should ever aggress against another man who has not firstaggressed against him (the non-aggression principle, or NAP).Aggression, of course, includes stealing, or taking anything from a man against his will. Involuntary taxation, then, is a form ofstealing by majoritarian consensus (or democracy). The penalty for refusinginvoluntary taxation is to be kidnapped against your will and thrown in a cage (jailed). To violently resist this would of course lead the state to kill you. The most basic inherent principle of the state, then, is violence andaggression, as it must be.

Of course, many will say that everyone implicitly agrees to taxation via the social contract. However, this is a form of collectivism whereby the individual, even if radically opposed to the social contract, must conform. In other words, if I disagree with the contract, then its not really a contract, it is merely the imposition of force under a euphemism. Some believe thatanarchism runs into a problem with hierarchy, for example, in religious institutions; however, anti-statism is not opposed tohierarchy. It isopposed to involuntary hierarchy. People are free to voluntarily submit themselves to any form ofhierarchy, or even aggression, they so choose. The only stipulation is that theindividual should always have the option to opt-in or out of a contract, as opposed to subjection to the will of the forceful collective. The case for government, then, is the utilitarian/pragmatic argument for risk mitigation. In other words, though we know its immoral to aggress against a peaceful individual for any reason, we will do it anyways, in order to defend against a supposed greater evil. Then again, as libertarians, we know thatthe utilitarian/pragmatic argument is always a compromise of principles.

On the other hand, the basic economic premise ofanti-statism is quite simple: government never does anything aseconomicallyefficiently as the private sector. In keeping with the principle of the tragedy of the commons no manprotectsanother mans property (or money) as well as he protects his own.Most libertarians and even mainline conservatives will generally agree to this premise. The problem of course comes in the practical implementation ofanti-statism. One useful conception, instead of no government, is complete privatization.

So for example,we might privatizethe taxpayer-subsidized city police force into a subscription-based force, whereby you and others in a community hire Force A to protect your homes. In fact, we would probably see a market for police forces you might pay Force Ato protect your home, and your neighbor might pay Force B to protect his home. The most important thing here is that you can truly vote with your dollar. If a cop fromForce A abuses his power in some way, you would probably immediately withdraw your subscription to Force A and hire Force B alongside your neighbor. Cops in a private market would therefore NEVER have an incentive to abuse their power, as there is true accountability to the consumer. A state monopoly on force is not a good thing, it is demonstrably bad, for these reasons.

In the same way, we might privatize the US military. So the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard, etc, might each be sold off (perhaps even in divisions of 50% or 10% or whatever) at market price to the highest bidder, such asBoeing or Lockheed. People of a region (say, the east coast) would subscribe to Boeing, Lockheed, or whichever force they feel most adequately and efficiently protects that region.

One important piece of the puzzle is that if a defense force did start to act out of hand, we would expect its monetary base (its subscribers) to immediately rescind all monies and support from that force, and in fact to send their money to a competing force to protect them from force A. Thus it is in the rational best interests of each company to fulfill its contractual obligations toits subscribersand in fact to work together with the othercompanieson many things (reciprocity agreements, etc), even though they are market competitors. This addresses concerns about rogue private armies.

Another important realization is thatanti-statism, or anarchism, does not mean no law, it means no rulers. The law still prevails, no matter what. In this case, it would be the common law, which might be rooted in the NAP. Of course, the implication is that there would be private law agencies as well. We already have precedent for this today in private arbitration agencies. In fact, in studying ancient Israel (books of Judges, Samuel, etc), they had a very similar societal structure without a king, government, or any ruler (other than God) for 450 years.

For some more specific solutions to some common questions and objections, here is a brief essay called Objectivism and The State: An Open Letter to Ayn Rand. It addresses a lot of these tougher issues in a way that Rand supporters can appreciate.

It is of course natural to have reservations about all this. Its natural to have questions and doubts as to whether there are solid answers or things could actually work. But the most important question to continually consider is this: which is the greater evil? Is it a greater evil to advocate a system whereby you inherently endorse theft from your neighbor, or a system where, whether or not the functional micro-details are all ironed out, you do not support said principles of aggression, violence, and immorality, which empirically and inevitably becomes the leviathan state we fight today? Do you stay true to your principles, or will you cave to the utilitarian, pragmatic argument of compromise?

Continue reading here:

Christianarchism | the bastion of Christian anarchism!

Temecula Middle School: Home Page

Posted on by

Help us bring the TMS Library/Media Center into the 21st Century for the 2018/19 School Year. A fundraiser has been createdon DonorsChoose.org posting a supply list of items that will be used in the new Makerspace Section of our library.

What is a Makerspace? It's an area that offers librarypatrons an opportunity to create intellectual and physical materials using resources such as computers, 3-D printers, audio and video capture and editing tools, and traditional arts and crafts supplies.

To make a donation, visit DonorsChoose.org.

Give to our library by May 11, 2018, and your donation will be doubled thanks to Ripple. Just enter the code RIPPLE during checkout and you'll be matched dollar for dollar (up to $50).

In return, you'll get awesome photos of your gift in action and our heartfelt thanks. Please feel free to pass this information along should you know anyone who may want to support our library.

Thank you, in advance, for your support in helping us create this new area of the library for our students.

See the original post:

Temecula Middle School: Home Page

Posted in Tms

What is Nanotechnology? Webopedia Definition

Posted on by

Main TERM N

By Vangie Beal

A field of science whose goal is to control individual atoms and molecules to create computer chips and other devices that are thousands of times smaller than current technologies permit. Current manufacturing processes use lithography to imprint circuits on semiconductor materials. While lithography has improved dramatically over the last two decades -- to the point where some manufacturing plants can produce circuits smaller than one micron (1,000 nanometers) -- it still deals with aggregates of millions of atoms. It is widely believed that lithography is quickly approaching its physical limits. To continue reducing the size of semiconductors, new technologies that juggle individual atoms will be necessary. This is the realm of nanotechnology.

Although research in this field dates back to Richard P. Feynman's classic talk in 1959, the term nanotechnology was first coined by K. Eric Drexler in 1986 in the book Engines of Creation.

In the popular press, the term nanotechnology is sometimes used to refer to any sub-micron process, including lithography. Because of this, many scientists are beginning to use the term molecular nanotechnologywhen talking about true nanotechnology at the molecular level.

Stay up to date on the latest developments in Internet terminology with a free weekly newsletter from Webopedia. Join to subscribe now.

See the rest here:

What is Nanotechnology? Webopedia Definition

Chase Freedom: Cash Back Credit Card | Chase.com

Posted on by

Siempre acumula un 1% de reembolso en efectivo ILIMITADO en todas las dems compras5

1 Para obtener ms informacin, consulte Chase Freedom opens new windowPreguntas Frecuentes.

2 Incluye las transacciones realizadas usando su tarjeta Chase Freedom con PayPal para compras o envo de dinero. Solo las transacciones elegibles califican para un total del 5% de recompensas de reembolso en efectivo. Las compras realizadas usando PayPal en otras categoras trimestrales actuales del 5% recibirn un total del 5% de recompensas de reembolso en efectivo hasta un mximo de $1,500 en compras combinadas. Cuando enva dinero a amigos y familia a travs de PayPal utilizando su tarjeta Chase Freedom, se aplican los cargos estndar de transaccin. Consulte opens overlaylos cargos de PayPal. Las pginas de Internet y otra informacin proporcionada por PayPal no estn bajo el control de Chase y es posible que no estn disponibles en espaol. Debe abrir o tener abierta una cuenta de PayPal para enviar y recibir dinero.

3 No incluye compras realizadas en Walmart o Target, tiendas de descuento o clubes de almacn, excepto por las compras realizadas con estos comercios utilizando Chase Pay o PayPal (una categora del 5%). Si no utiliza Chase Pay o PayPal, seguir acumulando el 1% de reembolso en efectivo ilimitado en estas compras.

4 Incluye las compras realizadas usando su tarjeta Freedom con su billetera mvil Chase Pay al finalizar la compra. Solo las compras elegibles califican para un total del 5% de recompensas de reembolso en efectivo. Las compras realizadas usando Chase Pay en otras categoras trimestrales actuales del 5% recibirn un total del 5% de recompensas de reembolso en efectivo hasta un mximo de $1,500 en compras combinadas.

5 Consulte el Contrato del Programa de Recompensas para ms detalles.

Los comercios indicados no estn de ninguna manera afiliados con Chase, ni los comercios indicados se consideran patrocinadores o copatrocinadores de este programa. Todas las marcas comerciales son propiedad de sus respectivos dueos.

Continue reading here:

Chase Freedom: Cash Back Credit Card | Chase.com

freedom | Definition of freedom in English by Oxford …

Posted on by

nounmass noun

1The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants.

we do have some freedom of choice

count noun he talked of revoking some of the freedoms

More example sentences

he was a champion of Irish freedom

More example sentences

Synonyms

independence, self-government, self-determination, self-legislation, self rule, home rule, sovereignty, autonomy, autarky, democracy

Example sentences

Synonyms

scope, latitude, leeway, margin, flexibility, facility, space, breathing space, room, elbow room

2The state of not being imprisoned or enslaved.

the shark thrashed its way to freedom

More example sentences

Synonyms

liberty, liberation, release, emancipation, deliverance, delivery, discharge, non-confinement, extrication

the shorts have a side split for freedom of movement

More example sentences

the dog has the freedom of the house when we are out

More example sentences

3freedom fromThe state of not being subject to or affected by (something undesirable)

government policies to achieve freedom from want

More example sentences

Synonyms

exemption, immunity, dispensation, exception, exclusion, release, relief, reprieve, absolution, exoneration

4the freedom of British A special privilege or right of access, especially that of full citizenship of a city granted to a public figure as an honour.

he accepted the freedom of the City of Glasgow

More example sentences

5archaic Familiarity or openness in speech or behaviour.

Example sentences

Synonyms

naturalness, openness, lack of inhibition, lack of reserve, casualness, informality, lack of ceremony, spontaneity, ingenuousness

impudence

Old English frodm (see free, -dom).

See more here:

freedom | Definition of freedom in English by Oxford ...

Progress (history) – Wikipedia

Posted on by

In historiography, progress (from Latin progressus, "advance", "(a) step onwards") is the study of how specific societies improved over time in terms of science, technology, modernization, liberty, democracy, longevity, quality of life, freedom from pollution and so on. Specific indicators can range from economic data, technical innovations, change in the political or legal system, and questions bearing on individual life chances, such as life expectancy and risk of disease and disability.

Many high-level theories, such as the Idea of Progress are available, such as the Western notion of monotonic change in a straight, linear fashion. Alternative conceptions exist, such as the cyclic theory of eternal return, or the "spiral-shaped" dialectic progress of Hegel, Marx, et al.

Historian J. B. Bury argued that thought in ancient Greece was dominated by the theory of world-cycles or the doctrine of eternal return, and was steeped in a belief parallel to the Judaic "fall of man," but rather from a preceding "Golden Age" of innocence and simplicity. Time was generally regarded as the enemy of humanity which depreciates the value of the world. He credits the Epicureans with having had a potential for leading to the foundation of a theory of Progress through their materialistic acceptance of the atomism of Democritus as the explanation for a world without an intervening Deity.

Robert Nisbet and Gertrude Himmelfarb have attributed a notion of progress to other Greeks. Xenophanes said "The gods did not reveal to men all things in the beginning, but men through their own search find in the course of time that which is better." Plato's Book III of The Laws depicts humanity's progress from a state of nature to the higher levels of culture, economy, and polity. Plato's The Statesman also outlines a historical account of the progress of mankind.

During the Medieval period, science was to a large extent based on Scholastic (a method of thinking and learning from the Middle Ages) interpretations of Aristotle's work. The Renaissance of the 15th, 16th and 17th Centuries changed the mindset in Europe towards an empirical view, based on a pantheistic interpretation of Plato. This induced a revolution in curiosity about nature in general and scientific advance, which opened the gates for technical and economic advance. Furthermore, the individual potential was seen as a never-ending quest for being God-like, paving the way for a view of Man based on unlimited perfection and progress.[1]

The scientific advances of the 16th and 17th centuries provided a basis for the optimistic outlook of Bacon's 'New Atlantis.' In the 17th century Bernard le Bovier de Fontenelle argued in favor of progress with respect to arts and the sciences, saying that each age has the advantage of not having to rediscover what was accomplished in preceding ages. The epistemology of John Locke provided support and was popularized by the Encyclopedists Diderot, Holbach, and Condorcet. Locke had a powerful influence on the American Founding Fathers.[2]

In the Enlightenment, French historian and philosopher Voltaire (16941778) was a major proponent of the possibility of progress. At first Voltaire's thought was informed by the Idea of Progress coupled with rationalism. His subsequent notion of the historical idea of progress saw science and reason as the driving forces behind societal advancement. The first complete statement of progress is that of Turgot, in his "A Philosophical Review of the Successive Advances of the Human Mind" (1750). For Turgot progress covers not simply the arts and sciences but, on their base, the whole of culturemanner, mores, institutions, legal codes, economy, and society.[3]

Immanuel Kant (17241804), the German philosopher, argued that progress is neither automatic nor continuous and does not measure knowledge or wealth, but is a painful and largely inadvertent passage from barbarism through civilization toward enlightened culture and the abolition of war. Kant called for education, with the education of humankind seen as a slow process whereby world history propels mankind toward peace through war, international commerce, and enlightened self-interest.[4]

Scottish theorist Adam Ferguson (17231816) defined human progress as the working out of a divine plan. The difficulties and dangers of life provided the necessary stimuli for human development, while the uniquely human ability to evaluate led to ambition and the conscious striving for excellence. But he never adequately analyzed the competitive and aggressive consequences stemming from his emphasis on ambition even though he envisioned man's lot as a perpetual striving with no earthly culmination. Man found his happiness only in effort.[5]

The intellectual leaders of the American Revolution, such as Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, were immersed in Enlightenment thought and believed the idea of progress meant that they could reorganize the political system to the benefit of the human condition; both for Americans and also, as Jefferson put it, for an "Empire of Liberty" that would benefit all mankind. Thus was born the idea of inevitable American future progress.

The most original 'New World' contribution to historical thought was the idea that history is not exhausted but that man may begin again in a new world. Besides rejecting the lessons of the past, the Jeffersonians Americanized the idea of progress by democratizing and vulgarizing it to include the welfare of the common man as a form of republicanism. As Romantics deeply concerned with the past, collecting source materials and founding historical societies, the Founding Fathers were animated by clear principles. They saw man in control of his destiny, saw virtue as a distinguishing characteristic of a republic, and were concerned with happiness, progress, and prosperity. Thomas Paine, combining the spirit of rationalism and romanticism, pictured a time when America's innocence would sound like a romance, and concluded that the fall of America could mark the end of 'the noblest work of human wisdom.'[6]

That human liberty was put on the agenda of fundamental concerns of the modern world was recognized by the revolutionaries as well as by many British commentators. Yet, within two years after the adoption of the Constitution, the American Revolution had to share the spotlight with the French Revolution. The American Revolution was eclipsed, and, in the 20th century, lost its appeal even for subject peoples involved in similar movements for self-determination. Thus, its life as a model for political revolutions was relatively short. The reason for this development lies in the fact that its concerns and preoccupations were overwhelmingly political; economic demands and social unrest remained largely peripheral. After the middle of the 19th century, all political revolutions would ultimately have to involve themselves with social questions and become revolutions of modernization. But the American Colonies in the 1770s, in contrast to all other colonies, had been modern from the beginning. The American patriots were protecting the modernity and liberty they had already achieved, while later revolutions were fighting to obtain liberty for the first time. However, since so few modern revolutions have evinced much concern for the preservation and extension of human freedom, the American model may still come to provide a lesson for the future.[7]

Social progress is the idea that societies can or do improve in terms of their social, political, and economic structures. The concept of social progress was introduced in the early 19th century social theories, especially those of social evolutionists like Auguste Comte and Herbert Spencer. It was present in the Enlightenment's philosophies of history.

In Europe's Enlightenment, social commentators and philosophers began to realize that people themselves could change society and change their way of life. Instead of being made completely by gods, there was increasing room for the idea that people themselves made their own society - and not only that, as Giambattista Vico argued, because people practically made their own society, they could also fully comprehend it. This gave rise to new sciences, or proto-sciences, which claimed to provide new scientific knowledge about what society was like, and how one may change it for the better.[8] In turn, this gave rise to progressive opinion, in contrast with conservative opinion, according to which attempts to radically remake society normally make things worse.

GDP growth has become a key orientation for politics and is often taken as a key figure to evaluate a politician's performance. However, GDP has a number of flaws that make it a bad measure of progress, especially for developed countries. For example, environmental damage is not taken into account nor is the sustainability of economic activity. Wikiprogress has been set up to share information on evaluating societal progress. It aims to facilitate the exchange of ideas, initiatives and knowledge. HumanProgress.org is another online resource that seeks to compile data on different measures of societal progress.

Scientific progress is the idea that science increases its problem solving ability through the application of the scientific method.

Several philosophers of science have supported arguments that the progress of science is discontinuous. In that case, progress is not a continuous accumulation, but rather a revolutionary process where brand new ideas are adopted and old ideas become abandoned. Thomas Kuhn was a major proponent of this model of scientific progress, as explained in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

Another model of scientific progress, as put forward by Richard Boyd, and others, is history of science as a model of scientific progress. In short, methods in science are produced which are used to produce scientific theories, which then are used to produce more methods, which are then used to produce more theories and so on.

Note that this does not conflict with a continuous or discontinuous model of scientific progress. This model supports realism in that scientists are always working within the same universe; their theories must be referring to real objects, because they create theories that refer to actual objects that are used later in methods to produce new theories.

A prominent question in metaphilosophy is that of whether or not philosophical progress occurs, and more so, whether such progress in philosophy is even possible. It has even been disputed, most notably by Ludwig Wittgenstein, whether genuine philosophical problems actually exist. The opposite has also been claimed, most notably by Karl Popper, who held that such problems do exist, that they are solvable, and that he had actually found definite solutions to some of them.

Some philosophers believe that, unlike scientific or mathematical problems, no philosophical problem is truly solvable in the conventional sense, but rather problems in philosophy are often refined rather than solved. For example, Bertrand Russell, in his 1912 book The Problems of Philosophy says: "Philosophy is to be studied not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions, since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves."[9]

However, this is not universally accepted amongst philosophers. For example, Martin Cohen, in his 1999 iconoclastic account of philosophy, 101 Philosophy Problems, offers as the penultimate problem, the question of whether or not 'The problem with philosophy problems is that they don't have proper solutions'. He goes on to argue that there is a fundamental divide in philosophy between those who think philosophy is about clarification and those who think it is about recognising complexity.

In historiography, the "Idea of Progress" is the theory that advances in technology, science, and social organization inevitably produce an improvement in the human condition. That is, people can become happier in terms of quality of life (social progress) through economic development and the application of science and technology (scientific progress). The assumption is that the process will happen once people apply their reason and skills, for it is not divinely foreordained. The role of the expert is to identify hindrances that slow or neutralize progress.

Historian J. B. Bury wrote in 1920:[10]

Sociologist Robert Nisbet finds that "No single idea has been more important than [...] the Idea of Progress in Western civilization for three thousand years.",[11] and defines five "crucial premises" of Idea of Progress:

The Idea of Progress emerged primarily in the Enlightenment in the 18th century, although some scholars like Nisbet (1980) have traced it to ancient Christian notions.[12] The theory of evolution in the nineteenth century made progress a necessary law of nature and gave the doctrine its first conscious scientific form. The idea was challenged by the 20th century realization that destruction, as in the two world wars, could grow out of technical progress.

The Idea of Progress was promoted by classical liberals in the 19th century, who called for the rapid modernization of the economy and society to remove the traditional hindrances to free markets and free movements of people. John Stuart Mill's (18061873) ethical and political thought assumed a great faith in the power of ideas and of intellectual education for improving human nature or behavior. For those who do not share this faith the very idea of progress becomes questionable.[13]

The influential English philosopher Herbert Spencer (18201903) in The Principles of Sociology (1876) and The Principles of Ethics (1879) proclaimed a universal law of socio-political development: societies moved from a military organization to a base in industrial production. As society evolved, he argued, there would be greater individualism, greater altruism, greater co-operation, and a more equal freedom for everyone. The laws of human society would produce the changes, and he said the only roles for government were military, police, and enforcement of civil contracts in courts. Many libertarians adopted his perspective.[14]

The history of the idea of Progress has been treated briefly and partially by various French writers; e.g. Comte, Cours de philosophie positive, vi. 321 sqq.; Buchez, Introduction a la science de l'histoire, i. 99 sqq. (ed. 2, 1842); Javary, De l'idee de progres (1850); Rigault, Histoire de la querelle des Anciens et des Modernes (1856); Bouillier, Histoire de la philosophie cartesienne (1854); Caro, Problemes de la morale sociale (1876); Brunetiere, "La Formation de l'idee de progres", in Etudes critiques, 5e serie. More recently M. Jules Delvaille has attempted to trace its history fully, down to the end of the eighteenth century. His Histoire de l'idee de progres (1910) is planned on a large scale; he is erudite and has read extensively. But his treatment is lacking in the power of discrimination. He strikes one as anxious to bring within his net, as theoriciens du progres, as many distinguished thinkers as possible; and so, along with a great deal that is useful and relevant, we also find in his book much that is irrelevant. He has not clearly seen that the distinctive idea of Progress was not conceived in antiquity or in the Middle Ages, or even in the Renaissance period; and when he comes to modern times he fails to bring out clearly the decisive steps of its growth. And he does not seem to realize that a man might be "progressive" without believing in, or even thinking about, the doctrine of Progress. Leonardo da Vinci and Berkeley are examples. In my Ancient Greek Historians (1909) I dwelt on the modern origin of the idea (p. 253 sqq.). Recently Mr. R. H. Murray, in a learned appendix to his Erasmus and Luther, has developed the thesis that Progress was not grasped in antiquity (though he makes an exception of Seneca), a welcome confirmation. Bury, J.B. (1920). The Idea of Progress. London: The Macmillan and Co., p. 353.

Read more:

Progress (history) - Wikipedia

Evolution – Conservapedia

Posted on by

The theory of evolution is a naturalistic theory of the history of life on earth (this refers to the theory of evolution which employs methodological naturalism and is taught in schools and universities). Merriam-Webster's dictionary gives the following definition of evolution: "a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations..."[2] Currently, there are several theories of evolution.

Since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists and agnostics.[3] In 2007, "Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture...announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution."[4]

In 2011, the results of a study was published indicating that most United States high school biology teachers are reluctant to endorse the theory of evolution in class. [5] In addition, in 2011, eight anti-evolution bills were introduced into state legislatures within the United States encouraging students to employ critical thinking skills when examining the evolutionary paradigm. In 2009, there were seven states which required critical analysis skills be employed when examining evolutionary material within schools.[6]

A 2005 poll by the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Social and Religious Research found that 60% of American medical doctors reject Darwinism, stating that they do not believe man evolved through natural processes alone.[7] Thirty-eight percent of the American medical doctors polled agreed with the statement that "Humans evolved naturally with no supernatural involvement." [8] The study also reported that 1/3 of all medical doctors favor the theory of intelligent design over evolution.[9] In 2010, the Gallup organization reported that 40% of Americans believe in young earth creationism.[10] In January 2006, the BBC reported concerning Britain:

Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that creationism or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons.[11]

Picture above was taken at Johns Hopkins University

Johns Hopkins University Press reported in 2014: "Over the past forty years, creationism has spread swiftly among European Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, and Muslims, even as anti-creationists sought to smother its flames."[13] In addition, China has the world's largest atheist population and the rapid growth of biblical creationism/Evangelical Christianity in China may have a significant impact on the number of individuals in the world who believe in evolution and also on global atheism (see: China and biblical creationism and Asian atheism).

The theory of evolution posits a process of transformation from simple life forms to more complex life forms, which has never been observed or duplicated in a laboratory.[14] Although not a creation scientist, Swedish geneticist Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, Professor of Botany at the University of Lund in Sweden and a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, stated: "My attempts to demonstrate Evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least, I should hardly be accused of having started from a preconceived antievolutionary standpoint."[15]

The fossil record is often used as evidence in the creation versus evolution controversy. The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution and is one of the flaws in the theory of evolution.[16] In 1981, there were at least a hundred million fossils that were catalogued and identified in the world's museums.[17] Despite the large number of fossils available to scientists in 1981, evolutionist Mark Ridley, who currently serves as a professor of zoology at Oxford University, was forced to confess: "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."[18]

In addition to the evolutionary position lacking evidential support and being counterevidential, the great intellectuals in history such as Archimedes, Aristotle, St. Augustine, Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, and Lord Kelvin did not propose an evolutionary process for a species to transform into a more complex version. Even after the theory of evolution was proposed and promoted heavily in England and Germany, most leading scientists were against the theory of evolution.[19]

The theory of evolution was published by naturalist Charles Darwin in his book On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, in 1859. In a letter to Asa Gray, Darwin confided: "...I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."[20]Prior to publishing the book, Darwin wrote in his private notebooks that he was a materialist, which is a type of atheist.[21] Darwin was a weak atheist/agnostic (see: religious views of Charles Darwin) .[22] Charles Darwins casual mentioning of a creator in earlier editions of The Origin of Species appears to have been a merely a ploy to downplay the implications of his materialistic theory.[23] The amount of credit Darwin actually deserves for the theory is disputed. [24] Darwin's theory attempted to explain the origin of the various kinds of plants and animals via the process of natural selection or "survival of the fittest".

The basic principle behind natural selection is that in the struggle for life some organisms in a given population will be better suited to their particular environment and thus have a reproductive advantage which increases the representation of their particular traits over time. Many years before Charles Darwin, there were several other individuals who published articles on the topic of natural selection.[25]

Darwin did not first propose in his book Origin of Species that man had descended from non-human ancestors. Darwin's theory of evolution incorporated that later in Darwin's book entitled Descent of Man.

As far as the history of the theory of evolution, although Darwin is well known when it comes to the early advocacy of the evolutionary position in the Western world, evolutionary ideas were taught by the ancient Greeks as early as the 7th century B.C.[26] The concept of naturalistic evolution differs from the concept of theistic evolution in that it states God does not guide the posited process of macroevolution.[27]

In 2012, the science news website Livescience.com published a news article entitled Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling which indicated that research suggests that gut feelings trumped facts when it comes to evolutionists believing in evolution.[28] In January of 2012, the Journal of Research in Science Teaching published a study indicating that evolutionary belief is significantly based on gut feelings.[29][30] The January 20, 2012 article entitled Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling published by the website Live Science wrote of the research: "They found that intuition had a significant impact on what the students accepted, no matter how much they knew and regardless of their religious beliefs."[31]

In response to evolutionary indoctrination and the uncritical acceptance of evolution by many evolutionists, the scientists at the organization Creation Ministries International created a Question evolution! campaign which poses 15 questions for evolutionists. In addition, leading creationist organizations have created lists of poor arguments that evolutionists should not use.[32] See also: Causes of evolutionary belief

See also: Theories of evolution

Evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote concerning the theory of evolution: "The process of mutation is the only known source of the new materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution."[33] Concerning various theories of evolution, most evolutionists believe that the processes of mutation, genetic drift and natural selection created every species of life that we see on earth today after life first came about on earth although there is little consensus on how this process is allegedly to have occurred.[34]

Pierre-Paul Grass, who served as Chair of evolutionary biology at Sorbonne University for thirty years and was ex-president of the French Academy of Sciences, stated: "Some contemporary biologists, as soon as they observe a mutation, talk about evolution. They are implicitly supporting the following syllogism: mutations are the only evolutionary variations, all living beings undergo mutations, therefore all living beings evolve....No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution." Grass pointed out that bacteria which are the subject of study of many geneticists and molecular biologists are organisms which produce the most mutants.[35] Grasse then points that bacteria are considered to have "stabilized".[36] Grass regards the "unceasing mutations" to be "merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect."[37]

In addition, Harvard biologist Ernst Mayr wrote: "It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on ones credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the birds feather) could be improved by random mutations."[38]

Creation scientists believe that mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift would not cause macroevolution.[39] Furthermore, creation scientists assert that the life sciences as a whole support the creation model and do not support the theory of evolution.[40] Homology involves the theory that macroevolutionary relationships can be demonstrated by the similarity in the anatomy and physiology of different organisms.[41] An example of a homology argument is that DNA similarities between human and other living organisms is evidence for the theory of evolution.[42] Creation scientists provide sound reasons why the homology argument is not a valid argument. Both evolutionary scientists and young earth creation scientists believe that speciation occurs, however, young earth creation scientists state that speciation generally occurs at a much faster rate than evolutionist believe is the case.[43]

Critics of the theory of evolution state that many of today's proponents of the evolutionary position have diluted the meaning of the term "evolution" to the point where it defined as or the definition includes change over time in the gene pool of a population over time through such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.[44] Dr. Jonathan Sarfati of Creation Ministries International declares concerning the diluted definition of the word "evolution":

See also: Atheism and equivocation

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati wrote:

All (sexually reproducing) organisms contain their genetic information in paired form. Each offspring inherits half its genetic information from its mother, and half from its father. So there are two genes at a given position (locus, plural loci) coding for a particular characteristic. An organism can be heterozygous at a given locus, meaning it carries different forms (alleles) of this gene... So there is no problem for creationists explaining that the original created kinds could each give rise to many different varieties. In fact, the original created kinds would have had much more heterozygosity than their modern, more specialized descendants. No wonder Ayala pointed out that most of the variation in populations arises from reshuffling of previously existing genes, not from mutations. Many varieties can arise simply by two previously hidden recessive alleles coming together. However, Ayala believes the genetic information came ultimately from mutations, not creation. His belief is contrary to information theory, as shown in chapter 9 on Design.[47]

Dr. Don Batten of Creation Ministries International has pointed out that prominent evolutionists, such as PZ Myers and Nick Matzke, have indicated that a naturalistic postulation of the origin of life (often called abiogenesis), is part of the evolutionary model.[48] This poses a very serious problem for the evolutionary position as the evidence clearly points life being a product of design and not through naturalistic processes.[49]

The genetic entropy theory by Cornell University Professor Dr. John Sanford on eroding genomes of all living organisms due to mutations inherited from one generation to the next is declared to be one of the major challenges to evolutionary theory. The central part of Sanfords argument is that mutations, represented by spelling mistakes in DNA, are accumulating so quickly in some creatures (and particularly in people) that natural selection cannot stop the functional degradation of the genome, let alone drive an evolutionary process that could lead for example, from apes into people.[50]

Sanford's book Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome explains why human DNA is inexorably deteriorating at an alarming rate, thus cannot be millions of years old.[51]

The evolutionist Michael Lynch wrote in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America in a December 3, 2009 article entitled: Rate, molecular spectrum, and consequences of human mutation (taken from the abstract):

Creation scientists and intelligent design advocates point out that the genetic code (DNA code), genetic programs, and biological information argue for an intelligent cause in regards the origins question and assert it is one of the many problems of the theory of evolution.[54][55]

Dr. Walt Brown states the genetic material that controls the biological processes of life is coded information and that human experience tells us that codes are created only by the result of intelligence and not merely by processes of nature.[54] Dr. Brown also asserts that the "information stored in the genetic material of all life is a complex program. Therefore, it appears that an unfathomable intelligence created these genetic programs."[54]

To support his view regarding the divine origin of genetic programs Dr. Walt Brown cites the work of David Abel and Professor Jack Trevors who wrote the following:

In the peer reviewed biology journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington Dr. Stephen Meyer argues that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms and proposed an intelligent cause as the best explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa.[57] The editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Dr. Richard Sternberg, came under intense scrutiny and persecution for the aforementioned article published by Dr. Meyer.

See also: Theory of evolution and little consensus and Theories of evolution

There is little scientific consensus on how macroevolution is said to have happened and the claimed mechanisms of evolutionary change, as can be seen in the following quotes:

Pierre-Paul Grass, who served as Chair of Evolution at Sorbonne University for thirty years and was ex-president of the French Academy of Sciences, stated the following:

Today, our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses of the interpretations and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs. - Pierre-Paul Grass - Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), pages 6 and 8[61]

See: Modern evolutionary synthesis and Theories of evolution

A notable case of a scientists using fraudulent material to promote the theory of evolution was the work of German scientist and atheist Ernst Haeckel. Noted evolutionist and Stephen Gould, who held a agnostic worldview[62] and promoted the notion of non-overlapping magesteria, wrote the following regarding Ernst Haeckel's work in a March 2000 issue of Natural History:

An irony of history is that the March 9, 1907 edition of the NY Times refers to Ernst Haeckel as the "celebrated Darwinian and founder of the Association for the Propagation of Ethical Atheism."[64]

Stephen Gould continues by quoting Michael Richardson of the St. Georges Hospital Medical School in London, who stated: "I know of at least fifty recent biology texts which use the drawings uncritically".[63]

See also: Evolution and the fossil record

As alluded to earlier, today there are over one hundred million identified and cataloged fossils in the world's museums.[65] If the evolutionary position was valid, then there should be "transitional forms" in the fossil record reflecting the intermediate life forms. Another term for these "transitional forms" is "missing links".

Charles Darwin admitted that his theory required the existence of "transitional forms." Darwin wrote: "So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon the earth."[67] However, Darwin wrote: "Why then is not every geological formation and every strata full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory."[68] Darwin thought the lack of transitional links in his time was because "only a small portion of the surface of the earth has been geologically explored and no part with sufficient care...".[69] As Charles Darwin grew older he became increasingly concerned about the lack of evidence for the theory of evolution in terms of the existence of transitional forms. Darwin wrote, "When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.[70]

Scientist Dr. Michael Denton wrote regarding the fossil record:

Creationists assert that evolutionists have had over 140 years to find a transitional fossil and nothing approaching a conclusive transitional form has ever been found and that only a handful of highly doubtful examples of transitional fossils exist.[72] Distinguished anthropologist Sir Edmund R. Leach declared, "Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so."[73]

David B. Kitts of the School of Geology and Geophysics at the University of Oklahoma wrote that "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them".[74]

David Raup, who was the curator of geology at the museum holding the world's largest fossil collection, the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, observed:

One of the most famous proponents of the theory of evolution was the late Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould. But Gould admitted:

For more information please see:

Creationists can cite quotations which assert that no solid fossil evidence for the theory of evolution position exists:

For more fossil record quotes please see: Fossil record quotes and Additional fossil record quotes

For more information please see: Paleoanthropology and Human evolution

Paleoanthropology is an interdisciplinary branch of anthropology that concerns itself with the origins of early humans and it examines and evaluates items such as fossils and artifacts.[81] Dr. David Pilbeam is a paleoanthropologist who received his Ph.D. at Yale University and Dr. Pilbeam is presently Professor of Social Sciences at Harvard University and Curator of Paleontology at the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. In addition, Dr. Pilbeam served as an advisor for the Kenya government regarding the creation of an international institute for the study of human origins.[82]

Dr. Pilbeam wrote a review of Richard Leakey's book Origins in the journal American Scientist:

Dr. Pilbeam wrote the following regarding the theory of evolution and paleoanthropology:

Evolutionist and Harvard professor Richard Lewontin wrote in 1995 that "Despite the excited and optimistic claims that have been made by some paleontologists, no fossil hominid species can be established as our direct ancestor...."[84] In the September 2005 issue of National Geographic, Joel Achenbach asserted that human evolution is a "fact" but he also candidly admitted that the field of paleoanthropology "has again become a rather glorious mess."[85][86] In the same National Geographic article Harvard paleoanthropologist Dan Lieberman states, "We're not doing a very good job of being honest about what we don't know...".[86]

Concerning pictures of the supposed ancestors of man featured in science journals and the news media Boyce Rensberger wrote in the journal Science the following regarding their highly speculative nature:

Creation scientists concur with Dr. Pilbeam regarding the speculative nature of the field of paleoanthropology and assert there is no compelling evidence in the field of paleoanthropology for the various theories of human evolution.[89]

In 2011, Dr. Grady S. McMurtry declared:

It is acknowledged that the Laws of Genetics are conservative, they are not creative. Genetics only copies or rearranges the previously existing information and passes it on to the next generation. When copying information, you have only two choices; you can only copy it perfectly or imperfectly, you cannot copy something more perfectly. Mutations do not build one upon another beneficially. Mutations do not create new organs; they only modify existing organs and structures. Mutations overwhelmingly lose information; they do not gain it; therefore, mutations cause changes which are contrary of evolutionary philosophy.

As a follow on, the addition of excess undirected energy will destroy the previously existing system. Indeed, you will never get an increase in the specifications on the DNA to create new organs without the input from a greater intelligence.

Mutations affect and are affected by many genes and other intergenic information acting in combination with one another. The addition of the accidental duplication of previously existing information is detrimental to any organism.

Mutations do produce microevolution, however, this term is far better understood as merely lateral adaptation, which is only variation within a kind, a mathematical shifting of gene frequency within a gene pool. The shifting of gene frequencies and a loss of information cannot produce macroevolution.

As Dr. Roger Lewin commented after the 1980 University of Chicago conference entitled Macroevolution:

The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No. [Emphasis added]

Dr. Roger Lewin, Evolution Theory under Fire, Science. Vol. 210, 21 November 1980. p. 883-887.[90]

In 1988, the prominent Harvard University biologist Ernst Mayr wrote in his essay Does Microevolution Explain Macroevolution?:

...In this respect, indeed, macroevolution as a field of study is completely decoupled from microevolution.[91]

See also: Creation Ministries International on the second law of thermodynamics and evolution

Creation Ministries International has a great wealth of information on why the second law of thermodynamics is incompatible with the evolutionary paradigm.

Some of their key resources on this matter are:

See also: Theories of evolution

Because the fossil record is characterized by the abrupt appearance of species and stasis in the fossil record the theory of punctuated equilibrium was developed and its chief proponents were Stephen Gould, Niles Eldridge, and Steven Stanley. According to the American Museum of Natural History the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium "asserts that evolution occurs in dramatic spurts interspersed with long periods of stasis".[92] Because Stephen Gould was the leading proponent of the theory of punctuated equilibrium much of the criticism of the theory has been directed towards Gould.[93][94] The development of a new evolutionary school of thought occurring due to the fossil record not supporting the evolutionary position was not unprecedented. In 1930, Austin H. Clark, an American evolutionary zoologist who wrote 630 articles and books in six languages, came up with an evolutionary hypothesis called zoogenesis which postulated that each of the major types of life forms evolved separately and independently from all the others.[95] Prior to publishing his work entitled The New Evolution: Zoogenesis, Clark wrote in a journal article published in the Quarterly Review of Biology that "so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other."[96]

In 1995, there was an essay in the New York Review of Books by the late John Maynard Smith, a noted evolutionary biologist who was considered the dean of British neo-Darwinists, and Smith wrote the following regarding Gould's work in respect to the theory of evolution:

Noted journalist and author Robert Wright , wrote in 1996 that, among top-flight evolutionary biologists, Gould is considered a pestnot just a lightweight, but an actively muddled man who has warped the public's understanding of Darwinism.[99][100]

Creation scientist Dr. Jonathan Sarfati wrote regarding the implausibility of the theory of punctuated equilibrium and the implausibility of the idea of gradual evolution the following:

Individuals who are against the evolutionary position assert that evolutionary scientists employ extremely implausible "just so stories" to support their position and have done this since at least the time of Charles Darwin.[103][104]

A well known example of a "just so story" is when Darwin, in his Origin of the Species, wrote a chapter entitled "Difficulties on Theory" in which he stated:

Even the prominent evolutionist and geneticist Professor Richard Lewontin admitted the following:

Dr. Sarfati wrote regarding the theory of evolution the following:

Opponents to the theory of evolution commonly point to the following in nature as being implausibly created through evolutionary processes:

Lastly, biochemist Michael Behe wrote the following:

Phillip E. Johnson cites Francis Crick in order to illustrate the fact that the biological world has the strong appearance of being designed:

Stephen C. Meyer offers the following statement regarding the design of the biological world:

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states regarding a candid admission of Charles Darwin:

In the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the Fertilisation of Orchids, and upon The Earthworms, and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in natureI said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of Mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's answer. He looked at me very hard and said, Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times, and he shook his head vaguely, adding, it seems to go away.(Argyll 1885, 244][126]

Research and historical data indicate that a significant portion of atheists/agnostics often see the their lives and the world as being the product of purposeful design (see: Atheism and purpose).[127]

See: Argument from beauty

Advocates of the theory of evolution have often claimed that those who oppose the theory of evolution don't publish their opposition to the theory of evolution in the appropriate scientific literature (creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals which favor the creationist position).[128][129][130] Recently, there has been articles which were favorable to the intelligent design position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the theory of evolution.[131]

Karl Popper, a leading philosopher of science and originator of the falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience,[132] stated that Darwinism is "not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme."[133] Leading Darwinist and philosopher of science, Michael Ruse declared the concerning Popper's statement and the actions he took after making that statement: "Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable."[134]

The issue of the falsifiability of the evolutionary position is very important issue and although offering a poor cure to the problem that Karl Popper described, committed evolutionists Louis Charles Birch & Paul R. Ehrlich stated in the journal Nature:

The Swedish cytogeneticist, Antonio Lima-De-Faria, who has been knightedby the king of Sweden for his scientific achievements, noted that "there has never been a theory of evolution".[136][137]

See also: Suppression of alternatives to evolution and Atheism and the suppression of science

Many of the leaders of the atheist movement, such as the evolutionist and the new atheist Richard Dawkins, argue for atheism and evolution with a religious fervor (See also: Atheism and evolution).

Daniel Smartt has identified seven dimensions which make up religion: narrative, experiential, social, ethical, doctrinal, ritual and material. It is not necessary in Smartt's model for every one of these to be present in order for something to be a religion.[138]. However, it can be argued that all seven are present in the case of atheism.[139][140] Please see: Atheism: A religionand Atheism and Atheism is a religion.

See also: Atheism is a religion and Atheism and evolution

Atheism is a religion and naturalistic notions concerning origins are religious in nature and both have legal implications as far as evolution being taught in public schools.[142][143][144]

John Calvert, a lawyer and intelligent design proponent wrote:

See also:

Read more:

Evolution - Conservapedia

Design Diary 1 Posthuman Saga Intro Mighty Boards

Posted on by

From the arrogance of Mankind a new life is born.This new life shall pave the way.The future shall be pure.The old world shall be cleansed.The Evolved shall inherit the Earth.

-fromNo Human, by Edgar Hollow 2033

The beauty of the board game medium is that it relies so much on what is arguably the most private and personal aspect of our existence: our imagination.

No, thats not quite right.

Lets try again: the beauty of the board game medium is that it fuels our imagination and it does so in a social context. It is one of those prized activities that taps into the inner life of our minds and brings it to the fore, using cardboard, plastic, wood and language to make that inner experience shareable. That is truly a thing of beauty. This is particularly so in a world where portable, networked technology and social media platforms are carefully designed to hijack our attention in every waking moment, luring us into a hive-minded feedback loop of increasing velocity.

I have a confession. Im not a fan of learning new games. I love learning new systems, but that initial hump of wrestling with a rule-book is not on my top ten fun things to do. Yes, that is indeed shocking for a game designer, but there it is. But when those rules sink in and start interacting with the physical pieces in front of me, the effect is magical. I am truly fascinated by how vivid that mental image of a world, a scene or situation becomes through the calibrated confluence of rules, visuals and physical props and if at all possible, sound. When a group of friends is sharing that experience with me theres few things I enjoy more in the world. To have the possibility to create those experiences for others, or at least encourage them, is simply a privilege. This design diary is an attempt at sharing that privilege with players, designers and critics, in the hope of inspiring others or at least offer a window into the process.

The initial idea was to start off with a few entries about board game design in general, but after a few failed attempts I have to concede defeat to the monster thats occupying every ounce of creativity I have at the moment: Posthuman Saga. Every thing I tried to write in abstract simply got raided by Posthumans mutant tentacles beckoning me to talk about it. I give in. The creation wins.

Posthuman Saga is a tactical survival adventure set in the post-apocalyptic world of Posthuman infused with narrative. Lets break that down some and substantiate those descriptors.

The tactical in tactical survival refers to the fact that while there is an element of randomness in the game, the emphasis is on player choices and their outcome. Thus, every sub-system of the game requires meaningful choices from the player and often has an opportunity cost. If I play my best Combat card in this encounter, I have a good chance of winning it, but that card is going to be exhausted until I take a Camp action, which stalls me from progressing in the game. When I do Camp Ill have to spend a recovery point to gain the Combat card back, which comes at the cost of not gaining back a point of Health or Morale, or one of the crucial Stat Boosts that can determine the outcome of both narrative and combat encounters This is, of course, a basic aspect of most games, particularly euro-games, but tends to be less present in more theme-heavy, adventure games (with various notable exceptions) which use randomness to generate excitement and emergent story (see below). In the first board game set in the Posthuman world, Posthuman certain choices were in the hands of the players (such as which action to play, how to organize tiles etc), but major sub-systems in the game were more random (such as combat). In Fallout the combat is fun and quick, but determined by a die-roll with little agency afforded to the player in that particular sub-system. The choices there are primarily in which actions to take, where to move to etc. We see similar sub-systems dominate adventure games such as Merchants and Marauders and Descent. One is not inherently better or worse than the other, of course. There are pros and cons to each and it all depends on the desired experience and, especially when it comes to thematic heavy adventure games, how that sub-system fits with the feel and story the game is aiming to create. Ill be dedicating an entry to Posthuman Sagas combat system, comparing it to the first Posthumans combat system

The survival part of tactical survival refers to the fact that the mechanics of the game are designed to convey the feel of the setting: scarcity, danger and attrition. Most elements of the game can be seen as an inverse resource management game: you have a set of resources when you start which deplete continuously as you progress in your path to victory. The more you push for that victory, the more resources youll most likely lose in the process and a big part of the game is managing that attrition, while simultaneously growing your character through development cards, weapons, equipment and even positive, stable mutations (but watch out there, mutation is not something you have a lot of control over and will quickly get out of hand and see you hobbling around a tree your newly boosted senses blown away by the sound of leaves floating towards the ground). Im gonna be sassy and coin a term here: attrition management. Your health, morale, stat boosts and combat cards WILL deplete. You can recover them, but they will deplete. If you try to advance unblemished, you will most likely lose the game to the player who is teetering on the edge of exhaustion and depression but has just grabbed the story book and is reading off the final story of his mission objective Fatigue, on the other hand, is not easily recovered. Its a permanent hit you take when you go hungry, march on through the night or troop on through a nasty storm. But again, these will be your choices to make.

Ok, lets talk story now. What do I mean by infused with narrative?. While narrative is not the primary focus of the game, it features heavily in it both in scripted and emergent ways. By scripted narrative I here mean sections of story, sometimes with variable outcomes, others times fixed, that we have written into the game. Emergent narrative is the story that is generated from the interaction of game-play elements and other players. While not everyone interprets mechanical events in a narrative manner, the way mechanics and rules are implemented creates more or less likelihood for them to generate mental images in the mind of the player and interpret such actions and events narratively. I will dedicate a separate entry or ten to game narrative and theme specifically as its both a complex subject and one which I am fascinated by and have researched professionally in my day-job incarnation as a game researcher.

The aim was thus to create a hybrid that combines euro-style mechanics with the imagination-stimulating qualities of thematic story games. That implies that those two are different categories of games, which is not exactly right at all, but since its an established way of grouping board games, lets go with it (for now).

And finally, the question Ive been bombarded with since we announced Posthuman Saga: is this a second edition or on an expansion of the first Posthuman? No, this is an entirely different game set in the same world. It progresses the story of the first Posthuman and it features a journey with declared actions on a modular board, but thats about where the similarity ends. The two games systems are totally different and have completely different components. Familiar mutants will make an appearance, and some of the characters from the first Posthuman have survived (while others have turned mutant and been sent into exile out of the Fortress and beyond the Perimeter) and become hardened contributors to the Fortress society, all the art in the game has been re-done from scratch. So, this is a new game in a freshly visualized Posthuman world.

Thanks for reading and please feel free to ask questions or leave input in the comments below!

-Gordon

Gordon Calleja splits his time between game design and academic game research. He designed Posthuman, a post-apocalyptic survival board game that was a big hit on Kickstarter in 2015, and was published in 2016. He recently designed and published Vengeance, a board game adaptation of revenge movies that was also a success on Kickstarter and has been published by Mighty Boards and co-published in German, French and English in 2018 by Asmodee and Greenbrier Games. He is currently working on a new board game in the Posthuman world called Posthuman Saga.

Gordon also designs video games and is the designer of the critically acclaimed Will Love Tear Us Apart, a video game adaptation of Joy Divisions track that was nominated for several international awards. He is currently also working on Posthuman:Sanctuary, a video game adaptation of the Posthuman board gametogether with the team at Mighty Box.

His research is multi-disciplinary in nature but features mainly on: game narrative game ontology and player experience, with a particular focus on immersion and presence in game environments. The latter is the subject of his book In-Game: From Immersion to Incorporation, published by MIT Press. His current research and subject of his next book focuses on board game design and player experience.

Please follow and like us:

Read this article:

Design Diary 1 Posthuman Saga Intro Mighty Boards

The 5 Best Beaches In New York City CBS New York

Posted on by

More: Getaway Guide To Coney Island

Everybodys heard of Coney Island. The most famous beach in New York trills and thrums with energy, even during winter. Here you can lay out, swim, ride a roller coaster, cheer the Brooklyn Cyclones, eat a hotdog at Nathans Famous, visit the citys main aquarium, go to a concert, or simply watch the parade of people moving up and down the boardwalk, seeing and being seen, as theyve done for decade after decade.

All the beaches in New York have sun, sand, and waves, but only Rockaway Beach, in Queens, has surfing. When you tire of hanging ten, follow the smells along the boardwalk to what just might be the citys best concession stands, including Rippers and Tacoway Beach,a new creation from the owners of the now shuttered Rockaway Taco. You can get there via car, subway or byferry.

We have Robert Moses to thank for this one. As parks commissioner, he widened several city beaches, and had Orchard Beach more or less built using sand from beaches in Queens and New Jersey, a project that cost $8 million. Upon opening in 1936, it was nicknamed the Riviera of New York, and 50,000 people arrived the first weekend. Many improvements in the late 1990s and 2000s including new playgrounds and facilities have restored this beach to its former glory.

Aside from being the only beach on this list to have partially inspired a Neil Simon play, Brighton Beach will make you think youve left Brooklyn and landed in Ukraine. Known as Little Odessa, Brighton Beach has restaurants and stores specializing in vodka, black bread, plump dumplings, and jams, among other delicacies. Unlike its next-door neighbor Coney Island, Brighton Beach tends to be quieter and to attract more locals. Say privet (hello in Russian) and dont be shy about making yourself at home.

Franklin D. Roosevelt Boardwalk and Beach might be named for an important 20th-Century figure, but the beach itself has been around for a long while. The Dutch hung out here in the 1660s, and in the late 1880s the area became a popular resort, complete with music halls and shooting galleries. FDRs Work Progress Administration gave it still another boost in the 1930s. In addition to playgrounds, bocce courts, and playing fields, today the beach has launching sites for canoes and kayaks, and 2.5 or so miles of pure sand.

See the original post:

The 5 Best Beaches In New York City CBS New York

Blockchain – The Daily Reckoning

Posted on by

Dont look now, but things are starting to look up for Bitcoin again!

(You can be forgiven if you didnt realize that Bitcoin was NOT looking up just a week ago.)

You see, midway through December, Bitcoin lost nearly half of its value, falling from a peak near $20,000 to below $11,000 in less than a weeks time. Naturally, such a dramatic decline took a lot of the excitement out of the cryptocurrency market.

Incidentally, my little brother jokes that hes one of the only people in the world who has actually LOST money in Bitcoin, as he waited to get into the market until the day before Bitcoin hit its all-time high.

This past week, Bitcoin started moving higher again, and has recouped about half of its fateful December loss.

Given the number of questions weve received about Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies here at The Daily Edge, I wanted to cover some of the ways responsible investors can make money on cryptocurrencies or more accurately, on the blockchain technology behind the cryptocurrency action.

Lets take a look at whats going on!

A few weeks back, we asked for your feedback on what we cover here at The Daily Edge. The overwhelming majority of you mentioned that you would like to know more about Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.

More specifically, there were a lot of good questions about how blockchain (the technology behind Bitcoin) works, and how we as investors can make money from this technology.

You may already know that Im not a big fan of investing in Bitcoin. The currency is highly speculative and volatile, and at this point its unclear whether the currency will actually be worth anything in the long run.

(Yes, I know there are many of you who heartily disagree with me. And thats certainly okay. Suffice it to say that Im not opposed to people speculating on Bitcoin with extra cash that they dont need immediately. But I wouldnt bet money that you need on Bitcoin today.)

Blockchain technology, on the other hand is a very important tool that will change financial transactions forever.

If you want a detailed explanation of how blockchain works, I would highly recommend an article from blockgeeks.com which you can find here.

Basically, blockchain is a technology that keeps a set of secure online records that is spread across many different computers. This is important because no single location is responsible for the set of records.

You could compare blockchain to a giant Google Doc or Google Spreadsheet that many different people can access all at once. So when one change is made to the blockchain, everyone has access to that change at the same time.

Since blockchain records are spread across many locations, its nearly impossible to hack into the database. Thats because you would have to simultaneously hack into all of the computers to change the database of records. So blockchain has developed a reputation for being very immune to hacking or false information.

So why would many different computers take part in this grand network?

Well, the creator of blockchain created an incentive, giving a token or coin to computers on the network that solved complex mathematical puzzles. And that is what has become known as Bitcoin mining where new Bitcoins are created.

Since there are a limited number of Bitcoins, investors and traders are willing to exchange them for dollars or other currencies based on limited supply and market demand.

If youre like me, you find blockchain interesting

But until it helps me make money, its really just an intriguing novelty.

For serious investors (not just Bitcoin speculators), there are two primary ways that make sense for making money from Bitcoin.

First, I suggest looking at payment processing companies that are either already using Bitcoin, or are likely to start processing Bitcoin transactions in the future.

A couple of examples include PayPal Holdings Inc. (PYPL) and Square Inc. (SQ).

Payment processors that accept Bitcoin transactions will be able to collect fees from every transaction processed. And that means these companies will profit from Bitcoin regardless of which direction the price of Bitcoin trades.

Thats important because you want companies you invest in to generate reliable earnings, and not rely on price movements that are very hard to predict.

A second way of profiting from Bitcoin is to invest in semiconductor manufacturers.

Semiconductors are used by computers to process blockchain transactions and to mine new Bitcoin units. Demand for these processors has driven chip stocks sharply higher, and I expect this trend to continue in 2018.

Two examples of these stocks are Nvidia Corp. (NVDA) and Advanced Micro Devices (AMD). As the blockchain network of computers continue to grow, these companies will sell more chips, and generate higher profits.

Keep in mind, semiconductor stocks are also seeing strong demand from other technology areas such as artificial intelligence and self-driving cars. So semi stocks have a number of great reasons to keep moving higher this year.

Well have more to say about cryptocurrencies and blockchain in the weeks ahead. For now, lets take a look at the five things you need to know this morning

The Power Of Sport- North Korea has accepted the Souths offer to meet on Tuesday, January 9th in the demilitarized zone between the two countries. This comes just in time for next months Olympic Games that will take place less than 60 miles from the border in PyeongChang, South Korea. This will be the first formal gathering between the two nations since 2015. On the agenda is North Koreas participation in next months Games and the overall state of Korean relations.

Techs Biggest Week- Its that time of the year. All of the hottest names in technology are headed to Las Vegas to showcase their newest products and gadgets at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES). The event, which runs from January 9th through 12th, is the biggest event of its kind as representatives from every tech company you can imagine will be in attendance the list includes Amazon, Ford, Intel, Walmart Ecommerce and many, many more.

And as Daily Edge subscriber, youll have a firsthand look as your Managing Editor Davis Ruzicka will be in attendance! Stay tuned to these alerts in the coming days for interesting updates and the investment strategies that will accompany them.

Earning Season Kickoff- Volatility is back! (Well sort of). Fourth quarter earnings season begins this week with the earnings reports of some of The Daily Edges favorite companies. So over the next few weeks, expect to see some major moves in the stock market. On Wednesday, homebuilders KB Home (KBH) and Lennar Corp. (LEN) announce earnings. And on Friday its the banks turn with JP Morgan (JPM), Wells Fargo (WFC), Blackrock (BLK) and PNC Financial (PNC).

Yellen News- In Federal Reserve news, this week will give some key insights into the minds of Central Bankers. On Thursday, New York Fed President William Dudley is scheduled to give his thoughts on the direction of the economy in 2018. Currently, unemployment levels are hovering around historic lows but inflation is yet to pick up which has kept Yellen from raising rates faster. Well see if this changes on Friday when the U.S. Labor Department releases its consumer price index.

Another Case of Insider Trading?- Intel CEO Brian Krzanich is under scrutiny for his recent selling of personal Intel stock. On November 29th, Krzanich sold shares and exercised stock options worth $39 million netting him nearly $25 million. However, this was just weeks before the public was informed about a security flaw impacting the majority of Intel chips used worldwide (Intel has known about the vulnerability for months). Its now up to the SEC to decide if the information was material or not. According to the stock price, which fell almost 5% when the information went public, the information was in fact material.

Heres to growing and protecting your wealth!

Zach ScheidtEditor, The Daily EdgeTwitter FacebookEmail

Read the original:

Blockchain - The Daily Reckoning

My Medicine – WebMD – Better information. Better health.

Posted on by

WebMD My Medicine Help

Q: What is an interaction?

A: Mixing certain medicines together may cause a bad reaction. This is called an interaction. For example, one medicine may cause side effects that create problems with other medicines. Or one medicine may make another medicine stronger or weaker.

Q: How do you classify the seriousness of an interaction?

A: The following classification is used:

Contraindicated: Never use this combination of drugs because of high risk for dangerous interaction

Serious: Potential for serious interaction; regular monitoring by your doctor required or alternate medication may be needed

Significant: Potential for significant interaction (monitoring by your doctor is likely required)

Mild: Interaction is unlikely, minor, or nonsignificant

Q: What should I do if my medications show interactions?

A: Call your doctor or pharmacist if you are concerned about an interaction. Do not stop taking any prescribed medication without your doctor's approval. Sometimes the risk of not taking the medication outweighs the risk or the interaction.

Q: Why can't I enter my medication?

A: There may be medications, especially otc or supplements, that have not been adequately studied for interactions. If we do not have interaction information for a certain medication it can't be saved in My Medicine.

Q: Do you cover all FDA warnings?

A: WebMD will alert users to the most important FDA warnings and alerts affecting consumers such as recalls, label changes and investigations. Not all FDA actions are included. Go to the FDA for a comprehensive list of warnings.

Q: Can I be alerted by email if there is an FDA warning or alert?

A: Yes. If you are signed in to WebMD.com and using My Medicine you can sign up to receive email alerts when you add a medicine. To unsubscribe click here.

Q: Can I add medicines for family members?

A: Yes. Click the arrow next to your picture to add drug profiles for family or loved ones.

Q: Can I access My Medicine from my mobile phone?

A: Yes. Sign in to the WebMD Mobile App. Your saved medicine can be found under "Saved."

Q: Why are there already medicines saved when this my first time using this tool?

A: If you have previously saved a medication on WebMD, for example, in the WebMD Mobile App, these may display in My Medicine.

Read the original post:

My Medicine - WebMD - Better information. Better health.

Do Psychedelics Carry A Heart Risk? – The Third Wave

Posted on by

Microdosing is an exciting new prospect for the psychedelic community; what better way to incorporate the healing and mind-expanding benefits of psychedelics into our everyday lives? But with any change in lifestyle comes risk and psychedelics are relatively poorly understood in terms of what they do to our bodies. Although it appears that relatively infrequent, even large doses of psychedelics dont do much harm to healthy individuals, we dont have any evidence that regular microdosing is safe. There are reports of people microdosing for many months in succession, with no ill effects aside from tiredness but there is always the chance that with longer term microdosing regimens, unwanted physiological side effects could start building up.

One thing thats of some concern is the risk of heart disease. MDMA has been the centre of attention in this respect various studies have shown that there is alink between regular, high-dose MDMA use and heart defects. Although the conclusion of this research is that the occasional dose of MDMA will not harm you, it has potential implications for long-term psychedelic use, including microdosing.

MDMAs harmful effects on the heart are due to itsactivation of the 5-HT2B receptor. This receptor is present all over the heart, andconvincing evidence suggeststhat the long-term activation of this receptor leads to the formation of valvular strands, which can lead to Valvular Heart Disease (VHD) in extreme cases.

Again cases of VHD are only found in people who use MDMA very frequently (several times a week) and at high doses. The question we want to answer is: do the classic psychedelics (LSD and psilocybin) that we microdose with also activate the 5-HT2B receptor on our hearts, and is there a risk of VHD with long-term microdosing?

LSD and psilocybin work by mimicking the effect of our natural neurotransmitter, serotonin. Therefore both these psychedelics activate a wide range of serotonin receptors, including the 5-HT2B receptor. The real question is, are these psychedelics activating the 5-HT2B receptor enough to cause damage to the heart?

Unfortunately, we dont have an answer to that question. We know that LSD and psilocybinbind strongly to the 5-HT2B receptor, but we dont know how comparable this is to the way that MDMA (and other cardiotoxic molecules) binds to 5-HT2B. So right now, there is no way of knowing for sure if there is any risk.

We can, however, make some educated speculation.

We can look at a previous study of a compound that definitely causes heart damage through the 5-HT2B receptor: fenfluramine. This was a weight-loss drug that was withdrawn in the 90s after a small percentage of people developed heart disease after using it.

Studies found that fenfluramine roughly doubled the risk of developing VHD after a 90-day treatment course, at a dose of around 30mg/day (Sachdev et al, 2002). Fenfluramine has an affinity (Ki) for the 5-HT2B receptor of around 30nM (Rothman & Baumann, 2009).

LSD has a similar affinity for the 5-HT2B receptor as fenfluramine, a Ki of around 30nM (Passie et al, 2008). A typical microdosing regimen involves taking much less LSD than 30mg/day (actually the equivalent of3ug/day, several thousand times less than fenfluramine).

The comparison to fenfluramine isnt great its quitepossible that a daily dose of fenfluramine (rather than a dose every three days when microdosing) affects the 5-HT2B receptor differently. Additionally,we dont know to what extent LSD is activatingthe 5-HT2B receptors of the heart in comparison to fenfluramine. However, it seems reasonable to assume that microdosing has nowhere near the heart risk associated with fenfluramine.

Although there have been no long-term studies of the risk of microdosing in humans,one studygave 10ug/kg of psilocin to ratsevery otherday for several weeks.The findings of this study are unconvincing, to put it mildly, and it doesnt really tell us anything about the heart risks of microdosing.

Overall, we dont yet know anything for sure. Microdosing needs tobe studied in more detail and looking at the scarce evidence we have, its hard to draw any conclusions about the relative safety of microdosing.

While we believe that short-term microdosing is relatively safe, what remains to be seen is whether long-term microdosing regimens (i.e. for many months or even years) have a potential to damage the heart. This is why we advise to microdose for no longer than 90 days, and spread out your microdosing regimens throughout the year. If you have a pre-existing heart condition, it is especially important to avoid extended periods of microdosing.

We think that the potential heart risk of psychedelics actually highlights the need for their legalization. Without legalization, people will probably continue taking psychedelics without considering the risks, and as the popularity of microdosing increases, we might see more negative side effects.

But if psychedelics are legalized, we couldsee companies vying to produce psychedelic analogues that have beneficial psychological effects, without being damaging to our bodies in long-term use. Imaginea psychedelic designed specifically for microdosing; one that boosts our creativity and awareness, but doesnt damage our heart or other tissues.

The answer could be a psychedelic that only becomes active when it crosses into the brain; or a psychedelic that does not activate the 5-HT2B receptor in the heart. Perhaps we could even co-administer psychedelics with drugs that totally block the 5-HT2B receptor. To develop these ideal drugs, we first need legalisation, and for policymakers to accept that psychedelics will never leave our culture.

Important Note:This is a constantly-evolving document. If you believe were missing something important,please let us know via the contact page.

Visit link:

Do Psychedelics Carry A Heart Risk? - The Third Wave

Indicators Of Sight Loss | MeMetics

Posted on by

Most people experience some form of sight loss as they age. For many, the magic age is 40. However, many people find they need glasses much earlier due to genetics, excessive computer use, and more. Since sight loss can occur so gradually, many people may not even realize that they have issues with their eyes. If you note any of the following problems in your everyday life, you may need to schedule an eye exam to see if you need glasses.

If you frequently have eye fatigue, it may not be due to lack of sleep. Straining your eyes can cause them to feel tired and uncomfortable. Other signs that can accompany eye fatigue are itchy and watery eyes, and a tight feeling behind the eyes.

Blurry vision is one of the first signs that many people notice for vision loss. Signs that you could once read easily are now difficult to make out. You may have to adjust the distance of a book you are holding to focus properly on the text. If your eyes frequently blur when looking at objects near or far away, then it is likely your eyes are starting to fail and you could benefit from prescription glasses.

Another sign of vision problems are frequent headaches. You may note the headaches more after extended sessions of reading, looking at a computer screen, or watching TV. While headaches can be caused by many different things, if you notice them in conjunction with other signs of vision loss, then it is time to schedule an eye exam.

If you squint and strain your eyes to read, this can be a sign of vision problems. Take note of the position of your face while you look at maps, road signs, books, computer screens, and anything else that you look at on a routine basis. If you constantly have to scrunch up your face in some way to focus on the letters, it is likely that your vision is not what it once was.

One less-common sign of failing vision is spots in vision or halos around bright objects. This is often a sign of astigmatism or cataracts in the eyes, and should be checked by an optometrist right away.

If you have to blink repeatedly to focus on objects, this can be a sign of failing vision. Blinking often occurs when switching between two vision points, such as when switching to look at something far away after focusing on a computer screen. Healthy eyes should adjust with minimal blinking, while unhealthy eyes will have to blink longer to change focus.

Generally, it is easy to tell if you should have a new eye exam. If you already have poor vision, most optometrists recommend that you have your eyes checked every year in case of further deterioration. However, if you have never had an eye exam, and suffer from several of the above eye issues, it is likely that you will need to wear glasses.

Guest post by contributing author Richard O., written on behalf of Lenses Online, a huge online contact lens store.

Visit link:

Indicators Of Sight Loss | MeMetics

High Seas Airspace What is it? International Ops 2018

Posted on by

Austria might have the worlds most perfect little piece of airspace. Wien (Vienna) FIR matches the countries political boundaries perfectly. There is no ocean, no disputed boundaries, and no delegation of ATC.

For most others, its not as straightforward. For some, its beyond complex.

So how do countries determine what their airspace looks like? Airspace overhead the actual landmass belongs without question to the country, so thats easy.

Then, from the shoreline out to 12nm are the Territorial Waters, as agreed by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea in 1982 giving us Territorial Waters Airspace.

The next chunk is the 12nm-200nm area the Exclusive Economic Zone. In aviation, this sometimes has an effect on whether prior permission in the form of an Overflight Permit is required Peru and Ecuador have in the past claimed this requirement. Beyond this, International Waters exist.

In aviation, the term of reference has become High Seas Airspace, and is taken to refer to anything outside the 12nm buffer where no country has sovereign jurisdiction over airspace. By international agreement, chunks of airspace are assigned to individual countries to provide an ATC service, because we prefer to have ATC watching us and providing separation, in comparison to trying to do it ourselves using 126.9 and TCAS.

As has been recently the case over the Black Sea, that agreement isnt always unanimous, and ICAO sometimes has to tread a difficult political line in assigning their preferred responsibility last month Ukraine opened up routes in High Seas Airspace that Russia also wanted to have a crack at managing.

The Baltic Sea has long been a generator of news stories of close encounters with the Bear (Tu-95), this is because of the multitude of small chunks of High Seas Airspace that allow flights out of Russia towards the UK and Europe. ICAO is concerned at the rising incidences of conflictbetween civil traffic (thats us) and military flights over the Baltic.

These military flights operate under Due Regard but often dont file flight plans and ATC know nothing about them until they are pretty close to you. Youre unlikely to see them on TCAS either. So, that regard is not so high.

Well continue the next time with a look at No FIR Airspace those chunks of High Seas airspace where nobody is in control, mysteriously marked XXX on our charts.

Like Loading...

Original post:

High Seas Airspace What is it? International Ops 2018

ASTRO PHYSICS AP400 GTO WITH WOODEN TRIPOD – CN …

Posted on by

https://optcorp.com/...w-wooden-tripod

USED ASTRO PHYSICS AP400 GO TO MOUNT W/WOODEN TRIPODThe two most important considerations in mount design and construction are maximum strength/rigidity for a given size and accuracy of the drive system. Without this basic foundation, all other features of a mount are just superfluous frills. The Astro-Physics 400GTO was engineered to be a compact, firm platform for your high-resolution instrument. Whether your interests are purely visual or include astro-photography, a steady image in the eyepiece or camera viewfinder is extremely important.The 400GTO is constructed of the highest quality components to provide you with years of observing pleasure. All parts are precisely machined on our computerized CNC lathe and machining center using solid or thick-wall aluminum and stainless steel. Machining tolerances are very high to achieve a tight, solid fit of all components. These are not thin-wall, weak, porous die castings as in most other mounts of comparable size. We avoid the use of any carbon steel shafts or plated steel fasteners because they will deteriorate with time. This mount will not rust or bind up and will retain its appearance and function throughout the years.Both axes respond to fingertip pressure with unparalleled smoothness. Built-in clutches can be disengaged for smooth sweeping or locked for astrophotography. The worm gears, motors and drive components are enclosed to protect them from dirt and dust. With the 105 Traveler, the 400 mount damps out in one second when mounted on the lightweight aluminum tripod.Your 400GTO mount can grow with your skills and interests in astronomy. You can enjoy the visual pursuits using the go-to Keypad controller and/or DigitalSky Voice software to help you find many fascinating objects. If you plan to take astro-photos, you will be pleased with the solid stability and inherent accurate tracking capability of the drive system. The GTO Control Box contains a plug-in for the CCD auto-guiding and imaging systems. These units will allow you to auto-guide astronomical photos and explore CCD imaging.FeaturesPrecision machined aluminum with radiused edgesGears and motors are fully enclosedGear in declination axis allows full 360 degree continuous rotation; scope can move through the zenith for photography2.5" (6.4cm) hollow right-ascension and declination shafts maximize strength at minimum weightLarge thrust bearings form highly-stable thrust surfaces for tremendous rigidity in a small packageRemovable stainless steel counterweight shaft for compact storageEngraved setting circles with Porter Slip Ring designFine altitude and azimuth adjustments for quickly and accurately zeroing in on the pole in the fieldBlack anodized finish will retain its lustrous beauty for yearsBase fits into 6" diameter pier with 0.083" wall thicknessSpecifications of the Equatorial Head

Originally posted here:

ASTRO PHYSICS AP400 GTO WITH WOODEN TRIPOD - CN ...

Modafy Brain Stack | Accelerated Nootropics Formula

Posted on by

Procrastination and lack of productivity are some of the biggest issues of the modern individuals. In some cases, they can even make or break ones success. It is quite common for very intelligent persons to feel like failures due to these issues.

Have you ever felt that you just cant do anything right and in a timely manner? You are not alone in this. Many people struggle to be productive and they usually make little progress. But it is essential to know that there are ways to hack your brain and to stimulate yourself to be more productive than you imagined.

HERE ARE 50 WAYS TO TRAINYOUR BRAIN FOR UNLIMITED PRODUCTIVITY:

1. STOP SABOTAGING YOURSELF.

Instead of wasting time complaining, just start working and get things moving. Whining about the chores of the day will never solve anything and it will only delay you more.

2. STOP STRESSING OUT.

Stress can trigger lots of health-related issues. Not to mention that it will give you inconvenient body reactions such as headaches, nausea and all of these will make you less efficient.

3. DRESS NICE.

Clothing has more to do with productivity than you think. Get comfortable clothes that fit you nicely and look flattering. The right clothes will make you feel more confident.

4. CLEAN YOUR ROOM AND YOUR DESK.

You cant be productive when there is clutter all over the place and you waste time anytime you need something as you have no idea where it could be.

5. AVOID DISTRACTIONS.

Dont try to pamper yourself with Facebook, Twitter, Instagram or your favourite sites. You will end up forgetting how fast time goes by.

6. SET RULES FOR THE ONES AROUND YOU AS WELL.

Be very clear when you cant be disturbed unless it is something extremely important going on.

7. CREATE TO DO LISTS.

It only takes a few minutes to create To Do lists for a day, a week or for a whole month. In this way, you wont forget about the key matters that you have to solve in the future.

8. SET TIMETABLES.

Allot a certain amount of time for the tasks of the day and stick to the plan as much as possible. Make sure you include reasonably-timed necessary breaks too.

9. IDENTIFY THE TIME WASTERS.

Everyone has a few time wasting activities. Whether thats social media, taking way too much time for meals or gossiping, this has to stop.

10. BREATHE IN, BREATHE OUT.

When you feel overwhelmed, take a few minutes to focus on your breathing. Breathe in and out deeply several times until you feel less pressure.

11. PLACE PAPER POST-ITS.

Dont rely on apps as the information might remain there way after your deadlines. Use the good old paper post-its as reminders.

12. USE YOUR IMAGINATION.

If you get bored easily, get creative to make things more interesting.

13. ORGANISE YOUR BIG TASKS INTO SMALL ONES EASIER TO ACHIEVE.

When you accomplish small tasks, you will feel fulfilled and more motivated.

14. CLOSE YOUR EYES AND GET YOURSELF TOGETHER.

To regain your focus, forget about other tasks.

15. USE NOOTROPICS.

Special compounds can boost your brain health and cognitive abilities better than you think. Just make sure you choose top notch ones such as Modafy.

16. IDENTIFY WHETHER YOU ARE GOOD AT MULTITASKING.

Some do a great job as they feel stimulated, while others just cant manage several tasks in the same time. Find out whether multitasking works for you or not.

17. MAKE USE OF WISE QUOTES.

There are tons of motivational and inspiring quotes out there. Browse a bit and find those that appeal to you. Then apply that wisdom in your daily life.

18. FIND A GOOD STIMULANT.

Coffee might make you shaky and energy drinks might give you gastrointestinal distress. Dont try to hack your brain by consuming beverages that make you feel uncomfortable or downright sick. Its better to stick to nootropics as stimulants.

19. INVEST SOME EFFORT.

Force yourself to move faster and to be productive. When you have much time, you might tend to get a bit lazy.

Renowned author Cyril Northcote Parkinson formulated Parkinsons law, which states that work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion. It is known to be applicable in each and every life domain.

20. DONT OVERLOAD YOUR TO DO LIST.

If its not very important at the moment, dont let it waste your time. You can create separate To Do lists: mandatory and optional that you will complete when time allows you to.

21. EAT BREAKFAST.

It is the first opportunity to feed your body the nutrients it needs to function properly throughout the day. Dont skip it as you will tend to make poor nutrition choices that will only slow down your brain.

22. TAKE BREAKS WHEN YOU FEEL DRAINED OF ENERGY AND UNPRODUCTIVE.

Every now and then you really need a break. Stretch a bit, look out the window or get yourself a snack and a glass of water. But dont abuse breaks by turning them into hour-long gaps in your schedule.

23. EXERCISE.

Whether that is running, swimming, going to the gym or just having a walk, you need to wake up your body too. Physical exercise has positive effects over your whole body, so forget about getting lazy in front of the TV every time you have some time off.

24. LISTEN TO YOUR FAVOURITE SONGS BEFORE ENGAGING IN A TASK.

Go for highly energetic songs with a positive message that make you feel alive. Dont even think about songs that might trigger any kind of negative emotions.

25. HAVE REALISTIC EXPECTATIONS.

There might be a big difference between what you can do and what you want to do in a certain time frame. Remember that you are not a robot and stick to a realistic plan that will allow you to get proper rest too.

26. DONT GO OVERBOARD.

Exhausting yourself will only make you completely unproductive. Dont try to compensate inactivity with periods of time of highly intense long hours of work.

27. LEARN TIME MANAGEMENT.

The day has 24 hours for each and every person on this planet. Irrespective of your lifestyle, you can make time for nearly anything as long as you manage your time wisely.

28. TRY NAPPING.

A nap has the power to restart your system. But careful, some people might feel groggy after a nap. If u are one of them

29. DONT TAKE ON MORE RESPONSIBILITIES THAN YOU CAN HANDLE.

Saying yes to everyone every time might make your heart feel good but it will exhaust your brain.

30. FORGET ABOUT PERFECTION.

It is time to accept the fact that no matter how hard you will try, it is quite impossible to achieve perfection. Do your best to get the best result possible and dont freak out over tiny details that are irrelevant to the main purpose anyway.

31. KNOW YOUR BODYS TIMETABLE.

You might be a night owl or an early bird. Organise your day around these patterns. It is pointless to force yourself to be productive when your body simply isnt able to. Discover your bodys timetable and use it to your advantage.

32. PRIORITIZE.

Dont just make a mess out of everything by trying to accomplish as much as you can as humanly possible. Get the urgent things done soon then the ones that can wait.

33. SCHEDULE SIMILAR TASKS BACK-TO-BACK.

In this way the task will seem pretty repetitive and it feel easier as you will go into automate mode. It is best to take small breaks after accomplishing a set of tasks and not in the middle of it.

34. DO SOMETHING EVEN WHEN YOU ARE NOT IN THE MOOD.

So you just dont feel like doing anything. Get something easier done meanwhile or a task that you slightly enjoy doing. But that doesnt involve looking at cat videos or aimlessly browsing the Internet.

35. PLAN YOUR DAY AND EVEN YOUR WEEK.

Just make a rough draft and try to keep it. You can do this before you go to sleep or early in the morning before you start.

36. DONT OVERANALYSE THINGS.

Overanalysing could delay you a lot. You dont do yourself any favour by thinking for ages how to get something done without taking any real action. Take your time with essential matters but speed things up for the less important ones.

37. TURN OFF THE VOICES IN YOUR HEAD.

Everyone has an inner critic that thrashes down all the accomplishments. Just ignore that and focus on the tasks at hand.

38. GIVE YOUR BODY THE NUTRIENTS IT NEEDS.

This cant be emphasized enough. Say goodbye to highly processed foods that are full of additives. Add in your diet only healthy ones that ensure proper body functions.

39. LET THE SUN SHINE.

It is important to be exposed to natural light, otherwise you might feel groggy. The run rays will also stimulate your bodys natural rhythm

40. LEARN TO BE STRAIGHTFORWARD.

Dont spend time telling stories as you will only waste time and bore people. Keep things simple and go straight to the point.

41. USE MINDLESS ACTIVITIES TO LEARN.

Whenever you clean the house or do the laundry, you can listen to educational or motivational audios.

42. EDUCATE YOURSELF.

Never stop learning. There are tons of books that arent only good lecture, but contain different interesting points of view.

43. LET GO OF NEGATIVE EMOTIONS.

They can thrash your day and ruin your mood. Just banish them from your thoughts as much as possible.

44. ANALYSE THE TASKS AND TRIAGE THEM.

Some of them might be irrelevant. Spend your time with the ones that do matter as they are either highly important for work or for your personal life.

45. IDENTIFY THE ACTIVITIES THAT DONT BRING ANYTHING TO THE TABLE.

For example, commenting on YouTube videos or blogs and expressing an opinion that will either go unnoticed or start a fight is clearly pointless.

46. ACCEPT WHAT YOU CANT CHANGE.

Dont worry for other peoples problems if you cant do anything to help. This will only distract you from solving your own.

47. USE THE POMODORO TECHNIQUE.

It involves working for 25 minutes than having a 5-minute break. Stick to it to regain your discipline.

48. STOP COMPARING YOURSELF TO OTHERS.

Social media makes people always compare themselves to one another. Instead of whining because you are less successful than others, use that time to go to the next level yourself.

View original post here:

Modafy Brain Stack | Accelerated Nootropics Formula

Utopia – New World Encyclopedia

Posted on by

Utopia is a term denoting a visionary or ideally perfect state of society, whose members live the best possible life. The term Utopia was coined by Thomas More from the Greek words ou (no or not), and topos (place), as the name for the ideal state in his book, De optimo reipublicae statu deque nova insula Utopia (Louvain, 1516).

Utopianism refers to the various ways in which people think about, depict, and attempt to create a perfect society. Utopian thought deals with morality, ethics, psychology, and political philosophy, and often originates from the belief that reason and intelligence can bring about the betterment of society. It is usually characterized by optimism that an ideal society is possible. Utopianism plays an important role in motivating social and political change.

The adjective "utopian" is sometimes used in a negative connotation to discredit ideas as too advanced, too optimistic or unrealistic and impossible to realize. The term Utopian has also been used to describe actual communities founded in attempts to create an ideal economic and political system. Many works of utopian literature offer detailed and practical descriptions of an ideal society, but usually include some fatal flaw that makes the establishment of such a society impossible.

The term Utopia was coined by Thomas More from the Greek words ou (no or not), and topos (place), as the name for the ideal state in his book, De optimo reipublicae statu deque nova insula Utopia (Utopia Louvain, 1516). The book is narrated by a Portuguese traveler named Raphael Hythlodaeus, who criticizes the laws and customs of European states while admiring the ideal institutions which he observes during a five year sojourn on the island of Utopia.

Did you know?

Utopia is a perfect society, where poverty and misery have been eliminated, there are few laws and no lawyers, and the citizens, though ready to defend themselves if necessary, are pacifists. Citizens hold property in common, and care is taken to teach everyone a trade from which he can make a living, so that there is no need for crime. Agriculture is treated as a science and taught to children as part of their school curriculum; every citizen spends some of his life working on a farm. The people live in 54 cities, separated from each other by a distance of at least 24 miles. The rural population lives in communal farmhouses scattered through the countryside. Everyone works only six hours a day; this is sufficient because the people are industrious and do not require the production of useless luxuries for their consumption. A body of wise and educated representatives deliberates on public affairs, and the country is governed by a prince, selected from among candidates chosen by the people. The prince is elected for life, but can be removed from office for tyranny. All religions are tolerated and exist in harmony; atheism is not permitted since, if a man does not fear a god of some kind, he will commit evil acts and weaken society. Utopia rarely sends its citizens to war, but hires mercenaries from among its warlike neighbors, deliberately sending them into danger in the hope that the more belligerent populations of all surrounding countries will be gradually eliminated.

Utopia was first published in Louvain in 1516, without Mores knowledge, by his friend Erasmus. It was not until 1551, sixteen years after More's execution as a traitor, that it was first published in England as an English translation.

Although some readers have regarded Utopia as a realistic blueprint for a working nation, More likely intended it as a satire, allowing him to call attention to European political and social abuses without risking censure by the king. The similarities to the ideas later developed by Karl Marx are evident, but More was a devout Roman Catholic and probably used monastic communalism as his model. The politics of Utopia have been seen as influential to the ideas of Anabaptism, Mormonism, and communism. An applied example of More's utopia can be seen in Vasco de Quiroga's implemented society in Michoacn, Mexico, which was directly taken and adapted from More's work.

The word utopia overtook More's short work and has been used ever since to describe any type of imaginary ideal society. Although he may not have founded the genre of utopian and dystopian fiction, More certainly popularized it. Some of the early works which owe something to Utopia include The City of the Sun by Tommaso Campanella, Description of the Republic of Christianopolis by Johannes Valentinus Andreae, New Atlantis by Francis Bacon and Candide by Voltaire.

The more modern genre of science fiction frequently depicts utopian or dystopian societies in fictional works such as Aldous Huxley's Brave New World (1932) Lost Horizon by James Hilton (1933), "A Modern Utopia" (1905) and New Worlds for Old (1908) by H. G. Wells, The Great Explosion by Eric Frank Russell (1963), News From Nowhere by William Morris, Andromeda Nebula (1957) by Ivan Efremov, 1984 (1949) by George Orwell, and The Giver (1993) by Lois Lowry. Authors of utopian fiction are able to explore some of the problems raised by utopian concepts and to develop interesting consequences. Many works make use of an outsider, a time-traveler or a foreigner, who observes the features of the society and describes them to the reader.

Utopian thought is born from the premise that through reason and intelligence, humankind is capable of creating an ideal society in which every individual can achieve fulfillment without infringing on the happiness and well-being of the other members of society. It includes the consideration of morality, ethics, psychology, and social and political philosophy. Utopian thinking is generally confined to physical life on earth, although it may include the preparation of the members of society for a perceived afterlife. It invariably includes criticism of the current state of society and seeks ways to correct or eliminate abuses. Utopianism is characterized by tension between philosophical ideals and the practical realities of society, such as crime and immorality; there is also a conflict between respect for individual freedom and the need to maintain order. Utopian thinking implies a creative process that challenges existing concepts, rather than an ideology or justification for a belief system which is already in place.

Two of Platos dialogues, Republic and Laws, contain one of the earliest attempts to define a political organization that would not only allow its citizens to live in harmony, but would also provide the education and experience necessary for each citizen to realize his highest potential.

During the nineteenth century, thinkers such as Henri Saint-Simon, Charles Fourier, and Etienne Cabet in France, and Robert Owen in England popularized the idea of creating small, experimental communities to put philosophical ideals into practice. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels recognized that utopianism offered a vision for a better future, a vision that contributed much to Marxism, but they also criticized utopian writers' lack of a wider understanding of social and political realities which could contribute to actual political change. Herbert Marcuse made a distinction between abstract utopias based on fantasy and dreams, and concrete utopias based on critical social theory.

Utopianism is considered to originate in the imaginative capacity of the subconscious mind, which is able to transcend conscious reality by projecting images of hopes, dreams, and desires. Utopian ideas, though they may never be fully realized, play an important role in bringing about positive social change. They allow thinkers to distance themselves from the existing reality and consider new possibilities. The optimism that a better society can be achieved provides motivation and a focal point for those involved in bringing about social or political change. Abolitionism, womens rights and feminism, the Civil Rights movement, the establishment of a welfare system to take care of the poor, the Red Cross, and multiculturalism are all examples of utopian thinking applied to practical life.

The harsh economic conditions of the nineteenth century and the social disruption created by the development of commercialism and capitalism led several writers to imagine economically utopian societies. Some were characterized by a variety of socialist ideas: an equal distribution of goods according to need, frequently with the total abolition of money; citizens laboring for the common good; citizens doing work which they enjoyed; and ample leisure time for the cultivation of the arts and sciences. One such utopia was described in Edward Bellamy's Looking Backward. Another socialist utopia was William Morris' News from Nowhere, written partially in criticism of the bureaucratic nature of Bellamy's utopia.

Capitalist utopias, such as the one portrayed in Robert A. Heinlein's The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress or Ayn Rands The Fountainhead, are generally individualistic and libertarian, and are based on perfect market economies, in which there is no market failure. Eric Frank Russell's book The Great Explosion (1963) details an economic and social utopia, the first to mention of the idea of Local Exchange Trading Systems (LETS).

Political utopias are ones in which the government establishes a society that is striving toward perfection. These utopias are based on laws administered by a government, and often restrict individualism when it conflicts with the primary goals of the society. Sometimes the state or government replaces religious and family values. A global utopia of world peace is often seen as one of the possible inevitable ends of history.

Through history a number of religious communities have been created to reflect the virtues and values they believe have been lost or which await them in the Afterlife. In the United States and Europe during and after the Second Great Awakening of the nineteenth century, many radical religious groups sought to form communities where all aspects of people's lives could be governed by their faith. Among the best-known of these utopian societies were the Puritans, and the Shaker movement, which originated in England in the eighteenth century but moved to America shortly after its founding.

The most common utopias are based on religious ideals, and usually required adherence to a particular religious tradition. The Jewish, Christian and Islamic concepts of the Garden of Eden and Heaven may be interpreted as forms of utopianism, especially in their folk-religious forms. Such religious "utopias" are often described as "gardens of delight," implying an existence free from worry in a state of bliss or enlightenment. They postulate existences free from sin, pain, poverty and death, and often assume communion with beings such as angels or the houri. In a similar sense the Hindu concept of Moksha and the Buddhist concept of Nirvana may be thought of as a kind of utopia.

Many cultures and cosmogonies include a myth or memory of a distant past when humankind lived in a primitive and simple state of perfect happiness and fulfillment. The various myths describe a time when there was an instinctive harmony between man and nature, and mans needs were easily supplied by the abundance of nature. There was no motive for war or oppression, or any need for hard and painful work. Humans were simple and pious, and felt themselves close to the gods. These mythical or religious archetypes resurge with special vitality during difficult times, when the myth is not projected towards the remote past, but towards the future or a distant and fictional place (for example, The Land of Cockaygne, a straightforward parody of a paradise), where the possibility of living happily must exist.

Golden Age

Works and Days, compilation of the mythological tradition by the Greek poet Hesiod, around the eighth century B.C.E., explained that, prior to the present era, there were four progressively most perfect ones.

A medieval poem (c. 1315) , entitled "The Land of Cokaygne" depicts a land of extravagance and excess where cooked larks flew straight into one's mouth; the rivers ran with wine, and a fountain of youth kept everyone young and active.

Scientific and technical utopias are set in the future, when it is believed that advanced science and technology will allow utopian living standards; for example, the absence of death and suffering; changes in human nature and the human condition. These utopian societies tend to change what "human" is all about. Normal human functions, such as sleeping, eating and even reproduction are replaced by artificial means.

All links retrieved January 13, 2016.

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.

See more here:

Utopia - New World Encyclopedia