Regarding both, I think we're going to suffer a mass die off this century and on into the next. We've simply got too many people in absolute terms, and the race itself continues to separate into the elite ruling haves and the rest of us have nots. For all of our technological advancement, we're actually a very brute and savage race when you get right down to it, and probably not worthy of advancement.In the 20th century it was the U.S. and mostly European nations that rose to the top, and now in the 21st we're seeing a further separation by the rich and the powerful, who also seem hell bent on destroying the planet along with the other 99% of us. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that this simply can't go on much longer. Natural resource depletion is actually a blessing in disguise, since it will force these issues to come to a head.The best case scenario is that the whole thing works itself out fairly quickly without a nuclear winter or anything like that, and a relatively few technologically and spiritually advanced people survive the holocaust and move things forward.The worst (from OUR point of view at least, I'm not sure the planet would share that point of view)? We either go extinct or knock ourselves back a few hundred years with large numbers of marauding hordes left remaining that continue to deplete and pollute the environment, which case the sorting out might continue for a rather long, painful while.Could go either way, but I wouldn't bet on the best case. The brute savage types are natural survivors when the going gets tough, and will probably win out in the short run, although climate change and/or other natural disasters might well have the last laugh regardless. We won't be missed.
disaffected,Reminds me some of your post a while back. That was an exercise in Chronesthesia, showing it is good to have vision as one of the tools of cognition.Looking ahead is the only way to see what is coming.
I see that Obama, that great "agent of change" continues to show his true MOMCOM colors regarding nuclear weapons investment as well, which, I think is a fairly clear signal about where we're heading in the coming century. I would be VERY surprised indeed if we didn't let a few ICBMs fly before we willingly go down the tubes as the global hegemon. The crucial determining resource will of course be oil, and the battle for the dwindling remaining supplies can't be more than 20 years off IMO. And once the nuclear beast is unleashed, all bets are off. Even if the exchange is relatively contained, I can't see anything ever being the same afterward, as at the very least, the illusion of global "free markets" will be revealed as the capitalist fantasy they always were.
Not sure if I agree with survival of the fittest. Mother Nature shows us a different reality, those, or that, that adapts well to changing conditions survive, not necessarily "the fittest."On the mind, or as you say, the power of toxins, have you read "Glimpses of Abhidharma (1975)" by Chögyam Trungpa. I would also like to say that if we have a problem seeing or hearing acurately, things as they are, then we truely are our own projection; from Plato we have the Allegory of the Cave.My understanding is that the world as it is is in constant flux, it is dynamic, so we mmust clear our minds, so we can be present, and wholesome. IE It's not unlike logrolling, except there is no break, there are no vacations, mind never sleeps.On a lighter note, I have to love Bill Belichek's favorite response to reporters questions, "It is what it is."
Kathy,Greetings and welcome!As to "survival of the fittest" applied to ecocosmology, it is not the same concept as it is in biological evolution. Even though Darwin himself approved that term, a term started by Spencer, ecocosmology does not address biological evolution in terms of survival of the fittest.Ecocosmology applies to memetic evolution, the phase following biological evolution in sentient species that inhabit planets orbiting stars.The extinction of all species on those planets is fundamental, basic, and assured, unless memetic evolution takes place ...
Thanks for the welcome and explanation, I would be open to more enlightenment on this, yet from the Abhiddharma we can realize there are "no more crows."In terms of survival, again, Mother Nature has no preferences, and adaption, as you just described it in your reply to my comment, is the ultimate law.As to the future, I believe, it is open.