I saw an interesting commentary by Grahm Hancock that stated he feels the current policy by governments throughout the world on enthogens may b inhibiting the evolutionary process of our species from realizing our potential as a species. It got me to thinking and if this is a way of expanding human consciousness which is being prohibited then we truly are being robbed of our most fundamental rights as sovereign beings, our right of what to think and control of our consciousness.... It's sad how the PTB have such an immature mindset that they attempt to maintain power by stifling they very things that could benefit all of humanity and life on this planet in persuit of power and money. Will we ever be able to evolve to a more mature level of consciousness as a species?

COME ON 2012!

Evolution is non-directional...

So are you saying that evolution doesn't exist? Or that it is more of a 360 degree rotation?

I'm saying that all of this new age talk about some grand plan for the "evolution" of human consciousness fails to take into account that evolution does not necessitate some increased consciousness or enlightened state. Evolution has no agenda...it is merely the byproduct of species fitting (or not fitting) into various niches. If you want to say there's some spiritual progression going on, then say that...but evolution, by definition is not about 'progress'. To put it another way, if it were advantageous for humanity to lose its conscious awareness, I would posit these people would not see it as an evolution.



Any change..."backwards", "forwards", side to side...you name it, qualifies. Imo, evolution is irrelevant to the changes being discussed here for the same reason devolution is not a real term. Those who tout this forthcoming "spiritual evolution" use the term to mean progression, which is an incorrect application.

Exactamundo!

If the food is high on the trees, you grow a long neck.
If you have to go underground and into darkness, you lose your pigment and eyesight.
Natural selection will happen no matter what the government says.

Grahm Hancock seems to have resorted to a little whining.

uhhh..

"Will we ever be able to evolve to a more mature level of consciousness as a species?"

I think it was clear in the origional post what what meant here. We dont need an evolution 101 class here to get the gist of this thread..if you cant figure out what the OP is talking about than I have to wonder...

"Grahm Hancock seems to have resorted to a little whining."

What about that sounds like whining? you like to kiss the ass of the government and think we are treated just fine than thats your opinion, you are certainly welcome to it. I will side with Graham Hancock here cus I know we are all being F-cked.

What part of, "the government is stifling my evolution with their laws" doesn't sound like whining?

I am most definitely NOT a supporter of many of the government's policies, and I will do what I feel is right no matter what laws they pass. But to credit them with power over evolution is going a bit to far.

I understand the intention of the statement/thread...but the misuse of the term 'evolution' is a widespread issue that I chose to address because I feel that such misuse creates problems in a number of contexts. That's all.

I don't think an "evolution 101" is out of place here. It reminds us that biological change it's not a teleological force. It's blind, it doesn't appear to work towards a specific end.
In Hancock's statements, there are some implicit assumptions about the "right way to evolve", and that conflicts with the concept of biological evolution of the species as we understand it now.

That said, there is sense in Hancock's words if we just consider cultural, technological evolution. In our species, cultural evolution has become a more powerful, faster actor in change than genetic evolution in the current times. By using our experience, knowledge and tools, we have the possibility to decide, to a certain extent, which way do we want to push or channel our evolution as a species, as a community, as a system.

Once you think that certain direction is better, more convenient, for your species and for the place you live in, it makes complete sense to object when powers keep away from you a great tool to pursue that change.

We could reverse ethics and decide that that change is just one among many possible, and it's not necessarily better than simply consuming the planet and becoming food for plants and roaches. But I think we can accept the current ideas about evolution and, at the same time, realize that our culture is also a product of evolution, and wherever our culture takes us makes evolutionary sense as well. That implies using our culture, that implies deciding - as much as we are able to. Also, reasons to complain.

so all internet forums ARE the same...

your point being...?

Those of us that want the type of "evolution" that the o.p. is talking about will still find ways of getting there. Silly laws can't stop something so big. And if we really do make some kind of big collective "leap", we'll probably be able to teach it to others.

my point is (and not directed at you) that there's always someone who fixates on an insignificant detail of the original thought and derails the entire point of the thread with meaningless drivel as they feel it necessary to "make their point" on a complete sidebar topic... to those people i say: "make it in your own thread." the majority here got the gist of my original post and contributed constructively. to those folks i say: "thank you kindly for playing"

and what exactly is a more "mature" level of consciousness? and who determined it?
talk about meaningless drivel..


newsflash: nobody is preventing you from altering your consciousness. hold your breath and spin in circles, go for a jog. what society needs is encouragement for more critical thinking. that may arguably do more for evolution than some spiritual utopian ideal; albeit, some of the most creative thoughts come from states of relaxation, thus meditation is a good start, followed by critical/analytical thinking.

I am of the opinion that if one is going claim to be a scientist and comment on natural processes, they should possess at least a rudimentary understanding of the processes on which they are commenting. By suggesting that he can know the direction evolution will take us and that any individual or group could exert some control over millions of years of evolution shows Mr. Hancock’s level of expertise in this matter. This is quite unfortunate for his credibility as a scientist and this is not the first time his scientific credibility has been questioned.

Exactly!! This is what happens in just about every thread!! People invade the thread with whatever they randomly think of.. I mean, there was this other perfectly good thread, where the topic just rocked and then everyone just invaded it and.... Oh wait.. I am doing that now! Oops

http://johnsonsdictionaryonline.com/?p=6622

Edit: I can accept if someone thinks that material/biological evolution has no direction. But with the arrival of humans I see an entirely new level emerging. Humans are capable of projecting their mental structures onto external reality and transform it according to their desires. Which means we became drivers of our own evolution.

Lets say that we all decided that by eating worms we could attain enlightenment and for millions of years humans all found and ate all the worms they could. After that time we would probably not have attained enlightenment, but maybe our leg muscles would have formed in such a way that we could stay in a crouched position for a long time and we also grew claws for digging through the dirt.

We certainly would have affected evolution, but because the consequences were unintentional we had no control over it. Also, Societies come and go much too fast to have any real effect. There is no way you could consciously affect evolution because the next society will have different values than ours. Our timescale is just too short in relation to the timescale of evolution.

I guess we could affect it by changing the human genome or blowing up the world with nuclear weapons, but again any consequences would be unintentional and terrifying.

Can we please drop the semantic wrangling now? Everything said so far is valid and smart, but let's focus on the OP.

For the sale of argument, let's say that cultural evolution is a subset of biological evolution. I mean, they have to be related, right? And our vision of evolution having a direction is simply plain old anthropocentrism: we see ourselves as being as we should be, and all roads lead to here.

Biological evolution is slow enough as to be almost irrelevant in terms of dealing with our present crisis. Cultural evolution, on the other hand, moves quickly. It is a fast-moving outgrowth of bio evolution and is currently the big game happening in town. Our culture's attitude toward psychedelics is simply a primate reaction to the unknown. Any government conspiracies etc. can be seen as a natural and completely unsurprising reaction to the nature of entheogens.

And yeah, we can complain all we want, but it's mostly a waste of breath. We do have the ability to alter out consciousness by many different means, including legal ones. And despite any efforts on the part of our handlers, information about extracting and using natural entheogens is more widely available than ever.