We all know how evolution works, it keeps the strongest alive, for an example of a disease, only the strong live.
I think there is another reason, or a bigger goal to be precise for evolution which is to maintain balance and promote life and growth. Life forms are changing continuously to adapt to new environment and circumstances to live, those who can not adapt or pose a threat on the balance are eliminated, for example dinausors, or the goats where man killed all the wolves around to protect them, they finished by dying because there is no enough food. Evloution is growth not only for species, but for the world and its balance. -balance by that term is a dynamic thing not a stable balance when it is attained it's the end, not at all.
I think that human beings are putting a huge threat on the planet and I think that religions are nature's way of getting rid of us. I know some of you may agree with me that religions are a disease that we should get rid of. The "problem" is that nature has created a creature that has a brain intelligent enough to dominate all other species. But that brain has also created gods and religions that enslaved them, restricted them from thinking, they were always in the way to stop human development. Countless wars were made by religion or fueled by religion, millions dead, countries doomed. That's nature's doing I think.
Even religion, they went through the process of natural selection, and not only the stongest religions survived and dominated, but they are also the deadliest and bloodiest: christianity and islam. There are PLENTY peaceful religions but they are forgottend or still exist in very small numbers.
If you see Australia, a place that has been isloated from the rest of the world for so long, and it contains MANY UNIQUE species that don't exist elsewhere. We know that humans existed in australia all along, but there is something different about them,bwhich is that native australians kept harmony with nature, they were PEACEFUL people and welcomed the dutch and eglish when they came, they only had passed on beliefs of spirituality that when someone dies he returns to nature and so on. They lived on hunting and had no understanding of territory and property until the english strarted cutting trees to make farms and killing the wildlife that natives relied on for living.
I think religion is a disease that we had so that not so that humans don't multiply that fast and damage all the ecosystem, it is a disease that the human got when he got his brain, tishe brain that is able to understand, create and control. Now humans have a better understanding of their world and its problems (I'm shocked that there are still people who don't believe in global warming, yea they're probably the most religious ones). And I also think that there is a challenge for humanity which is that if humanity wants to survive it has to get rid of all its religions. I think that religions are a virus that exists in people's minds until people are able to use their brains wisely and effeftively for the best of the planet, the proof is that once you try to think scientifically you'll realise how dumb the rituals are and find out that there is no place for god.
I know it's not obvious to make the correlation, it is just an observation.
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
" They lived on hunting and had no understanding of territory and property until the english strarted cutting trees to make farms and killing the wildlife that natives relied on for living."
Well wrong, there was a patchwork of language groups and clans across Australia, there is a map available. Territorial borders were recognised and one had to have dispensation from the elders and a specially carved message sticks to cross them unmolested.
Wars and fatalaties between clans was common practice with revenge spearings and often settled by punishment spearings as atonement.
Having sat and listened and been educated by Yamatji Elders many of their stories are about such things, The Yamatji have a thousand year old blood feud with the Wongatha (Wongi) people which still results in violence today.
People are people none of us are that different, only our behaviour has been modified by our environment.
@Old Man Shouts: patchwork of language groups and clans across Australia
And newly published research suggests that all of those languages came from a common ancestor about 12K years ago. Since Australia has been inhabited for around 40K years (maybe longer), early groups must have been somehow been eliminated or absorbed by the speakers of that ancestor language. This seems to be a common pattern for humanity everywhere.
While religious behavior today is certainly a threat to survival, I don't believe that it's a evolutionary factor designed to control over-population. Religions all date back to times when humanity was not a major threat to the global environment.
Also, I don't see religions as unconscious social or biological responses. I think they're the deliberate creations of cynical, power-hungry, self-serving men.
Genes and memes have no goals, we measure their efficacy by the extent they propagate.
"We all know how evolution works, it keeps the strongest alive, for an example of a disease, only the strong live."
This is not how evolution works.
Natural selection favours the survival of those organisms most adaptable to change. Not the strongest, not the most intelligent, the most adaptable.
And yes I am aware I am paraphrasing a quote wrongly attributed to Darwin, but the point is evolution doesn't work to keep the strongest alive.
The wording is still very important. Suggesting evolution/natural selection favours only the strong or intelligent is misinformation that encourages all sorts of outbursts from racists, and theists as well.
Standing down from rant.
@Grinseed: Natural selection favours the survival of those organisms most adaptable to change
Exactly right. It's survival of the fittest, not necessarily the strongest.