Empowerment as enablement to live joyfully, sufficiently, and sustainably giving more back than is taken from environment, community, family, and oneself

All human systems should empower the individual and community. Empowerment is defined enablement to live joyfully, sufficiently, and sustainably giving more back than is taken from environment, community, family, and oneself. Making human systems efficient[1] in terms of enabling the mass of action with minimal friction is one tiny part of the puzzle. Attaining it is most easily accomplished by the disembowelment of the other parts through overreaching laws, absolute enforcement, and lenient rules of judgment with error in guilt assumption as a factored cost. Make no mistake; efficiency of society does not achieve goals of empowerment. Fascism in Nazi Germany, communist experiments of the last century, and the modern confined animal feeding operation compromise on the very essence of what it means to live. No person is a machine and no person can be simplified to the material reality. Man as an individual is infinitely more faceted and complex than the degree possible with any machine. Intrinsic in this is an even more infinite force of existence that links to all life in a way science resoundingly assumes too complex for study. Therefore, efficiency of society through strict obedience to law cannot lead to unilateral individual empowerment in a diverse society.

[1] Efficient here is not used in terms of use of resources, but rather in terms of smooth flow as in a confined animal feeding operation.

Key words of the Revolution:

Symbiotic Future, occupy conscience, integrity, permaculture, organic farming, farm, agriculture, regenerative agriculture, biochar, agrochar, resource conservation, revolution, activism, activist, bushcraft, survival, diplomacy, wild, nature, mother nature, wildness, spirit, spiritual, mother earth, ecology, environment, self sufficiency, conscious, empowerment, civil disobedience, passive resistance, peace, love, compassion, non-violence, resistance, resist oppression, community, local, locovore, foodie, slow food, coexist, diversity, purity, holiness, values, ideals, idealism,…

Key words of the Revolution:

Symbiotic Future, occupy conscience, integrity, permaculture, organic farming, farm, agriculture, regenerative agriculture, biochar, agrochar, resource conservation, revolution, activism, activist, bushcraft, survival, diplomacy, wild, nature, mother nature, wildness, spirit, spiritual, mother earth, ecology, environment, self sufficiency, conscious, empowerment, civil disobedience, passive resistance, peace, love, compassion, non-violence, resistance, resist oppression, community, local, locovore, foodie, slow food, coexist, diversity, purity, holiness, values, ideals, idealism,…

Ideological revival of Justice, Law, and Liable enforcement:

Rough Brainstorm on key points of restraining the fascist tendency in the pursuit of efficient governance: (written and not yet re-read, open for comments):

  1. Disobedience of a law that itself is illegal is not disobedience or the breaking of law as such a law is ‘not to be considered any law at all.’ Civil disobedience does not make anyone a rebel or a lawbreaker, much less a criminal. It makes them at least nothing in particular, and potentially the best of model citizens.
  2. Arbitrarily forcing obedience to law is extremely tenuous, legally and morally risky, and completely irresponsible. Due diligence in the assessment of the law needs to be performed at every step in the chain of authority, personally assessing the indisputable constitutionality and legality of the law. Any individual link in the chain of the enforcement of an illegal law is fully liable for damages both real and felt.
  3. Shielding of public servants from liability is immoral and irresponsible. All of those in public service are to be held to the model standard thereby drawing and requiring the best of citizens to fill the need. Shielding of public servants from any degree of liability will guarantee the existence of corruption and criminality in such public service. Public servants acting in their official capacity have less, not more, rights than common citizens who have not accepted an oath of office.
  4. Liability means accountable to provide full and sufficient retort for any and all damages for actions or inactions to the fullest extent of the definition.
  5. The liability of any individual toward government, corporations, and other individuals individuals must be limited and shielded sufficiently for a free and open society to exist. The standing for personal lawsuit shall not exist for any law that is shrouded with any degree of controversy and no exercise of personal right shall give standing for any lawsuit against an individual. Every individual must feel secure and protected in their person both from outside criminality and from bullying through legal and governmental channels, so that they can pursue ‘life liberty and happiness’ in peace.
  6. Corporation and businesses are not individuals. Any business separate from the individual or netting more than 2 times the average income in the particular locality shall incur a greater liability than the individual and a locally contrived operational environment to assure that the human systems benefit life and limit negative impacts to ‘life on earth’.
  7. Any personal exercise of rights may not diminish the rights and resources of any living or yet future individual. Personal use of resources is a guaranteed right, but that guarantee only stretches to the point where an equal return of equally clean and usable resource value is returned to the system. In other words, no one has a right to parasitize any location, or system on the planet for personal, community, or egalitarian goals.
  8. Common citizens accused of a crime have their full rights. Practically speaking, if there is a strong body of evidence for their guilt, they may be held in conditions similar to their normal life until and unless the full course of trial proves that they absolutely are guilty without any place for doubt, at which time they lose some of their rights. If the evidence is tenuous and they are a flight risk, they may be watched within the bounds of legality for any citizen and nothing more. They are free and have all the rights of any common citizen. Any citizen may, for just cause be compelled by government or community to face trial. At their request it may be necessary to pay the full cost for the performance of their duties or jobs and to provide transportation to the court from a meeting place of their choosing. Inconvenience is not to be unduly felt by the accused, though such can be later collected in similar form if they are found without any place for ‘shadow of doubt’ to be guilty.
  9. There can be no compromise in the system of justice regarding the rights of the accused. Any such systematic compromise would render the system similar or worse than a local vigilante legal system. It may be worse in that the authority and the inability for personal resistance is far greater in the case of modern government.

Key words of the Revolution:

Symbiotic Future, occupy conscience, integrity, permaculture, organic farming, farm, agriculture, regenerative agriculture, biochar, agrochar, resource conservation, revolution, activism, activist, bushcraft, survival, diplomacy, wild, nature, mother nature, wildness, spirit, spiritual, mother earth, ecology, environment, self sufficiency, conscious, empowerment, civil disobedience, passive resistance, peace, love, compassion, non-violence, resistance, resist oppression, community, local, locovore, foodie, slow food, coexist, diversity, purity, holiness, values, ideals, idealism,…


On reading a couple of articles about the extinction of birds I began weeping uncontrollably. I love the birds. I love mornings because of the birds. I love evenings for the swallows. On our farm we have often failed to pursue profits, but never have we failed to increase the bird habitat and achieve the yearly reward of a new species or two in our farm and forest ecosystem. With my experience in life of the songbird and the swallow, I don’t think I could live in a world without birds just as I don’t think I could live without the stars. I once promoted a religious bent, at another time a political bent…what is that? What are we doing to our world? Where does this insanity come from?

A lot of our fetish important focuses become so unimportant when laid alongside the destruction of world ecosystem. The last time I cried like this was when I saw the proud news of all night bombings of Afghan villages by the US military which lasted for nearly 3 months without ceasing. My tears lasted as well, and my helplessness. I have not hardened, though my tears usually only begin to come and then stop. I have evolved a heart to bear things a little longer until we change our world. Now the US is calling out Russia for human rights abuses and the whole world is ready for more war, war to distract us from fixing our world and our insane human impacts. All the world’s prominent governments are criminal mafia cartel rings for racketeering and plunder and we now need to slowly and steadily reign them in so as to avoid the back swing into total anarchy and loss of understanding. The world’s people are now mobilized and sufficiently together in heart as never before. Let each one of us be strong in heart and soul, build up personal conscience according to realities on the ground, and by the turn of the new year be ready to live or die by ideals and conscience. The heartless world of dollar pimping and material selfishness over soul is coming to an end and the triumphant soul of man (both male and female) is on the rise!

Now though, all I want to do is cry a little longer…


Specific Topic: Government Mandated Auto liability Insurance.

(This is not given as legal advice as whatever is said should be looked at carefully by an attorney).

Mandatory auto insurance may be a societal good with clear brilliance in benevolent reward to all from the booming financial insurance industry to the poverty stricken rural community. On the other hand it may be a parasite attached forcefully to a society already under too much pressure or a stench of a newly revised scheme of protectionism by a ingeniously integrated racketeering ring. More likely, it could be something in between. Mainstream society accepts it. Divergent circles question it, and that is the purpose of this article. However, let’s keep the discussion simple and relevant leaving the complexity in the mind and heart of the conscientious livers that help keep us on the straight and narrow by bringing these kinds of divergent opinions. For it is with divergent but reasonable opinions that the founding fathers established the nation and propelled it to pride and prominence.

The arguments for mandatory insurance are everywhere publicized and parroted. The establishment line is already represented. Jumping right in on the other side; if mandatory auto insurance for all is an equitable law than why does it fetter and in some cases block access to a connecting road system so important to our society that its non-restriction is written as a privilege guaranteed by the constitution and/or Bill of Bights?

If it is equitable, than why is this restriction a burden not primarily to the middle class, well to do, and wealthy, but instead to the lower middle class the lower class and the poor? Why would the people write off as equitable, a law that makes criminals and public burdens of poverty stricken citizens who would otherwise follow greater ambition and the American dream? In example: Why is a young man or woman with a well kept car and a conscientious and stellar driving record who can barely afford the fuel to pursue her ambitions, subjected either to consideration of disobedience or to an inability to use the road system in the same way as his/her financially more secure competitor? 

When the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan decades ago it left a power vacuum for societal scum to fill. Among the many evils wrought on society by these opportunistic wretches, was a toll system on the public roadways maintained by force of power. For those with money or clout it was not a problem. For the rest it was a parasitic drain and often a restriction on movement that crippled the lower economic levels of society and pushed them to worse ills including closure of schools, involvement in opium trade, trading of sex or favors, and the loss of ideals and dignity.

In the US, we have a road system that connects our nation like the arteries of the body to the heart. The heart is any common person’s home, from which they may access every area of the nation within the constraints of fuel and motility. Public transportation, though more efficient and more environmentally sustainable is not developed and simply not an option—at present—of any serious merit. Bicycles, though elegantly efficient and refreshingly healthy to ride, are disproportionately dangerous in and around the countryside and are not allowed on many of the highways and freeways. Horses are even more dangerous and restricted, without the boast of speed or efficiency. America has chosen the personal automobile as the norm of transportation and the entire system is built to accommodate it. Any other transportation mode is at this time a great and significant handicap or worse. Unfettered access to the roadway by personal automobile is therefore a necessity to all healthy and able citizens who so choose. We do not provide everyone who cannot afford one with a vehicle, but somehow the range of costs is so accommodating and the trading so grassroots that all who need one can have one. Some are old, some are new, some are simple some complex, but even the poorest have them and often for free as I experienced two times in my life during times of need to access employment. Is the person physically able to drive safely? Do they understand the common agreements/rules of the road and what they should do to drive as safely as possible? Is the automobile in good working order? Any certifications of such within reason are to be expected and encouraged. A requirement of insurance on the other hand is not a provision for safe driving or road-worthiness and it does not increase safety in any way shape or form. In fact, it is more likely to do the opposite providing a false sense of security that does not actually exist subversively causing some drivers to potentially take more risks. This is a reality check not a point to be argued. It may or may not serve the public good to enlist governmental law to require auto insurance; that is very definitely up for a debate that will not be answered or argued here. Financially however, the accounting ledger clearly shows societal financial drain regarding accidents of nearly 200% compared to what it would be without insurance providers. This means that our accidents actually cost society twice as much with no gain in safety under current law. The offset is substantial in the peace of mind for those who can budget it in easily and important business opportunities for investors and big money economy that are a sure thing as long as the government enforces this form of pseudo-protectionism through the use of implied force and power. On the other hand, the loss and burden is incurred by the poor or less fortunate in missed work opportunity, impossible schedules, loss of distant relationships, bankrupt farms, or arrest and conviction. The ones who cannot pinch the budget sufficiently suffer wrongfully with their guaranteed privileges abridged or revoked while an overall financial drain disproportionately weakens and small local economies who see billions lost annually above and beyond the cost of accidents.

If a citizen of the United States of America has found solid financial opportunities, or if they have inherited them, the legal requirement of insurance for all drivers gives them comfort and peace of mine with very little inconvenience, while it may also actually net them more than they pay through investments in the industry. If on the other hand a citizen of the United States of America has not yet found sufficient financial opportunities and they have not inherited resources, what stop-gate will our nation put on their ambition and drive to make something of their life? Perhaps the answer is: ‘whatever the powerful forces of that society will push through for the benefit of their class.’ However, thankfully, there is a stop-gate on the powerful forces of society that upholds the rights and opportunities to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness for those with a less powerful voice. It is the American Constitution and Bill of Rights. By legal precedent, any law passed in any time—perhaps when ‘ignorance is bliss’ or there is a dearth of ideals and wisdom—that infringes upon the rights of any, even the least powerful or significant, is to be considered as no law at all (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/5/137). In such, all levels of society from the citizenry to law enforcement to the courts must legally refrain from infringement of personal rights and privileges with this basic obligation superseding any and all enforcement of law barring an official declaration of Martial Law/emergency status. Thus ‘civil disobedience’ is a legal action that should be common to all walks of life in free society. It is a relevant and wholly lawful response to pervasive insurance requirements. It is the most straightforward and simple everyday grassroots lawful and peaceful action to combat mistaken governance and it is an avenue to showcase and uphold the supreme law of the land and its contained rights and privileges while preventing the slow and steady demise of the nation due to inept lawmakers of any one time or any certain age-of-ignorance.

Let every officer of peace-and-law know first the supreme-law-of-the-land, and understand the subjugation of all contrived or thereafter agreed upon periphery laws under such, as potentially flawed. Let them exercise the utmost care that no action of theirs enforces a non-law upon any citizen within their charge. For not being under military code or law, the responsibility to avoid wrongful enforcement/infringement is not on the common citizen and not primarily on the jurisdiction, but on any individual capable of legal force starting in courtyard, field, or street.  Such access to force of power is both a necessity and a danger to society and therefore a full and complete liability is laid upon those entrusted with it. If one wrongfully diminishes or restricts the clear constitutional rights of any, causing any citizen, resident, or visitor to suffer loss or significant inconvenience, the process of retort needs to begin at the point of enforcement and on the very person wrongfully using force or power. Since no officer is under military law, they are personally liable in their person to the public for damages, and no contrivance of law can legally shield them from such. Accountability is rightfully much greater for those serving the public, and retort in the absence of care and due diligence should never be encumbered. The non-official can be forgiven most errors as they are in relaxed fashion, untrained and un-commissioned; but those wielding power in official capacity must be held to full account.

To summarize the implied conclusions: It is wrong and illegal to forcefully require Insurance on those who either feel they cannot afford it or those who conscientiously object to it. The existence of current recognition of the law as valid does not establish the law as enforceable if it is unconstitutional. Enforcement decisions currently begin on the street resulting in the action and decisions of the police officer faced with any driver who claims hardship or conscience as a reason for not carrying auto insurance. There can be no reasonable justification made linking it insurance to public safety, so considering the potential effect on an individual; it is a difficult but reasonable position to put an officer in. If he acts on the law as written in the state codes, he potentially breaks higher federal laws and brings a harsh liability upon his person for which retort can be demanded in court. Regarding the conversion of property or person in any form through exercise of imbued authority: Liability is incurred fully by the officer in any case of enforcement contrary to rights and privileges. Conversion of property or person could be, but is not limited to, the use of authority to forbid the use of the vehicle or roadway or the demand that the individual not drive until fully insured. Again, the offending officer is rightfully liable for any loss, financial or otherwise, suffered as a result of overstep of rights and privileges which they have personally committed, until such a time as remedy is established by the courts. Additionally, it is clearly not the responsibility of the common citizen to challenge or overturn any law, even when under the threat of conviction. It is necessary to live within the constraints of normal rights and privileges and thankfully in this case, they are mostly iterated in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. If confronted and mistreated for the legal disregard of unjust law, it is often best to show a temporary deference to authority, while it is important also for the officers sake, to try as simply and humbly as possible to explain your choice of financial necessity or conscience. Judicial channels are to establish the violation of your rights and privilege and identify and clarify the extent of your right to demand retort. An equitable judiciary must uphold that the law was invalid and illegal toward the individual since rights and privileges are abridged by it and full and sufficient retort should be granted by those who forced it thereby effecting suffering on such a one. Conversely, it is the responsibility of legislative bodies and enforcement to diligently test and remove such laws before they injure or impair any citizen right. When law is used contrary to rights and privileges and causes harm or loss, everyone from law enforcement to courts to legislative bodies are rightfully liable. Public servants may receive high salaries and a feeling of clout, but it is not without cost. No legitimate authority exists in free society without a corresponding relevant degree of responsibility and therefore liability.

More on liberating and reforming biology

Following is a series of discussion points and replies. The Italic quotes are arguing the case to leave biology alone, while mine are toward its liberation and reform.

“….That reliance on rational evidence is also why you can’t take evolution (even Gould’s ‘fact and theory’) out of biology. Internal consistency is required in science, as are the rules of logic (and again, not to be inflammatory; I refer to logic in the formal, rules-of-evidence-and-argument sense)….”

I agree that “rational evidence” and plain logic in light of rational, empirical, in implied, evidence provides a framework for science that facilitates discovery. In biology it is currently “the fact and theory of evolution”, but I don’t think it will always be; in any case, I do agree with the concept.

(Note: “fact and theory of evolution” was a term coined by Stephen Jay Gould in a 1981 article to describe the complex system of facts and theories encompassed in the scientific “theory of evolution”.)

….” “adaptation happens in populations, and species change over time,” in the neoDarwininan sense, those processes can explain extant biodiversity and processes going all the way back to the base of the tree of life….”

For perhaps half of the people in any region that is the logical conclusion. I think it is because of this belief that the word evolution is often used in place of adaptation where the words would otherwise seem interchangeable. Certainly, as you say, the prevailing thesis in biology is not that we simply adapt to fit our environment, but that by some mechanisms of adaptation, radical improvement repeatedly happened, taking us from non-living inorganic molecules into life like DNA or RNA onward through the eons to the super beings we are perhaps destined to become. More rationally speaking, the most basic “fact of evolution” remains that “adaptation happens in populations, and species change over time in relation to their environmental and other influences. The rational facts end there and so starts the series of theories that add up to the above conclusion as an interpretation of “teh data set.”

“…To suddenly change the rules of the argument and say, at that point, “well, divine influence is required here,” is inconsistent in logical process. Brady, you’re right to note that we’re assuming that the observable part is the whole, but logically, that’s all we can assume without allowing for sudden, dramatic change in the nature of the formal evidence we accept and admit into the argument….”

I did not hear anyone say or imply that “divine influence” is required here. If you got that, you mistook me for a creationist. No, I am specifically talking about the logical “agnostic”process needed to draw unbiased conclusions from all that is known and most logically perceived.

Note: the next quote refers to this statement: “Finally, it should be accepted that the core disprovable tenant of the ‘the fact and theory of evolution’ is a presumption that life as we see it in 2014 can be explained by mapping a series of mechanical and electro-chemical processes, while attributing original cause to the power of random-over-time-infinity resulting in a spontaneous generation of increasingly reliable reproducibility. In other words the hypothesis now “fact and theory” is an effect, without a cause—apart form sufficient time—governed by mechanical and electrochemical processes eventually resulting in the earth’s entire living ecology from prion and virus to all the mammals including humans.

“…That’s as keen a turn of phrase as I’ve ever seen, and you’re right. Popper would encourage us to keep that hypothesis (I’ll call it that, rather than a core tenet)… If better, more robust, durable, empirical evidence comes along, then we’re forced to falsify this core hypothesis, but the data MUST meet those criteria. Bring a better data set, and you win!”

I believe that is an example of the overshoot. Biology is not Math. Biology exists in the realm of the complex phenomenon of life. To hold dear the current ideas, because they are‘currently held’ while demanding Math’s equivalent of empirical evidence is lopsided since the current theory itself never reached that standard. As you suggest later, this is a tightrope walk between the material and the sub-material reality, which, by the way, the other sciences acknowledge. Biology excludes the sub-material as “religious”. It is not religious; it is reality of which denial perverts perspective on the whole. Biologist will interpret sub-material paradoxically, as microscopic material, electricity, or energy, none of which match the data set we have to work with.

For as you say:

“…My experience, though, and that of most openly atheistic proponents of science (Dawkins and his crowd, Sagan and the more thoughtful) is that the evidence simply isn’t there. Part of it is that belief is inherently not falsifiable — rendering it, in Gould’s words, one of two, “non-overlapping magisteria.” One doesn’t, and can’t, falsify the other, because the evidence is simply too different. I’m not impeaching anyone of faith; all I’m saying is that one camp is using radically different notions of evidence than the other….”

Translates to: Anyone challenging the “fact and theory of evolution” will run into a ‘catch 22′which renders the task essentially impossible within the artificially imposed constraints of biological science even if the challenges represent obvious reality.

“…These differences persist even in the academic pursuit of each discipline: science relies on evidence and is (arguably) agnostic about the practitioner (even Einstein could be disproven). Theology relies on argument from history and authority (St. Augustine is a commonly cited source). They’re just not comparable lines of evidence. Science gets into this trouble in courtrooms, too. …”

“…But as an atheist, I would counter that including the spiritual dimension privileges a particular school of thought….”

If your ‘bent‘ cannot deal with the word spiritual as a reference to that particular reality, substitute the word of your choice, say:“sub-material”. Science is not inherently, this constrained. Science deals with reality “agnostically”, whatever it may be.

If observing and noting a “spiritual” or sub-material dimension “privileges a particular school of thought”, refusing to observe and note in the discussion that same sub-material reality equally “privileges a particular school of thought”. Yes, Biology currently “privileges a particular school of thought”, exactly the point! Thus, biology is inbred with a dangerously narrow gene pool of prejudice which perverts the science toward a skewed reality and a self deceiving belief that it is impartial.

“…Back to the core of the discussion: how can we get as many voices to the sustainability table as possible? Must science simply “shrug” and say, “OK, we’ll admit all comers, even if it means abandoning the rules?” Do we then admit that we’ll do,“sustainability by committee?” That, I think, doesn’t work well in science. I’m not trying to be exclusionary, but a commitment to objectivity has served science well….”

Yes, science must admit “all comers” that is open source relevant to the mass infusion of ecology. No the rules must not be abandoned, but they must be “reformed”. The budding knowledge and conscience revolution must enlighten, and open the avenues of knowledge acquisition to transparent total access of all interested parties abandoning exclusionary forinclusionary. Science club and class, meet grassroots populous!


Let me give a parallel example. Leaders of states in the Soviet Union were members of the communist party. Upon independence, the leaders of the eastern ‘Stans’ all denounced communism and were sworn in as the democratic leaders until an organized vote could be accomplished. When the organized vote occurred they were voted in as the democratic leaders because no other serious candidates were allowed standing, while inconsequential ones were. Many years later after a continual re-election of “the peoples’ choice”, the same men continued to “faithfully serve the people”. At some point in the country of Kyrgyzstan, an alternative method of voting was exercised in millions rallying—in a country of 5 million—demanding the resignation of the “peoples’ choice”. Their voice contrasted with the egalitarian claims that to step down would ‘disserve the faithful voting majority who had elected them’. It all culminated in the overrunning of the government buildings supported by the refusal of the military to counter their own people. The democratically elected government, having existed on an exclusionary platform, fled in dishonor and disrepute. Meanwhile, a form of soft-sanctions was imposed over coming years on Kyrgyzstan by the nervous neighboring governments while the same democratic oligarchs have yet to lose an election 24 years and running!

Sure, all the rational seems to build a case that “biology is the fact and theory of evolution”, but the exclusionary realities and delimitations that have “served biology so well”, have in effect, turned biology into another allegorical “Stan” of untouchable theories privileging a particular school of thought and insulating the “bent” from the broader scientific critique. Even the alienation of alternative agnostic ideas and hypotheses as “religious” or “creationist” mirrors the “Stan effect” of big power in governance excluding all but the most ridiculous of candidates to stand against them, essentially creating a one party system. On a level playing field with all naturally inclined scientists on deck acting agnostically by the true and full data set of biology, with all other disciplines of science; “the fact and theory of evolution” would be trumped and prefaced by the yet stable but wholly testable theory that “life cannot spontaneously generate, but rather, life comes from life.” I believe this would open the floodgates of knowledge and acceptance of biology and revolutionize our world.

Is Biology in left field at this critical time in history?

There is muffled debate dividing society that I find inconsequential and more importantly a hindrance to science and prosperity.

Should we teach evolution or creationism in school? More precisely, should we teach evolution or creationism in school as the causal agent of the origin and diversity of life?

Let me tell you why I find it inconsequential:

The general concept of evolution is an observation of a species’ environmentally imposed changes over time. Without a strong imagination (hypothesis) it is of little help in the discussion of origins or diversity in the higher species of life. It is this further hypothesis (evolution as a causal agent for the origination of life and species diversity) that is being referred to and which we will address in this article.

No, we should certainly not teach creationism or species to species evolution in science classes, as the two are both religiously and not scientifically substantiated.

What we know in 2014( obviously this is not an exhaustive list):

Survival of the fittest:

  1. Optimal health
  2. The “Will to Survive”( it appears to be only partially genetic)
  3. The most relevant and efficient to the surrounding environment and the future
  4. What else?


Genetic drift and the observation of species barrier: There is a certain species barrier in the higher species that allows for adaptation and genetic change within certain boundaries, but appears to limit or exclude changes beyond the set limit. Within those boundaries it is sort of like the sky is the limit. Take as a case in point the unusual intentional alterations made to the canines. The canines have an incredible adaptive capability which has been pushed to its limits by people for well over 5000 years, but the boundaries are apparent and have been un-crossable in at least 5 millennia of breeding for the extremes. It is possible to imagine one day, the fantasy of crossing that barrier with canines through natural breeding, but considering our observable period so far, such imagination is neither a logical nor a reasonable assumption. It may be impossible, but with today’s knowledge we can still fathom its potential possibility, but not much more is within the realm of logical reason.

It used to be believed that in the higher species only breeding could change genetics.

Actually, the new science of epigenetics that comes to us thanks to Cancer research radically overturns that. Actually, life experiences and environmental situation turn genes on and off in ‘real time’. This does not affect the elder people, as they will not have any more children. It affects the children according to what every generation before them in their genetic lineage experienced between fetal stage and childbearing both male and female. Essentially, the individual has many more genes than what are expressed and therefore, by the epigenetic mechanism, they have the innate capability to adapt radically to environment and emotions in real time and then pass the altered genetics to the unborn children and grandchildren.

Is evolution distinctly different from adaptation as is often asserted? It was long assumed that genetic evolution was due either to the mechanism of “survival of the fittest” or to outside breeding programs. In 2014 we know something new about the most notable observable characteristic of the phenomenon of environmental “fitting in” by individuals within a species. Many common changes to fit environment are due to internal programming adaptations, and not necessarily due to the external “survival of the fittest” mechanism. The internal limits to these adaptations may be broad, but they are still very well defined within the species, at least in the more complex forms of life. Survival of the fittest is potentially only a periphery effect mechanism that may be positive or negative to future survivability, while internal adaptations are strategic and innate in the individual. If “evolution” is distinct from adaptation, that it certainly needs to be redefined to fit modern understandings. If it is not distinct, than “adaptation” conjures a less confusing understanding of reality and should be preferred in education for that reason. Education is not for the purpose of impressing upon students the implied superior knowledge of the educator, but for facilitating the acquisition of knowledge.

In any case it should be clear that in 2014, reason gives us less possibility of accepting“survival of the fittest” as a mechanism for species to species evolution, and therefore less reason to accept evolution as a causal agent for the great mystery that can be termed in the humblest sense, the innate self organizing characteristics of life.

What is the causal agent? Could it be any of the previous assumptions or just as likely newly unfathomed ones? Our humility must be strong enough to not teach what we do not know in 2014. Interestingly, regarding origins, we have “known” for over 100 years, and before that we “knew” something different. In the 1970’s and 1980’s we knew artificially hydrogenated margarine was more heart healthy than natural butter. By 1995 we knew this to be reversed but even natural butter was not so good. By 2010 we knew that the cows eating an unnatural diet produced heart unhealthy cream and milk fat while the ones on their natural diet of grasses and herbs produced a supremely heart-healthy fat profile both in the milk and in the meat. In the 1960’s we knew that DDT was safe to spray even in baby cribs, kitchens, and barnyards. By 1970 we knew it was not really safe to spray on the planet, period. For many years we knew that eggs, though a wonderful source of protein, have a preponderance of heart unhealthy cholesterol. By 2012, we knew that they have that characteristic when fed in confined feeding operations, while the eggs from free range chickens actually have a heart healthy fat profile. In the 1400’s, though other cultures on the planet had long assumed a spherical earth, the Europeans knew it was flat. Later they knew the sun revolved around the earth. It was once known that gravity could be wholly described by the effect of larger masses pulling on smaller ones, now, even gravity appears to be a lot more complicated than that and is yet to be fully described.

“Spontaneous generation” was once the predominant theory of microbiology until Louis Pasteur proved that you don’t get something from nothing; now everyone laughs about our former ignorance. ‘Spontaneous generation’ is still taught and highly regarded in modern biology as the causal agent of life on earth, termed “evolution”. Is it time to evolve in step with our knowledge in 2014 and learn to use the cliché “I don’t know”?

“Should we teach evolution or creationism in school? More precisely, should we teach evolution or creationism in school the causal agent of the origin and diversity of life?”

No, we should certainly not teach creationism or species to species evolution in science classes, as the two are both religiously and not scientifically substantiated.

How is society made and repaired (in 4 phases or less)

Society is made by developing systems to benefit what benefits people. It is repaired by tweaking or repairing those systems to achieve beneficial effect.

In 2014 we finally seem to be coming back to the understanding that all of life on the planet is inexcusably linked, and we sink or swim as an ecosystem. We do not own the earth or its resources, but we do own our human systems and their effects is our responsibility. We simply need to restructure the human systems that do not benefit ‘life on earth’. Difficult as it may sound, that is what we must band together and do.