Evolution, A Lament II

[Casey Butler]

Since Mr. Normal Ball apparently misunderstood the gist of this poem at its first posting, I thought I'd post again in order to gain an understanding of how readers perceive the poem as opposed to what I meant for the poem to convey.

The poem describes my view of evolution defined as the human species' best theory of our origins and continued existence within the Universe.

As was at one time observable in remote wilderness areas, evolution is at the least a beautiful metaphor for the character of Nature. The theory does a wonderful job of expressing Nature as a single organism of planet, life and habitat. According to the theory of evolution, while suffering and death exist in the natural environment, Nature, without the interference of man, utilizes suffering and death expressly as balancing mechanisms to efficiently reduce suffering and death amongst the entire living organism.

I am saying in this poem, as is apparent by our history and our present state:

1. Man cannot logically exist as a product of his own theory of earth's origins. For man's existence to be explained by evolution, the fundemental principle of evolution must be defined as suicide rather than survival.

2. We now know that the moment man appeared, having acquired the baggage of self-awareness - however that was accomplished - the words "evolved human" became an oxymoron. Man has proven himself anti-Nature, anti-evolution. Man's nature is strictly pro-man, his desire being to destroy evolution, exploiting animals and habitat and the balances of Nature whenever and wherever he encounters them.

3. Humankind's history proves that man, utilizing suffering and death, cannot comprehend, much less administer, the delicate balances required to sustain and create life on earth, according to his own theory of this planet's birth and ongoing existence. Humanity has proven itself unwilling and unable to sustain the Nature that sustains humanity.

There are no religious overtones intended in this poem. There is a reference to Biblical metaphor. There is an acknowledgement of the attempts made by the historical Jew Jesus of Nazareth to address this fundemental contradiction between Nature and the human species' existence on earth. There is a reference to his detailed, though as yet untested, theory of how to reconcile Nature and the human species, advanced nearly 2,000 years ago.

Nothing has changed from my first posting as yet, but please read and give me your opinions as to whether this poem I typed hits the mark I was asking it to hit:

=======

Evolution, alibi
Sitting on your hands
Evolution abdicates
To ever-tightening bands

Evolution, perfect world
The ape becomes a man
Evolution as your tool
You're burning all you can

Evolution, species lost
Evolved that way for you?
Evolution dies the death
That all your lovers do

Evolution, alibi
The perfect world gone mad
Evolution writing TEKEL
On walls in Leningrad

Evolution cut your skirt
A patch of blue percale
Waving from the heights of Gog
The hand pierced by the nail

Evolution, blinded eyes
Steam away the alibi
Evolution's perfect world
Was never yours to crucify

Evolution, human thought
The stones bring down the roof
Evolution, weary hands
At last you have your proof.

=======

Casey

[Manna]

1. Man cannot logically exist as a product of his own theory of earth's origins. For man's existence to be explained by evolution, the fundemental principle of evolution must be defined as suicide rather than survival.

The way you speak is rather unfamiliar to me, and I tend to spend a lot of time trying to figure out what you mean. If I deconstruct your first sentence, and try to reassemble it, here's the image I get: A man starts thinking about where he came from - his parents, grandparents, greats... He wonders if it always was that way, infinite generations, or if it started somewhere. He comes up with a theory. It may be creation by a higher power, it may be evolution, it may be aliens, it may be infinite generations. Because he can think these things up, they are wrong. Is that what you're saying?

2. We now know that the moment man appeared, having acquired the baggage of self-awareness - however that was accomplished - the words "evolved human" became an oxymoron. Man has proven himself anti-Nature, anti-evolution. Man's nature is strictly pro-man, his desire being to destroy evolution, exploiting animals and habitat and the balances of Nature whenever and wherever he encounters them.

Man is natural. All species are most interested in their own survival. There are symbiotic arrangements (lichen), but both species involved in the symbiosis are there for their own benefit.

3. Humankind's history proves that man, utilizing suffering and death, cannot comprehend, much less administer, the delicate balances required to sustain and create life on earth, according to his own theory of this planet's birth and ongoing existence. Humanity has proven itself unwilling and unable to sustain the Nature that sustains humanity.

That may be true, but it doesn't stop us from trying, from learning. If all the humans die, if we scorch the land, if we get all the oil out of the ground and burn it and turn it back into atmosphere, if we make plastic shopping bag islands in the oceans, if we take the last tree and stuff it up the hole in our culture, life will still go on. That's what this planet does. It lives, and it will live no matter what we do to it. And that brings me comfort.

[Casey Butler]

I never follow rules either... :-)

1. Man cannot logically exist as a product of his own theory of earth's origins. For man's existence to be explained by evolution, the fundemental principle of evolution must be defined as suicide rather than survival.

The way you speak is rather unfamiliar to me, and I tend to spend a lot of time trying to figure out what you mean. If I deconstruct your first sentence, and try to reassemble it, here's the image I get: A man starts thinking about where he came from - his parents, grandparents, greats... He wonders if it always was that way, infinite generations, or if it started somewhere. He comes up with a theory. It may be creation by a higher power, it may be evolution, it may be aliens, it may be infinite generations. Because he can think these things up, they are wrong. Is that what you're saying?

I see what you mean... If you take my statement out of the context it was happy in... which is a context specific to evolution.

However, in that or any theoretical context it's more a "if the things we think of prove to be wrong, we need to think again". Not that evolution's explanation of the world Nature has given us is wrong, but because, in our own words and by our own science, we don't fit that world. In fact, we are the earth's executioner.

It's a real Catch 22 we've "evolved" into: To avoid destroying the earth, we must destroy our humanity.

So perhaps it's time to go back and think again - not about evolutionary theory's explanations of the Earth around us that have not proven themselves false, but about our claims to be participants in evolutionary theory, which have proven themselves false.

2. We now know that the moment man appeared, having acquired the baggage of self-awareness - however that was accomplished - the words "evolved human" became an oxymoron. Man has proven himself anti-Nature, anti-evolution. Man's nature is strictly pro-man, his desire being to destroy evolution, exploiting animals and habitat and the balances of Nature whenever and wherever he encounters them.

Man is natural. All species are most interested in their own survival. There are symbiotic arrangements (lichen), but both species involved in the symbiosis are there for their own benefit.

Ah.. see, you've already started going back and thinking. But humans, as a species, are not involved - or interested - in any symbiotic relationships, even for our own benefit.

We even go so far as to use the symbiotic relationships of evolved life to benefit us exclusively. We are destructive - in the context of evolution which sustains our existence, we are really stupid.

Whatever governs the symbiotic relationships within nature holds no sway over humanity, nor excercises any control over us.

Why would that be?

So that's the gist of the poem anyhow.

3. Humankind's history proves that man, utilizing suffering and death, cannot comprehend, much less administer, the delicate balances required to sustain and create life on earth, according to his own theory of this planet's birth and ongoing existence. Humanity has proven itself unwilling and unable to sustain the Nature that sustains humanity.

That may be true, but it doesn't stop us from trying, from learning. If all the humans die, if we scorch the land, if we get all the oil out of the ground and burn it and turn it back into atmosphere, if we make plastic shopping bag islands in the oceans, if we take the last tree and stuff it up the hole in our culture, life will still go on. That's what this planet does. It lives, and it will live no matter what we do to it. And that brings me comfort.

,

Your first sentence seems to contradict the rest. The first sentence I agree with, but for me taking comfort from your conclusion as you do is not logical. I don't know why logic works differently in different people.

Wherefore? :-)

Casey

[Manna]

do you think god would create a dynamic universe and then populate it with static organisms?

[anunitu]

First you would need to truly define God, and I wonder if this God were not simply a sadistic deity, that enjoys seeing any living thing suffer. I myself define God as I wish, and if the image is not perfect, and if indeed He/She/IT wishes me harm, how exactly would I, a simple life form do anything about that. I would rather consider the Universe nothing but a coincidental coming together of elements that in a fluke of chance, ends up creating a more ordered state,that fosters life.
Better the thing we define as evil, is simply an unthinking matter of Chaos spewing out bits of negative energy.
Then it is not directed, but simply random.

Energy is the Universe, and the Universe is energy..energy changes state, and things change. I myself am nothing more than an entity that relies on this energy to give me life, and existence. As with all matter, my energy will change state, and I will cease to exist here, but the energy continues.


Anunitu