Africa (was ...10 trillion people in this solar system?)

Hi Xenophile,

Wow! A long time has passed since we argue about something before.
So let's have fun.

> If everybody thinks that "let's do it for our country (or God)"
>isn't
> a good reason for reproducing, BUT THEY DECIDE THAT SOME OTHER
>REASON
> IS, then my country can last a long time. And if my God isn't big
> enough to take care of Himself, then who needs Him?

Good point. I got the idea that in the U.S. there are more people
who really believe in God than in here. In Latin America quite a lot
of people don't believe in God at all, but just keep the forms and
appariences.

> Well, what do we mean by "immortality?" I'll go for extream
> longevity, though.
>

Extreme longevity? Human body was no design for living more than we
do now. Are you talking about re-engineering it? Sound like B-rate
Sci-Fi to me.

> > Just retarding death does not avoid it. How long it can be
>>posponed?
>
> Long enough. A woman today who decides to put off having children
>for
> a couple of decades may find that she is too old to handle
>pregnance
> and stay in good health. What if she could pursue her career for
> fifty years, and have another hundred healthy, fertile years ahead
>of
> her. Note that this assumes a lifetime of less than two hundred
> years, which is in no way "immortality."

A woman of today, no matter what happens, in fifty years will be
ready to enter into the coffin, in pretty bad conditions and with
Alzhaimer. Besides, she won't have even a grandchild that cries for
her when the old woman died.

Lord, you still believe in medical story tellings? Those are for
kids to believe. Like the "fountain of youth".

> The problem with modern society is that we *still* buy into the
> comforting myths.
>
> > In ecology, for instance, Native Americans were a lot smarter
that
> > the positive scientists of the 19th century.
>
> Yep. But they killed off all the native horses and mammoths before
> they got it right. And it took a lot longer than a hundred years.
> And the Native Americans were not and are not stupid. But myth is
> no substitute for reason.

I know Natives were intelligent people. I live in the Andes, in
ancient Inca lands. So I have the evidence first hand.
Now, one can't compare myths with science in the same way you can't
compare poetry with narrative. Myths are symbols, poems, dreams.
Expressions of the subjective part of our minds which
carry "meaning" not "objective" truths. That does not mean a myth
could not convey realities.

Let me show an example of the way a myth codify real things.
There is a native myth about two giant serpents that produce major
earthquakes in my country. Rational people could say that's just
another myth. Well, I saw those serpents in a major earthquake in
1985. How come? Quite symple. The ground form waves in the exact
pattern of a giant serpent. If I had not seen that phenomen myself I
wouldn't believed.

Conclusion: myths "encode" truths that only some people could see.

>It's just what you use when you don't have
> anything better. And for that matter, even myth is oftentimes
> impacted by reason. Just not often enough.
>

There is the idea that the rationalistic though is better. Well, it
is better for technical things. However, to see the big picture is
necesary to use both halves of the brain, not only one.

Let imagine the father of your best friend dies. What is better to
say to your friend:

(a) Don't worry, fellow. Take it easy. He was going to died anyways.
He has cancer, you know. He just stopped suffering.

(b) By now your dad is resting in the peace of God. The creator
loves us all and he will take care of the soul of a good man like
him. Let's pray for the well being of his ethernal spirit.

Choose.

>
> But nobody buys that anymore. Because science is self-correcting,
> while myth is not. Thus biological evolution can accomodate the
> discovery of DNA, while creationism cannot.

Well, to be a creationist these days people have to be really
ignorant. Catholics, for instance, are not creationists but follow
Pierre Theilhard de Cardin, so myths also evolve. Otherwise
religions would not remain alive for too long.

>
> Yes, myths carry a bit of truth. Myths are an attempt to
>understand
> what is not understood. So a desire to understand "what are those
> lights in the sky at night?" becomes "those are the campfires of
>the
> Sky People." As these "campfires" are obseved over time, a lot of
> truth is added about what stars can be seen at what time of the
>year.
> These observations become refined enough that you can plan farming
> around when this God's star appears and when that Spirit's
> constellation no longer rises above the horizon.
>
> None of which changes the fact that the lights in the sky are NOT
> campfires. So extract the truth and let the BS fall by the
>wayside.
>

If the only mission of myths were to anticipate science then their
importance would be very minor. Myths are symbols; psicological
tools, healing tools, not just user manuals. No. Myths goes beyond
that. Myths are models of the world that explain the "why" and not
only the "how".

There are many things in life that are not rational and not
provable. Truths that are not scientific by ANY means.
For example, the ethics and morals of society. Rules like:

Not to kill, not to rob, love your country, respect women, etc.

Are all rooted in social CONVENTIONS and explained by myths. If you
believe in democracy, justice, law and any other of other abstract
terms you are believing in a myth (Not that they are false but can't
be proved by science; you have to accept them like they are)

Brain has two sides. "The creator" (so to speak) invented them
because we need both of them. For example in psicology. As an
example, learn to read Tarot. You will be surprised how easy is to
read the minds of ladies, which has "practical" advantages. No myth

(is not necessary you believe Tarot is truth, but just to know how
to read it :))

Regards,

Omar Vega