:) Here's a little something I have written that is too long to post.
Anyone interested can read the attachment offered in two different formats.
Comments below. :D

:p To all suffering from Attention Deficit Disorder....too bad.
Go back to comic books and your Playstation and then come here to pretend you know something.
Most of you are all wit and smart-assed remarks and nothing else. :bugeye:

Well then, fuck you in advance as well. Now I shall read your essay.

My criticisms:

Quotes
It's not necessary to quote constantly; your ideas can stand on their own. Since by definition most of the words and sentences here are ones that we've all heard before, it's best not to give credit for your work to specific people as well as the more general literary background.

Mental vs Physical Adaptation
Your descriptions of social ills brought about by the runaway mental/lagging behind physical development is extremely circumstantial and should not be used as a demonstration of general principles.

1) The fact that a few closely related societies have chosen monogamous marriage as a standard does not give it any moral credence; it only serves as a demonstration of the economic power of the social group that monogamous marriage coincidentally belongs to. Had a different social group risen to power our social doctrines of sexual/reproductive access would have been different, and equally without any related justification. This has about as much relevance to general human development as those guys who wear soup cans in their ears.

2) It's actually only pretty recently that any but the affluent could afford to be fat. Can't argue with this one.

3) Again, the "Christian" virtues are not universally agreed upon; what people believe in is the social contract of mutual nonaggression. Whether or not we are evolved to be violent, we still get better survival value from mutual nonaggression, in addition to (some) freedom from the stress of trying to defend a position in a tribal setting. Most importantly, in a society with nonaggression, the person of low social status, or even the outcast can survive easily, and all benefit from their economic contribution without having to deal with them or even notice that they exist. This system is immensely practical for all, since the weak survive in affluence and the strong are still able to gain greater power.
The religions and other such types are riding on the back of this system and claiming that they invented it. They are liars. Even apes know how to make a deal with one another.

4) The stresses we receive in our lives are minor compared to those of an animal in the wild; if you want to criticize our lifestyle for making us vulnerable to stress, you'll get more headway criticizing those aspects that weaken us to the effects of stress, not those aspects that cause it.
For instance, when we protect ourselves all our lives from exposure to "dirt" and "germs", we end up more sickly than if we had played outside as children. This isn't the fault of the dirt... the diseases aren't any more virulent than they would have been anyway. We only chose to weaken ourselves to these stresses.
Similarly, failing to exercise, trying to suppress your emotions, being offended by other people's ideas and opinions, and many other problematic lifestyle choices can lead to you being less tolerant to stress, so that an environment of high stress will kill you, where the caveman might just brush off the deadlines, insults, &c. as unimportant.

5) Most other organisms don't have substances to abuse, but if you hook a rat's pleasure sensor up to an electrode so that it can stimulate itself with a button, it will starve to death pressing the button. Insofar as I know this is a problem for all higher organisms, whether they are social or not.

Strength vs Weakness
As soon as weapons were invented, the importance of physical strength attenuated somewhat with regards to your social status. A strong person was still more useful than a weak person, but even a six-year-old can cut your throat while you sleep. (As before, this is why we like mutual nonaggression.) To refer to people who are mentally agile, or who can view rules as subjective, or some other advantage like that as "strong" people is somewhat misleading. Your essay needs a better term for people with social advantages, and also some measure to differentiate "socially strong" from "independently strong"... since some people's advantages are very valuable in the wild but amount to zero within society, and vice versa. (Generally speaking people are only rarely good at everything.)

The Pink Floyd Song
What was that doing there? A song about how war ruins your life only bears vague import to your essay because of your reference to the operation of the armed forces as a form of indoctrination; usually, failure to indoctrinate well into society results in being ignored, unless you actually commit criminal acts. The military "society" is a little different, because you perform each action under the scrutiny of the higher-ups. In regular North American society, we have the much simpler system of debt slavery.

Quotes
It's not necessary to quote constantly; your ideas can stand on their own. Since by definition most of the words and sentences here are ones that we've all heard before, it's best not to give credit for your work to specific people as well as the more general literary background.
Agreed but many are affected when you can support your views by referring to a famous person agreeing with you.
It was also done in response to a criticism I received by a cousin of mine as to how to write an essay.
Some third party supporting opinions are always good to have.

1) The fact that a few closely related societies have chosen monogamous marriage as a standard does not give it any moral credence; it only serves as a demonstration of the economic power of the social group that monogamous marriage coincidentally belongs to. Had a different social group risen to power our social doctrines of sexual/reproductive access would have been different, and equally without any related justification. This has about as much relevance to general human development as those guys who wear soup cans in their ears.
I offer it as an example of how female sexuality has been oppressed in order to give all males access to reproduction and to make them participants and investors in the status quo.
Other societies have used variations of this method of patriarchal domination over female sexual power.

3) Again, the "Christian" virtues are not universally agreed upon; what people believe in is the social contract of mutual nonaggression. Whether or not we are evolved to be violent, we still get better survival value from mutual nonaggression, in addition to (some) freedom from the stress of trying to defend a position in a tribal setting. Most importantly, in a society with nonaggression, the person of low social status, or even the outcast can survive easily, and all benefit from their economic contribution without having to deal with them or even notice that they exist. This system is immensely practical for all, since the weak survive in affluence and the strong are still able to gain greater power.
The religions and other such types are riding on the back of this system and claiming that they invented it. They are liars. Even apes know how to make a deal with one another.

We may get better ‘survival value’, as you put it, but at what price?
Isn’t our genetic gene pool being degraded by our heightened survivability?
When the weak and the idiotic can procreate and women can’t filter out imperfections through their selection power, then what is this doing to our species?

4) The stresses we receive in our lives are minor compared to those of an animal in the wild; if you want to criticize our lifestyle for making us vulnerable to stress, you'll get more headway criticizing those aspects that weaken us to the effects of stress, not those aspects that cause it.
For instance, when we protect ourselves all our lives from exposure to "dirt" and "germs", we end up more sickly than if we had played outside as children. This isn't the fault of the dirt... the diseases aren't any more virulent than they would have been anyway. We only chose to weaken ourselves to these stresses.
Similarly, failing to exercise, trying to suppress your emotions, being offended by other people's ideas and opinions, and many other problematic lifestyle choices can lead to you being less tolerant to stress, so that an environment of high stress will kill you, where the caveman might just brush off the deadlines, insults, &c. as unimportant.
I was pointing to how modern day lifestyles leads to unnatural stresses that do not get defused but only through, alcohol, drugs, over-eating and so on.
This coupled with the social pressures to remain civil and polite leads to the stifling of anger and stress by making natural methods of depressurizing sinful or unwanted or socially unacceptable which leads to psychological ailments, heart-disease and so on.

5) Most other organisms don't have substances to abuse, but if you hook a rat's pleasure sensor up to an electrode so that it can stimulate itself with a button, it will starve to death pressing the button. Insofar as I know this is a problem for all higher organisms, whether they are social or not.
That's because the rat is imprisoned and has no avenue of escape.


Strength vs Weakness
As soon as weapons were invented, the importance of physical strength attenuated somewhat with regards to your social status. A strong person was still more useful than a weak person, but even a six-year-old can cut your throat while you sleep. (As before, this is why we like mutual nonaggression.) To refer to people who are mentally agile, or who can view rules as subjective, or some other advantage like that as "strong" people is somewhat misleading. Your essay needs a better term for people with social advantages, and also some measure to differentiate "socially strong" from "independently strong"... since some people's advantages are very valuable in the wild but amount to zero within society, and vice versa. (Generally speaking people are only rarely good at everything.)

My usage of the terms ‘weak’ and ‘strong’ are always used in reference to mental power.
But a strong mind will find a way to be physically strong as well.
A strong mind can lead to a strong body but the reverse is impossible.
The Greeks taught us that a healthy mind can only exist in a healthy body.

The Pink Floyd Song
What was that doing there? A song about how war ruins your life only bears vague import to your essay because of your reference to the operation of the armed forces as a form of indoctrination; usually, failure to indoctrinate well into society results in being ignored, unless you actually commit criminal acts. The military "society" is a little different, because you perform each action under the scrutiny of the higher-ups. In regular North American society, we have the much simpler system of debt slavery.
I think you've misunderstood the message of this song.
It's not only anti-war, if it is that at all.
Reread the lyrics again and see how they relate to my essay and why.

The concept of superiority is thusly designated, defined and controlled by the masses of the mediocre, expressed through popular opinion, democratic practices and polls, and in this way the overly talented that gain a position of authority, are confined within the precincts of acceptable actions and try to display their superiority as close to the average standard as possible.

Perhaps a eugenic, elitist society is in order then: rule by the few, those who actually know what they are doing.

Perhaps a eugenic, elitist society is in order then: rule by the few, those who actually know what they are doing.
Philosopher kings or 'overmen' if you will.
But the real interesting question is how would you know who they are because my nature this type of individual shuns positions of status.

Eugenics doesn't have to be imposed by a leader - that's a political misconception. "Superior" people of whatever kind could be made in secrecy and infiltrated into society, effectively starting from the middle. Breeding doesn't have to be ordained by those in power.

Eugenics doesn't necessarily mean sterilizing people. When I say eugenic, I mean it in the intellectual and physical sense: creating superior men to replace the pathetic men. You could have a eugenic society without harming a hair on a head.

But the real interesting question is how would you know

They would be qualified if they could comprehend this essay ;) . To be serious, I think it all depends on what that individual seeks. Some seek power over others or try to help and improve others. Some, such as yourself, are individuals who don't want to be 'bound by men'. It comes down to personal taste. You have my cogs turning, that's for sure.

... didn't I just agree with you? Vast executive power is required to sterilize people, but selective breeding is allowed to all citizens... that's what I mean. Rather than worrying about forming an elitist society, you build your own sub-society and then take over with your superior something-or-other. Kind of like Star Trek conventions, if they actually worked.

"What we imagine is order is merely the prevailing form of chaos." -Kerry Thornley, Principia Discordia, 5th edition

HA! You've read the Principia Discordia. Good book (if you call it a book), but I thought Illuminatus! Trilogy was much more insightful.

Yeah Blue Head, I understand what you are saying. Yes, it does sound rather sci-fi. It has been attempted many times throughout history: Sovietys, Nazis, Spartans (although you could argue their role was to be submissive drones with no individual minds).

For instance, a bacterium or a virus infecting a physical body exists within the specificity of human molecules and cells and is unaware of the macrocosmic generality they belong to or the multiplicity of phenomena that cooperate and interact to create a single entity- man, beast or plant- nor are they aware of the multiplicity of digressing states of the microcosmic that enter the realm of quantum physics.

Another reason why I hold on to the Gaia theory.

The Soviets/Spartans were indeed looking for a group of strong backs to hold up their country. The Master Race may have been less of an effort at subjugation, but I'm not sure about the history of that time. But, lesser eugenics has always been a part of breeding of any kind, I mean, you wouldn't have kids with an ugly person by preference, right?

All nature is eugenic in every sense of that word. I wouldn't even use the word 'eugenic' because people misassociate the word with and try to disconnect it with natural selection, selective breeding, mate selection, etc.

Fair enough.

Interesting factoid:
I'm actually a native Spartan.
Born in the real Sparta itself.

They would be qualified if they could comprehend this essay . To be serious, I think it all depends on what that individual seeks. Some seek power over others or try to help and improve others. Some, such as yourself, are individuals who don't want to be 'bound by men'. It comes down to personal taste. You have my cogs turning, that's for sure.
I believe the less interested you are in power the more worthy you are of it.
It goes back to my 'law of indifference':
The less you need money the more worthy you are of it.
The less you need women the more they will flock to you.
The less you need power the more it will be thrust upon you.
The less you are tied to life the more you partake of its wonders.
The less you are governed by your ego the more your ego will be rewarded.
The less you fear death the more life will offer.

A conundrum perhaps related to Democritus’s insight that everything possesses its own contradiction within it.

This 'indifference', sometimes called confidence because confidence is actually an indifference towards specifics due to a preponderance of the general.
Meaning what? :
If I have access to multiple women for sexual gratification then every individual woman becomes less important to me and this translates into being more comfortable around each one or more willing to express my real character with little thought as to the consequences.
You are indifferent to the specific woman and how she accepts or rejects you because the general woman need is met through multiple sources.
That's why beautiful people are confident and even more attractive to us.
The reverse that is having none or little access to sexual gratification translates to bumbling, discomfort, and an overall demeanor of desperation that is perceived by the other as wholly unattractive and even pathetic.
This also goes back to the 'bad boy' phenomenon.
Why are most women attracted to the rough, cruder, crueler more confident male, the bad-boy, sometimes overlooking their better judgement and other character flaws?
Because the bad-boy has access to multiple women and so his attentions mean more to a woman that the attentions of a man that can only get her.
It's the fact that this male chooses her from the multiple women at his disposal that makes his choice more flattering and valuable.
The same can be said for work.
If one is secure in the knowledge that he/she can find a job anywhere at any time then in his/her present job he will be more relaxed and productive and happy, being perceived by his/her coworkers and his/her boss as confidence.
We are attracted to confidence because it reveals multiple choices which is the definition of freedom and power and we want to partake of it and share in its glory.

The more desperate you are for something the less likely you are to acquire it because it comes across as desperation.
Have you heard the saying 'Money goes to money'?
It rests on this principle.

Plato believed that the philosopher king would not want to bear the responsibility of power but will accept it as his burden as being the most qualified for it.
But today we don’t live in such a world of honor and dignity, we live in a world of egotism and immediate thoughtless gratification.

I'm actually a native Spartan.
Born in the real Sparta itself.

Now THAT is something to be proud of. Although, the ancient Spartans probably would have killed you for being too smart. ;)

I've never look at indifference in that way. Wow, makes sense. Although I'm a bit skeptical of your 'bad boy' idea. Could it be that she is just a submissive person?

But today we don’t live in such a world of honor and dignity, we live in a world of egotism and immediate thoughtless gratification.[/

That's what my friend said after watching Lord of the Rings. He said: "That film showed me a time when chivalry, honor, and selfless-service mattered. A time when heroes roamed the earth. People today mean shit." It is only a movie, but it is based off of old Anglo-Saxon legends that espoused those values.

One need only read how people behave in here to see where we have come to.
This supposed Forum for intelligent people is really an insult gallery where individuals with ulterior motives and inferior intellectual abilities gather to create a mini soap opera of attack and counter-attack.
There's nothing but mudslinging here. Oh, well.
But I've closed the window now and my house is bug free.
Thanks Ignore List.
Try it it’s wonderful.

Hastein: Chivalry was a weakening of the bike gang ethic that got the European nobility where they were; I'm surprised that you would consider it to be a good thing, since it mostly represented a softer-hearted form of the original feudal indentured service. The softer-hearted attitude was only brought about by better economic times - it was only slightly "better" for the slaves... who aren't depicted in LOTR. So it ignored both:
1) The bike gangs who - whether anyone wants to admit it - were the only people strong enough to be able to hold a state together... because LOTR implicitly depicts these people as greedy and stupid, and
2) The farmers who were kept under the thumb of the bike gangs to feed them, who are by now so forgotten by history that LOTR has replaced them with a group of cheerful freemen with no financial worries.

So who's noble? The real weakened leader or the forgotten mud-schlogger? Or maybe the fictitious knights and merry barmen who, though entertaining, are nonetheless not real?

Selfless service is more common now that we are richer.

Honor is no more or less real or present now than it ever was, which is not very much.

LOTR is an idealized pretend history of a time that never happened; the celtic/norse/&c. stories that it draws upon very loosely also generally depict idealized histories and idealized struggles. Your friend should remember that that "time" never happened.

Hastein: Chivalry was a weakening of the bike gang ethic that got the European nobility where .

Good points, Chivalry was not the word I should have used.

LOTR is an idealized pretend history of a time that never happened; the celtic/norse/&c. stories that it draws upon very loosely also generally depict idealized histories and idealized struggles. Your friend should remember that that "time" never happened.

It is story that transmits values, even if they are exagerrated. The histories of the ancients were not fake. One could even look at something such as WWII, or Civil War to see such heroic qualities.

Sometimes progress demands a look back.
It is human prejudice to assume that all progress lies ahead or that all that is good and creative and healthy is in front while what is behind is primitive and sick and destructive.
Evolution doesn’t always move forward sometimes it falls stagnates.

Calling Evolution a progression is humanistic, it neither moves foward or backwards and that is the problem with most people's understanding of progress. Algae has been in the same state for hundreds of millions of years, but it has not 'failed' as a lifeform in any respect.

Calling Evolution a progression is humanistic, it neither moves foward or backwards and that is the problem with most people's understanding of progress. Algae has been in the same state for hundreds of millions of years, but it has not 'failed' as a lifeform in any respect.
Agreed, evolution is only adaptation to a particular environment.
But there are higher and lower states of becoming to which the label progress can be applied.

Indeed progressive microbes have invented the human so that they are nicely fed and moved around all in a comfortable and warm package.

Agreed, evolution is only adaptation to a particular environment.
But there are higher and lower states of becoming to which the label progress can be applied.

Indeed progressive microbes have invented the human so that they are nicely fed and moved around all in a comfortable and warm package.

It's true and it sounds funny too. :D

It's funny because it's true.