I guess this is one of the very few places left where this discussion can happen in a healthy way anymore, lol.
So as many i have the very heavy doubt, so to speak, the topmost elites are systemically involved in cannibalism. Assuming that's true, what would be the reason?
Killing and torturing can be explained differently - but eating?
So i am going to also assume evolution is real and they know it well.
In my personal opinion they are guided by a realistic belief based upon the laws of nature.
Carnivore evolution, how it happens? at some point there were only plants and then insects, then sometimes after herbivore animals spawned (which also ate lots of insects btw). My point is how the carnivore happened thereafter?
We know an animal doesn't change his behaviour, drifting from instinct without a problem. We also know they usually reproduce at large, and then start dying when the food is not enough for all. I would suppose in this situation the one left with nothing by others would rather kill and eat their mates than starve to death (a behaviour very common, and traceable to man 'recent' heritage aswell). As the situation keeps being borderline it would naturally produce a change in instict for some. By selecting for a different behaviour for a different food you would then slowly evolve into a different animal (we may not have time as individuals, but nature sure has).
Based on this evolutive reasoning what they do make a lot of sense.
The carnivore is born by nature to regulate his peers when R-selection reaches his natural limit and falls into the natural R-selection malthusian trap. The morals start diverging, until one is no longer 'karmically bound' to respect the other life, it is instead prized for being able to take it, like a human with a cow, through the laws of the organism he developed (kind of a 'long story short' there i guess).
We now evolve with consciousness of evolution and knowledge of the benefits of K-selection and the consequences of not doing that (at large, obviously. The current social and demographic revolutions sure are another interesting thing to consider with these lens, what happens if K doesn't or can't hold a barrier? it gets cannibalized/regulated back by R).
As the elites obviously have a wicked sense for consciousness and its laws but a deep understanding of nature, one kind for sure animal one, and we assume they sistemically cannibalize, i would take it a step further and say it is speciationism.
(By the way, as a side note, i also find incredibly suspect the common assumption that there is no hereditary ontogenesis happening in animal life, as in all this time that would have been an incredibly useful trait to develop for adaptational benefits)
If somebody knowing well nature's laws would want to elevate his kind above the chain of his species, the surest way would be to do that - consume his own species members habitually, and his consciousness (which also is shaped by genoma in its expression there) aswell as his genetics would adapt to the new level (as he would change his natural requirements - a 'problem' that causes evolution). He would proceed to become a regulator species for its predecessor.
So that's my simple thesis that i wanted to express on the matter.
As a final provocative but also somewhat 'realistic' thought...
Could one take the game even one step further by 'abusing' the laws?
If, say, a family could reach the point that with full knowledge and will and power they could secure a process to all eat their own current species meat - and then they would consciously select a winner among other to pass on the flag/blood... And others became his/her 'breeders'.
Could that affect the process even faster, or even in unknown directions? What would happen in your mind?
Thanks for the read, have a nice day!
Their outward projection is multiple and for each there are 'meanings' by which to be fooled designed to fool specific target groups.
We know organisms change, many natural occurring situations pushing for new strategies all the time even in the few years we live. We see the butterfly change color in a few years by adapting to new environment, thanks to its fast lifecycle.
You are assuming no direct proof of a specific instance of the mechanism happened millions of years ago equals no reality, yet it is in line with everything else and only logical as a source.
Considering man crushes insects, herd animals and eat almost anything he wants in the world, there may have been some benefits to it?
So i would not stop to see it as the logical thing just because of that.
I have my thoughts about evolution and do not go necessarily by any common belief beyond the core of it.
But it's feasible that a snake slowly evolved into that from many many 'speciation' processes, and by the way you don't see the 'losers' that it costed around...
I don't see a problem here neither.
Haven't understood your point about naturalism and determinism. Perhaps it's the semantics. You are saying those two oppose each other as models?
Evolutionism and materialism are two completely different beasts to me. So are minds and brains.
Sounds like any knowledge of what's real concerning this is impossible then. So why speculate at all?
Yes, this is observed to happen and it is what allows for hybridization to take place. My argument was against macro-evolution and speciation - the idea that life arose from proteins which then formed single cell organisms, then more complex organisms, species of plants, animals, etc. The butterfly changes some of it's characteristics and those variations are coded in its DNA (and yes there are random mutations happening too).
Evo proponents make a huge leap assuming the localized observable phenomena of variations in phenotype within any given species influenced by its environment can be extrapolated infinitely if millions of years are granted leading to the gradual RANDOM transformation of living matter so that it produces a great variety and complexity of species that all have a common origin.
You can't assume what's true of the part is true of the whole, that's a composition fallacy. The burden of proof is on the evolutionists.
Well, I described the problem decently. What is the mechanism that produced all the organs and chemicals needed for a snake to become a venomous snake? Random mutation, natural and sexual selection? Developing such a trait would take millions of "correct" random mutations all in a roll within a huge population (this is mathematically impossible; btw how can something be "correct" when the whole process is purposeless and blind? Can I build a computer by accident by randomly adding parts together even in a million years?). It also doesn't confer any benefit unless it's functional, so it makes no sense for such a process even to start let alone be selected for sexually and the "work in progress" to be passed on to the next generation.
This gets even more embarrassing when speaking about "transitory species" from aquatic to terrestrial and vice versa. I love the animations where a whale was walking on four legs and gradually starts getting into water and transforming its limbs into fins. Now imagine the same process but taking millions of generations. This means most of those transitory generations would be in an awkward stage where they can't properly live in water but also are now disadvantaged on earth because their hoofs are half-assed fins now.
No, I mean naturalism and determinism are part of the same worldview because naturalism assumes the universe is governed by determined mechanistic processes (like evolution).
Fair enough, but most of the time evo proponents are materialists who can't make a meaningful distinction between a mind and a brain because they reject metaphysics and believe everything in existence is physical in nature and accessible through sense data.