Intense sadness

[Nienna]

Point is, humans are humans. We have genes. Our genes control our body's inner workings. That is the extent of our bodies in 3D. Yes, in the cosmic scheme, all is nature. But we are not all, we are 3D and 3D rules apply to us. And our 3D nature is that genes have not had any time to adapt to these things!

Doing something because it is natural, or nature, or because this is how it has always been done, is something that I think is what animals do. They do it because it is in their nature. They have always done it that way. Also, this is how it is for mechanical human automatons. They do things because it is the way that it has always been done.

But we have developed a frontal cortex which gives us the ability to choose what we do and why. We, also, live in a STS 3D environment. So always doing whatever for no reason, only because that is how it has always been done and not thinking about it is fine for those who don't know, or care, about being a STO candidate. But for those who do want to be a STO candidate, I would think that looking at things that we are going to be doing with an eye on if we are doing it for the self or for the other is something that should be considered - at least, like I said, for those who are trying to be STO candidates.

Just doing something, like having a child, because it fulfills our desires and to make us feel better, or more whole, or whatever is just acting mechanically in a STS manner. Which is what most people on this planet do.

Also, having more children does a lot of good for the warmongers who are always looking for more cannon fodder, and it also helps to keep feeding those 4D STS critters. These are also things to consider for those who know what is really going on in this world of 3D STS.

That's the way I see it.

 

[Guardian]

So what is your ideal world on this issue?

A world where people tell the truth.

It's not just financial responsibility, we all probably agree. What should be done? How do you stop people who shouldn't be having children from having them?

It would take MASSIVE education and a complete overhaul of our over sexed society...but again, this has NOTHING to do with stealing a person's identity to protect the people who created that child (or those that adopted the child) from "embarrassment"

 

[Foxx]

How do you stop people who shouldn't be having children from having them?

Comets. Just like everything else humanity has done to get itself into the situation that we find ourselves in.

 

[Timótheos]

Guardian, as I understand, is speaking from a position of a more, for lack of a better word, "militant" faction of adult adoptees. They have a strong, articulate presence and a specific lingo that is familiar to those versed in the subject but can be missed by others.

Okay, that explains a lot!

Unfortunately, like any radical group within a subject population, hard core activists tend to take extreme positions and presume to speak for the majority of others within that population. I doubt whether this rigidity of thinking serves either party very well.

I think we can all agree that matters of ancestry and medical history should be made available to the adoptive parent and child, and perhaps it's a good thing that this militant group has made progressive changes in this regard. Overall though, I don't think it's helpful to stand in judgement of people who are forced to make very difficult decisions because of indiscretions they may have made in the past.

We are programmed to sympathize with, and excuse, someone who most likely just slept around then didn't want to take responsibility for the resulting offspring.

Why do our laws protect a woman's "dirty little secret" to the direct detriment of the child who IS "the dirty little secret?"

[...] she made the decision when she spread legs, and so did the guy. However, she's the only one allowed by law, to pretend it never happened. These are OLD Victorian rules designed to protect the woman's "reputation"

Hypothetical programs aside, all of the above are assumptions that completely disregard the specific context and situation of the persons in question.

It is important to keep in mind that process of adoption is a consensual agreement between two parties, and though the rules of secrecy surrounding some necessary information are indeed archaic and should be changed, it does not negate the strong likelihood that any adopted child probably will have an overall better life with a family that wants them, as opposed to the birth mother being mandated by law to be involved in the process. Like we need more laws.

Speaking for myself only, I am glad not to be counted among the "militant" crowd.

I can only imagine how difficult it must have been for her to have to make that decision.

Yes, that is part of "The Grateful Programming" too.

No, that is called empathy.

 

[cubbex]

To be externally considerate is mandatory and I'm trying my best

To be external considerate doesn't mean agreeing with everything without giving to it even a thought, nor does mean answering all lovely, you may think that you are doing good and just are promoting ignorance and false beliefs.

And what about gmo, chemicals, nuclear etc. It's nature too, but does it really fit humans ? To what extent and for what aim ?...

Again you are jumping to conclusions before understanding and analyzing the concept (something that is not at all external considerate). When is referred to something natural, is referred to something that exists, not to something that is healthy or harmless, actually, to be able to create those things those fellas needed to study nature to be able to make use of it, that's it, making use of nature not going against nature. There are some animals that use methods to break coconuts to be able to eat them, I don't think they are going against nature just because the coconut is not opened by itself.

So, you want to be external considerate? try to make a concrete point in the future to prevent misunderstandings. If calling homosexual people gay was what created this wrong idea about you, try to expand your vocabulary so you can communicate in english properly in the future.

Trying to see to the left and to the right doesn't mean reflecting like a poet about several subjects at the same time, I guess is harder than that, and it means considering the facts not what "it may be"... I've done it before, believing I was doing right but I was just going in circles.

 

[Guardian]

No, that is called empathy.

I think it would be called empathy if you actually knew the situation the person was in. What I see is you automatically assuming the birth parent cared.... because that's part of the programming. "Poor birth mother" "She had no choice" etc. etc. Except in a very few instances, these are lies too. Most often the woman was thinking of herself, and what was best for her.

The reality is that MANY women give multiple children up for adoption without a second thought. I met one woman who couldn't even remember how many kids she'd had and dumped ...her GUESS was "6 or 7" Some even do it for the cash.

 

[Guardian]

It is important to keep in mind that process of adoption is a consensual agreement between two parties,

Yes it is, and the person being traded like a car has no say at all, even when they reach adulthood. Adoption is the ONLY legal instance in US law where "the best interest of the child" is secondary to the birth mother's desire to privately free herself from her burden...for whatever reason.

Other blood relatives, even the birth father, have no say either since they don't even have to be informed of the transaction.

 

[whitecoast]

How do you stop people who shouldn't be having children from having them?

Comets. Just like everything else humanity has done to get itself into the situation that we find ourselves in.

I heard facilitating gender equality and increasing education has been found to decrease reproduction and unwanted pregnancies, especially in developing countries....

And, yeah, comets. Stressing out animals extensively has shown to reduce their fertility and average # of offspring. Those offspring tend to have lower birth weights and delayed puberty also. Very elegant depopulation mechanism.

 

[Buddy]

Stressing out animals extensively has shown to reduce their fertility and average # of offspring. Those offspring tend to have lower birth weights and delayed puberty also. Very elegant depopulation mechanism.

I don't think that example is relevant to humans and here's why I think that:

Historical research into nomadic hunter tribal cultures has shown that somehow mobile tribes managed to keep their populations to within sustainable limits. Contrast that with stationary and sedentary lifestyles in agrarian cultures. Then look at how grain-based diets seem to keep people in near-starvation mode because they don't get the healthy fats and nutrients they need. To me, this is perpetual existence in a state of scarcity. Then look at the population numbers in those cultures.

Even though it may seem counter-intuitive, I actually think humans may be biologically programmed to breed themselves out of scarcity.

Wonder what population figures would look like after a few generations of everyone eating a diet proper to human beings?

 

[Oxajil]

I think it would be called empathy if you actually knew the situation the person was in. What I see is you automatically assuming the birth parent cared.... because that's part of the programming. "Poor birth mother" "She had no choice" etc. etc. Except in a very few instances, these are lies too. Most often the woman was thinking of herself, and what was best for her.

The reality is that MANY women give multiple children up for adoption without a second thought. I met one woman who couldn't even remember how many kids she'd had and dumped ...her GUESS was "6 or 7" Some even do it for the cash.

In a few instances they are lies, and it may be so indeed that the woman, or rather both parents, were thinking of themselves. But people make mistakes all the time, what matters is what they do once they realized they made a mistake. No one is flawless in life. Maybe the biological parent was someone who didn't care, maybe she was someone who cared a lot, in her own way, how she knew best. We don't know that.

And I realize that many women are that thoughtless to have and give children up like that, but in the end if she is that kind of a bad person who would be so careless and heartless, then yes indeed I would be more than happy to see her children to be raised by loving parents who DO know about caring for a child, and would be even more happy if she didn't have contact with them, as by the sound of it, she sounds pretty disturbed. Just because there are people out there like her, that doesn't make every parent who gives away her child evil though. It's not really a black/white thing. (That's how I think about it atleast)

You say "but if you bring a child into the word, you should NOT be allowed to refuse to take responsibility for it....man OR woman." What if some people don't know how to be responsible? What if they can't yet and they're too young, what if they're still a child themselves? What would then be the best option when we consider the best interest of the child?

Yes it is, and the person being traded like a car has no say at all, even when they reach adulthood. Adoption is the ONLY legal instance in US law where "the best interest of the child" is secondary to the birth mother's desire to privately free herself from her burden...for whatever reason.

If it's the birth mother's desire to privately free herself from her burden (though that isn't the case in all adoptions, as far as I know, i.e. there are those who stay in close contact with the ones who are adopting her child), then well, unfortunately it is what it is. How many biological parents ''free themselves from their burden'' when they neglect their children in so many ways possible? In the end what matters is that the best interest of the child is considered, whether by the parents who adopted, or by the biological parents.

Other blood relatives, even the birth father, have no say either since they don't even have to be informed of the transaction.

The father can still take away the child in some cases though. For example by (in my opinion, really silly) blood quantum laws.

Also, if you take a look in Nature, how many animal parents refuse one or more of their offspring, sometimes all of their offspring, and animals from the same or from another species take up the job of taking care of them? And aren't pets available for a dime, or even for free? Just because young children or animals are in some cases easy to get or easy to be ''bought'', that doesn't mean that the parents wanting to raise either of them, are evil per se. Apologies if I have misunderstood you in any way. Fwiw.

 

[Esote]

I don't really understand what you are trying to say, anart.

No, I don't think that you do understand the point I'm trying to make. What I'm saying is that I hope that what you have written here and how it comes across (as offensive) is due to a lack of understanding or finesse with the english language on your part and not bigotry. It's really a very simple point that I'm a bit surprised is so difficult for you to understand.

It's difficult for me to understand because I really had no intention to be offensive. It must be partly due to my lack of understanding or finesse with the English language. And with any language may be. As you can see I'm rather fluent in English. It has more to do, I may be wrong, with the difficulty to communicate in general. One says something, the other understands something else etc.

Quote from: monotonic on Yesterday at 10:37:19 PM

Point is, humans are humans. We have genes. Our genes control our body's inner workings. That is the extent of our bodies in 3D. Yes, in the cosmic scheme, all is nature. But we are not all, we are 3D and 3D rules apply to us. And our 3D nature is that genes have not had any time to adapt to these things!


Thus problems. It seems to me you just don't WANT to understand.

There is also the possibility eoste didn't mean nature in an evolutionary sense, and instead meant nature as in the mainstream religious spin on nature, where anything "unholy" is unnatural, and that is up to eoste for clarification.

Why do I feel everyone's in a hurry to misunderstand each other? I think different dictionaries is only part of it.

Well, I mean nature both in an evolutionary sense and a spiritual one. Why should it be separated ?

Not only different dictionaries I guess, but also emotional involvement, confusion, subjectivity...

To be externally considerate is mandatory and I'm trying my best

To be external considerate doesn't mean agreeing with everything without giving to it even a thought, nor does mean answering all lovely, you may think that you are doing good and just are promoting ignorance and false beliefs.

I sure am not agreeing with everything nor answering all lovely and I am not promoting anything. Just sharing, taking time to contribute, trying to see deep inside. Where is the problem ?

And what about gmo, chemicals, nuclear etc. It's nature too, but does it really fit humans ? To what extent and for what aim ?...

Again you are jumping to conclusions before understanding and analyzing the concept (something that is not at all external considerate). When is referred to something natural, is referred to something that exists, not to something that is healthy or harmless, actually, to be able to create those things those fellas needed to study nature to be able to make use of it, that's it, making use of nature not going against nature. There are some animals that use methods to break coconuts to be able to eat them, I don't think they are going against nature just because the coconut is not opened by itself.

Where did you see I'm jumping to conclusions ? Don't you see I'm asking questions ?

So, you want to be external considerate? try to make a concrete point in the future to prevent misunderstandings. If calling homosexual people gay was what created this wrong idea about you, try to expand your vocabulary so you can communicate in english properly in the future.

It's not a question of vocabulary but of what is meant by a word, which might be slightly different from one country to another and even from one person to another. Are you externally considerate when saying that ?

Trying to see to the left and to the right doesn't mean reflecting like a poet about several subjects at the same time, I guess is harder than that, and it means considering the facts not what "it may be"... I've done it before, believing I was doing right but I was just going in circles.

Considering the facts objectively is just what I think I tried : not what "it may be" from a subjective point of view, but from every possible angle.

Did I step on your sacred cows ?

 

[Gimpy]

Hello eoste.

Please begin expanding your vocabulary here:

nit·pick·ing (ntpkng)
n.
Minute, trivial, unnecessary, and unjustified criticism or faultfinding.


Your posts are becoming tiresome.

I don't really understand what you are trying to say, anart.

No, I don't think that you do understand the point I'm trying to make. What I'm saying is that I hope that what you have written here and how it comes across (as offensive) is due to a lack of understanding or finesse with the english language on your part and not bigotry. It's really a very simple point that I'm a bit surprised is so difficult for you to understand.

It's difficult for me to understand because I really had no intention to be offensive. It must be partly due to my lack of understanding or finesse with the English language. And with any language may be. As you can see I'm rather fluent in English. It has more to do, I may be wrong, with the difficulty to communicate in general. One says something, the other understands something else etc.

Quote from: monotonic on Yesterday at 10:37:19 PM

Point is, humans are humans. We have genes. Our genes control our body's inner workings. That is the extent of our bodies in 3D. Yes, in the cosmic scheme, all is nature. But we are not all, we are 3D and 3D rules apply to us. And our 3D nature is that genes have not had any time to adapt to these things!


Thus problems. It seems to me you just don't WANT to understand.

There is also the possibility eoste didn't mean nature in an evolutionary sense, and instead meant nature as in the mainstream religious spin on nature, where anything "unholy" is unnatural, and that is up to eoste for clarification.

Why do I feel everyone's in a hurry to misunderstand each other? I think different dictionaries is only part of it.

Well, I mean nature both in an evolutionary sense and a spiritual one. Why should it be separated ?

Not only different dictionaries I guess, but also emotional involvement, confusion, subjectivity...

To be externally considerate is mandatory and I'm trying my best

To be external considerate doesn't mean agreeing with everything without giving to it even a thought, nor does mean answering all lovely, you may think that you are doing good and just are promoting ignorance and false beliefs.

I sure am not agreeing with everything nor answering all lovely and I am not promoting anything. Just sharing, taking time to contribute, trying to see deep inside. Where is the problem ?

And what about gmo, chemicals, nuclear etc. It's nature too, but does it really fit humans ? To what extent and for what aim ?...

Again you are jumping to conclusions before understanding and analyzing the concept (something that is not at all external considerate). When is referred to something natural, is referred to something that exists, not to something that is healthy or harmless, actually, to be able to create those things those fellas needed to study nature to be able to make use of it, that's it, making use of nature not going against nature. There are some animals that use methods to break coconuts to be able to eat them, I don't think they are going against nature just because the coconut is not opened by itself.

Where did you see I'm jumping to conclusions ? Don't you see I'm asking questions ?

So, you want to be external considerate? try to make a concrete point in the future to prevent misunderstandings. If calling homosexual people gay was what created this wrong idea about you, try to expand your vocabulary so you can communicate in english properly in the future.

It's not a question of vocabulary but of what is meant by a word, which might be slightly different from one country to another and even from one person to another. Are you externally considerate when saying that ?

Trying to see to the left and to the right doesn't mean reflecting like a poet about several subjects at the same time, I guess is harder than that, and it means considering the facts not what "it may be"... I've done it before, believing I was doing right but I was just going in circles.

Considering the facts objectively is just what I think I tried : not what "it may be" from a subjective point of view, but from every possible angle.

Did I step on your sacred cows ?

 

[whitecoast]

Historical research into nomadic hunter tribal cultures has shown that somehow mobile tribes managed to keep their populations to within sustainable limits. Contrast that with stationary and sedentary lifestyles in agrarian cultures. Then look at how grain-based diets seem to keep people in near-starvation mode because they don't get the healthy fats and nutrients they need. To me, this is perpetual existence in a state of scarcity. Then look at the population numbers in those cultures.

I think the population explosion of agriculture has more to do with them producing a lot more diet-induced insulin, which is meant to coordinate energy stores with life cycle and reproduction. Lack of essential micronutrients or fats won't curb reproduction; it will merely reduce the phenotypic/epigenetic quality of the offspring, OSIT. I was just pointing out that stress (due to overpopulation or other factors) can produce a negative feedback loop that helps keep populations in check. FWIW I was being a little tongue-in-cheek about the comet stress thing. They're not our saviours. ;)

And what about gmo, chemicals, nuclear etc. It's nature too, but does it really fit humans ? To what extent and for what aim ?...

If you're asking how beneficial gmo, artificial chemicals, and nuclear energy is to humans, I think those things are discussed in several other threads.
For what it's worth, it almost looks like eoste and others arguing are kind of spinning their wheels arguing about things (as gimpy points out). No one is really learning anything here, are they? Forgive my ignorance.

No, that is called empathy.

I think it would be called empathy if you actually knew the situation the person was in. What I see is you automatically assuming the birth parent cared.... because that's part of the programming. "Poor birth mother" "She had no choice" etc. etc. Except in a very few instances, these are lies too. Most often the woman was thinking of herself, and what was best for her.

The reality is that MANY women give multiple children up for adoption without a second thought. I met one woman who couldn't even remember how many kids she'd had and dumped ...her GUESS was "6 or 7" Some even do it for the cash.

I'm just posting to thank you, Guardian, for sharing your views on adoption. You've brought to light so many instances of injustice that I previously had no idea existed.
In an ideal world people would be responsible, but sometimes I thing forcing people to be responsible can sometimes backfire. For example I know one man who donated sperm to a lesbian couple who wanted to have a child, but they then went after him for child support payments. A heterosexual women did the same by re-appropriating her bf's sperm from fellatio. Was it just a matter of them getting their "friends" to sign documents wavering responsibility for what comes after? I have no ideas or answers to those questions.

 

[monotonic]

Historical research into nomadic hunter tribal cultures has shown that somehow mobile tribes managed to keep their populations to within sustainable limits. Contrast that with stationary and sedentary lifestyles in agrarian cultures. Then look at how grain-based diets seem to keep people in near-starvation mode because they don't get the healthy fats and nutrients they need. To me, this is perpetual existence in a state of scarcity. Then look at the population numbers in those cultures.

I think the population explosion of agriculture has more to do with them producing a lot more diet-induced insulin, which is meant to coordinate energy stores with life cycle and reproduction. Lack of essential micronutrients or fats won't curb reproduction; it will merely reduce the phenotypic/epigenetic quality of the offspring, OSIT. I was just pointing out that stress (due to overpopulation or other factors) can produce a negative feedback loop that helps keep populations in check.

I seem to recall that women on a ketogenic diet have 4 fertile periods in a year rather than 12? As though eating carbs/plants triggers an emergency survival mechanism? I don't remember which thread this was in.

I agree on spinning wheels. The adoption topic seems to be getting somewhere though, and I'm interested in how it will turn out, but it looks to me like we need to sort out our programs a bit while we make progress.

It looks to me like we've run into a clash of programs that are difficult for us to identify individually.

 

[Esote]

And what about gmo, chemicals, nuclear etc. It's nature too, but does it really fit humans ? To what extent and for what aim ?...

If you're asking how beneficial gmo, artificial chemicals, and nuclear energy is to humans, I think those things are discussed in several other threads.
For what it's worth, it almost looks like eoste and others arguing are kind of spinning their wheels arguing about things (as gimpy points out). No one is really learning anything here, are they? Forgive my ignorance.

"No one is really learning anything here", I wonder ? At least I am, but it's mere internal consideration. Please forgive me.

Hello eoste.

Please begin expanding your vocabulary here:

nit·pick·ing (ntpkng)
n.
Minute, trivial, unnecessary, and unjustified criticism or faultfinding.


Your posts are becoming tiresome.

Hello Gimpy

My posts are becoming tiresome because unnecessary and faultfinding...

OK, too bad. I thought I might be able to contribute to this thread, but you definitely don't.
That's fine, there is no time to loose, we are going to die at any moment ! I wish anyone that unconditional love will have replaced intense sadness at this time.

Take care of your real self