IGNVS
Bluelighter
i just hope i dont wind up a frankenstein
Carnival of psychedelic poultry- PD Silly Goose make out session
- Thread starter Xorkoth
- Start date
Roger&Me
Bluelighter
hahaha ignus you crack me up bro. I was reading an old thread earlier (forget which one) and you said somethin like "im not gunna reply to this thread anymore, i'm just gunna edit this post -- so check page 8 for my response to any questions" hahaha and there's like 10 edits in the post
fucken LOL, man :D
fucken LOL, man :D
Last edited:
psood0nym
Bluelighter
I saw a lecture by a guy named Dario Maestripieri a few months ago. He wrote a book called "Macachiavellian Intelligence: How Rhesus Macaques and Humans Have Conquered the World."
Macaques are really nasty to each other. Lesser macaques are banished to territory perimeters as lion fodder, the groups are fiercely xenophobic, and the alpha males keep their power through beating the others, sexual assaults and intimidation. In India they rove in gangs and steal food from people, and have even killed a deputy mayor there! After humans, they are the second most successful primate species on the planet.
The most interesting thing Maestripieri said was that even when all resources are provide to them their behavior does not change in the slightest. In a very real way they have a "Will to Power." I like to think we have more discipline than that, and in many ways of course we do. Major indicators of how we're doing--mortality rates, disease, standard of living etc--have been steadily improving for decades. I'm curious about how far not having to compete for resources of basic necessity would take us though, given that part of the reason we're where we are is because we're more macaquian than the macaques.
Roger&Me
Bluelighter
Really though, with a bit of creative engineering this planet could produce more than enough food for everyone. The only reason it doesn't is that humans have clearly not made that a priority -- we rather kill each other and pursue capitalist endeavors instead.
OrneTTe
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2007
- Messages
- 624
The United States could currently produce enough food for the entire world, but our government pay framers not to grow food to keep prices the way they are. And this isn't your average joe farmer who is getting the majority of these subsidies but large factory farms that are already profiting heavily. I could write a lot more about this issue because it's one that literally makes me sick to my stomach. I can't believe that there are people in this world that don't have the bare minimal supplies to live when we in the U.S. and rest of the developed world have so much shit, shit as in junk that we don't need at all.
Xorkoth
Bluelight Crew
Happy Earth Day!! 
How was everyone's?
Mine was fantastic. I took 12mg of 2C-E rectally and tripped harder than I have for quite some time. I spent a lot of time outside in my beautiful yard, listening to the mountains. My wife and I took a drive up this scenic mountain highway later on during sunset, and it was sublime. Then at 9:30 we went to see that new Earth movie... which was amazingly awesome. When you see it, the birds of paradise will make you laugh til you cry (at least if you're me).
Overall, amazing Earth Day. Quite perfect. 
How was everyone's?Mine was fantastic. I took 12mg of 2C-E rectally and tripped harder than I have for quite some time. I spent a lot of time outside in my beautiful yard, listening to the mountains. My wife and I took a drive up this scenic mountain highway later on during sunset, and it was sublime. Then at 9:30 we went to see that new Earth movie... which was amazingly awesome. When you see it, the birds of paradise will make you laugh til you cry (at least if you're me
).Overall, amazing Earth Day. Quite perfect.
Xorkoth
Bluelight Crew
Oh, and we planted a flower, and I ordered a collection of psychoactive cacti to grow.
Xorkoth
Bluelight Crew
Never tried AMT HCl except when I converted freebase and plugged it. I know it works to plug quite well. I've snorted AMT freebase (don't do this!) and it worked well.
Shambles says that the freebase is great to smoke. Of course you'd have to convert it.
Shambles says that the freebase is great to smoke. Of course you'd have to convert it.
Xorkoth
Bluelight Crew
Yeah, I found plugging dose to be about the same as oral, strangely. Although the action of the drug was much improved and smoothed out.
Snorting dose is down but not half if I recall. I think AMT is extremely efficient when taken orally... either that or it's inefficient when taking it other ways. I notice the dose required doesn't go down much with other methods (except maybe smoking? Haven't tried that).
Snorting dose is down but not half if I recall. I think AMT is extremely efficient when taken orally... either that or it's inefficient when taking it other ways. I notice the dose required doesn't go down much with other methods (except maybe smoking? Haven't tried that).
swilow
Bluelight Crew
Good afternooneveningmorningnight people. In other words, hello
Earth day was like a month ago (at least in the rest of the world, or maybe just Australia...)
Earth day was like a month ago (at least in the rest of the world, or maybe just Australia...)
I have some interesting news for a certain dr J Lilly:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16996-bionic-penguins-take-to-the-water--and-the-skies.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16996-bionic-penguins-take-to-the-water--and-the-skies.html
IGNVS
Bluelighter
OMFGGGGG
bionic penguins!!!! YES.
fllllying bionic penguins at that.
you sir, you win.
tmh wher u at you need to cook up a banner for this man
bionic penguins!!!! YES.
fllllying bionic penguins at that.
you sir, you win.
tmh wher u at you need to cook up a banner for this man
Oh shuckz I was totally thinking of dolphins when reading penguins!
But whatever theyre both a bunch of weird fuckers, please let me know
if those scallywags succeed in making bionic dolphins fly, I'm sure that would be a suitable tribute to Douglas Adams.
Plus: I want an android elephant seal just as a pet. Seriously, i need some company in my floatation tank.
But whatever theyre both a bunch of weird fuckers, please let me know
if those scallywags succeed in making bionic dolphins fly, I'm sure that would be a suitable tribute to Douglas Adams.
Plus: I want an android elephant seal just as a pet. Seriously, i need some company in my floatation tank.
Nibiru
Bluelighter
I think the world is beautiful as it is, and really changes itself quite efficiently. Genes engineer themselves, just on a span of time that people aren't always patient enough to appreciate. Plant breeding has given us broccoli, brussels sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower, canola (or 'rape', depending on where you are in the world), kale and collards and all sorts of other things from a single weedy mustard. There is literally a rainbow of soybeans out there that have been bred into a multitude of colours ranging from black, through red and brown to green, with all sorts of patterns in all sorts of shapes. There is also a rainbow of rice, multicoloured carrots all sorts of wonderful things that weren't created, but evolved with our guidance. I know it's going to sound like flaky hippie bullshit, but even organisms without nervous systems have an amount of free will, the will to evolve. To guide the organism's evolution to get a positive result to me is much more virtuous than an invasive procedure of literally forcing a gene into the organism (they literally use a type of gun to insert genes in one technique used in agricultural gene engineering). I don't think that working with evolution is a primitive or imprecise method at all contrary to the rhetoric of a lot of biotech companies, and if people were to apply knowledge of biological science to traditional methods of working with genes, I know wondrous things can be done, indeed they have. Biology itself is a technology. The technology and language of the universe. People have to be patient and see time and evolution on a wider scale, and if our species is in it for the long haul, then the process of guiding evolution won't seem to take so long.
And we should be growing cannabis for fuel and food. And why engineer LSD into a fir tree when you have psilocybes growing on all continents of the world except Antarctica, often in forests?
I've always been very wary of transhumanist ideas. Transcendence isn't something that can be created physically, it's something that comes from an attitude inside of people, and all organisms ultimately (hence evolution).
Not to be a buzzkill or anything. Just felt like it had to be said.
adrian89987
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2006
- Messages
- 2,175
But our techniques for putting genes into organisms came as a result of evolution, so really its just yet another way that evolution has figured out how to guide the development of species, its all a result of the universe so what makes one route correct while the other is incorrect.
Is there a certain point in evolution where something becomes too evolved to be considered the natural way of the universe? And if so what is that point?
Is there a certain point in evolution where something becomes too evolved to be considered the natural way of the universe? And if so what is that point?
Last edited:
Nibiru
Bluelighter
Well, it's an invasive process. An organism is encouraged to develop in a way, or has a gene forcefully inserted into it. Pretty big difference if you ask me.
A good analogy is the development of a child. Should a parent force opinions and morals onto a child, or should they try to guide the child to develop their own set of positive behaviors? What is the more ethical way to go about it.
I think that to some extent artificial gene manipulation can be used responsibly, but agricultural biotechnology so far hasn't made good on the promises pushed by the industry, the promises of higher yields, more nutritious foods, drought-tolerance, reduced pesticide usage etc. The two traits bred into plants right now are glyphosate herbicide resistance and bt toxin production (a sort of built-in insecticide, the gene for which was taken from bacteria). Statistically, these crops have performed under par in many regions. They were developed by Monsanto and Syngenta, two companies who generate billions of dollars from the production of agricultural chemicals, with close ties to the petroleum industry and to various governments. Glyphosate has recently been shown to cause human cell damage even in trace amounts, and it's use has been increasing due to growing resistance of weeds. It has been causing immense damage to the water in countries like Ecuador where enormous pieces of land cultivate glyphosate-resistant soy, which isn't even used to feed the local population but to feed livestock in Europe for the most part. The companies that develop and push this technology only want to get rich, ant the pharmaceutical industry, ag-bio industry and biotech research are all closely related to eachother.
There are positive courses of evolution, and there are negative courses of evolution, and it is entirely possible for an organism to fail to adapt. There are numerous extinctions that prove it. I think that biotechnology itself could prove to help us evolve, but right now it is being used irresponsibly and overzealously. The way people seem to rationalize it is that life could be made better for people, while they fail to think that there are millions if not billions of species on Earth, many of which were here long before us, that have a right to evolve to the best of their ability, and that everything doesn't exist just so we can benefit from it.
I think a responsible use of biotechnology, for example would be the resurrection of recently extinct species to restore ecosystems that were damaged through despeciation. However, I think trying to modify things to suit our own impractical needs, especially profit at the cost of entire ecosystems is grossly unethical.
A good analogy is the development of a child. Should a parent force opinions and morals onto a child, or should they try to guide the child to develop their own set of positive behaviors? What is the more ethical way to go about it.
I think that to some extent artificial gene manipulation can be used responsibly, but agricultural biotechnology so far hasn't made good on the promises pushed by the industry, the promises of higher yields, more nutritious foods, drought-tolerance, reduced pesticide usage etc. The two traits bred into plants right now are glyphosate herbicide resistance and bt toxin production (a sort of built-in insecticide, the gene for which was taken from bacteria). Statistically, these crops have performed under par in many regions. They were developed by Monsanto and Syngenta, two companies who generate billions of dollars from the production of agricultural chemicals, with close ties to the petroleum industry and to various governments. Glyphosate has recently been shown to cause human cell damage even in trace amounts, and it's use has been increasing due to growing resistance of weeds. It has been causing immense damage to the water in countries like Ecuador where enormous pieces of land cultivate glyphosate-resistant soy, which isn't even used to feed the local population but to feed livestock in Europe for the most part. The companies that develop and push this technology only want to get rich, ant the pharmaceutical industry, ag-bio industry and biotech research are all closely related to eachother.
There are positive courses of evolution, and there are negative courses of evolution, and it is entirely possible for an organism to fail to adapt. There are numerous extinctions that prove it. I think that biotechnology itself could prove to help us evolve, but right now it is being used irresponsibly and overzealously. The way people seem to rationalize it is that life could be made better for people, while they fail to think that there are millions if not billions of species on Earth, many of which were here long before us, that have a right to evolve to the best of their ability, and that everything doesn't exist just so we can benefit from it.
I think a responsible use of biotechnology, for example would be the resurrection of recently extinct species to restore ecosystems that were damaged through despeciation. However, I think trying to modify things to suit our own impractical needs, especially profit at the cost of entire ecosystems is grossly unethical.
