1
Addiction & Evolution
Posted by
Darkly Origins
,
29 March 2015
·
2,017 views
innovationneuroscienceplasticity psychophysiology neocortex cortical brain hacking evolution transhumanism biology
How is it stationary, or micro-evolution is possible, or can, and/or has occurred if you take by example, the following instance: healthy persons dying young;, so to speak – ‘a man smokes cigarettes for 15 years,’ drank alcohol heavily for 10 years’, and consumed large quantities of refined sugars and red meats;, and then – one day decided to change his life for the better;, and to turn his own life around by means of quitting tobacco, alcohol, and excess foods/sugars consumption.
Within the months-turned-years to come, this man’s immune system becomes more susceptible to sicknesses, consequently developing malignant, dangerous and otherwise deadly disease(s), inevitably resulting in premature or early death of the man.
Perhaps, it is by literal coincidence, or perhaps – by medically scientific theory-turned-application, such an idea has bearing over this ageless argument’. Is it possible human beings are not so adept’ to said adaptation, albeit micro, or macro, stationary, or linear in aspectual consideration; to remove a potential, or daresay I – proven contagion, carcinogen, or otherwise naturally invasive bacteria-of-parasites from an otherwise healthy individual’s body, could this be detrimental to one’s physical sense of health? Continued…
Cont. Could this be considered assimiliar to the likening of altered genome, genetic-dissection, or otherwise disarrayed biological functioning;, could the affects be similar in context, to remove a cancer, that has been benign, however dormant for many years – or to remove a skin tag, being nothing more than a vain piece of fleshly annoyance, causing mild to no irritability? If there is potentiality in such contextual reasoning, then there’s plausibility within the thoughts we’re considering as of now;, as if for something that has the utmost of potentiality, and easily-feasible ability to harm or kill an individual if bothered, tampered, rendered, altered or otherwise removed;.
Could not the same be said about the possibility of such a correlation between these exemplary thesis points, as to speak figuratively – (to poke the bear, or reawaken a slumbering giant) could in philosophically-appropriated context, and scientifically-theorized feasibility have adverse effects on an individual in whom exemplarily speaking’, smokes for two decades, and makes the conscious decision to quit, then develops cancer, merely because his body wasn’t able to properly adapt to the removal of the very contagion, (in this context, more correctly worded, it would read “carcinogen”) that is believed to be responsible for varied health problems, irrelevant the severity of the problematic happenings, irregardless the length of time one has been free, dormant, or benign in medical, social and psychological cues’ is it not fair to ask, in comparative and analogical analysis – to understand on if removing a contagion of any sort, to which is presumably causing irreversible damage, and/or killing an individual can “reawaken the slumbering giant,” or is as “poking the bear” if viewed from the legitimacy of a the scientifically and medically theory-turned-application(s) perspective(s);.
It seems fair to ask such a question to me; mind you: I know well, that we human beings are by naturalistic default, and evolutionary, and/or created means, inherently subjective.
All Rights Reserved;, (T3T Innovations); Jacob A. Eder;.
Darkly Origins/Eerie Flickering
Within the months-turned-years to come, this man’s immune system becomes more susceptible to sicknesses, consequently developing malignant, dangerous and otherwise deadly disease(s), inevitably resulting in premature or early death of the man.
Perhaps, it is by literal coincidence, or perhaps – by medically scientific theory-turned-application, such an idea has bearing over this ageless argument’. Is it possible human beings are not so adept’ to said adaptation, albeit micro, or macro, stationary, or linear in aspectual consideration; to remove a potential, or daresay I – proven contagion, carcinogen, or otherwise naturally invasive bacteria-of-parasites from an otherwise healthy individual’s body, could this be detrimental to one’s physical sense of health? Continued…
Cont. Could this be considered assimiliar to the likening of altered genome, genetic-dissection, or otherwise disarrayed biological functioning;, could the affects be similar in context, to remove a cancer, that has been benign, however dormant for many years – or to remove a skin tag, being nothing more than a vain piece of fleshly annoyance, causing mild to no irritability? If there is potentiality in such contextual reasoning, then there’s plausibility within the thoughts we’re considering as of now;, as if for something that has the utmost of potentiality, and easily-feasible ability to harm or kill an individual if bothered, tampered, rendered, altered or otherwise removed;.
Could not the same be said about the possibility of such a correlation between these exemplary thesis points, as to speak figuratively – (to poke the bear, or reawaken a slumbering giant) could in philosophically-appropriated context, and scientifically-theorized feasibility have adverse effects on an individual in whom exemplarily speaking’, smokes for two decades, and makes the conscious decision to quit, then develops cancer, merely because his body wasn’t able to properly adapt to the removal of the very contagion, (in this context, more correctly worded, it would read “carcinogen”) that is believed to be responsible for varied health problems, irrelevant the severity of the problematic happenings, irregardless the length of time one has been free, dormant, or benign in medical, social and psychological cues’ is it not fair to ask, in comparative and analogical analysis – to understand on if removing a contagion of any sort, to which is presumably causing irreversible damage, and/or killing an individual can “reawaken the slumbering giant,” or is as “poking the bear” if viewed from the legitimacy of a the scientifically and medically theory-turned-application(s) perspective(s);.
It seems fair to ask such a question to me; mind you: I know well, that we human beings are by naturalistic default, and evolutionary, and/or created means, inherently subjective.
All Rights Reserved;, (T3T Innovations); Jacob A. Eder;.
Darkly Origins/Eerie Flickering
