The origin of mankind

[Junko]

Thank yoooou!

[Karl]

 

The Europeans didn't suddenly appear 2000 years ago. I'm finding it difficult to follow your argument. I think it's you that is twisting it, but because I can't get you to say what your argument actually is.

 

 

It was what I said it was, a few posts back, cant help it if you dont or cant follow.

 

I was saying that living 40K years in a stone age culture means living 40K years in a stone age culture. It doesn't qualify them to know anything relevant about the origin of man and without science, it's unlikely they would know as much as Europeans who also survived more than 40K years, in far greater numbers, then added science to allow far greater sustainability.

 

Now you yourself are a loy clearer and articulate, what you wrote before was not so and had other stuff mixed in with it (see below) , With this part of what you are saying above , I agree with that. But that wasnt how your comments arose, in any case , lets move on;

 

 

 

It wasn't the aborigines wiping out the white man was it ? The aborigines did not repel the Europeans with their 40K year head start in Australia ? Had the Europeans taken it upon themselves they would easily have achieved total genocide. Today, the aborigines are subsumed into the more advanced culture. That does not mean the more advanced culture cannot learn ANYTHING off a more primitive culture, but the exchange of information will be highest from the Europeans to the Aborigines.

 

Now you seem to be evaluating success of a culture via war and conquest. if you missed it, I am evaluating them on totally different results. Thats why sheer numbers are not a measure of success either . Some cultures had a lot of war and conquest in their favor , and increased population rapidly, and skyrocketed out rather quickly . Even that isnt a measure.

 

There are clear sets of indicators of a culture or society in growth and health and success as their are ones that show decline and crisis. There are identifiable stages and traits, expressed in variant cultural forms, but the stages are the same , after a certain stage collapse is imminent. For one to fulfill those requirements, for such a length of time earmarks it as long term and successful - they had things going for them, they did not need modern technology , they were exposed to it previously via the Maccassins, very few Australians back then went back with them and lived there and had families there , a few would come back here again. The Maccassin technology never spread to here. They only needed European tech as their normal way of life was disrupted and invaded by the Europeans . The Maccassins never did that,.

 

Perhaps it's because I leap, I can't help it, I see how an argument will develop and skip the intervening posts which loses the continuity.

 

 

Well, thank you ! That explains a lot, no wonder ! problem is you THINK you know the way its going to develop. Sometimes I think you are unaware of the things you slip in to/ to reach your own conclusions . So I will remember I am dealing with a 'quantum poster ' here

 

I have a friend like that. he comes out with : ..... : WTF ? I have to remind her that I cant read her thoughts, she thinks something and then vocalizes the rest and I am supposed to follow the thread . of course she 'always' knows what I am going t say next . She also tells me what I have said (which I didnt ). I wrote it out once and gave it to her so she couldnt 'cheat' (and made a copy as I knew she would 'lose ' it ) . When she confronted me about what I didnt say, I showed her the letter copy (as she had lost it ) she got angry and said " That maybe what you wrote - but I know you meant what I said ! "

 

Nah .. you arent that bad ... yet ... but be careful !

 

 

Look what it did to my friend !

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I know that you moved from the rat race to the wilds of a big hole in the outback where you watch the cars back up on the highway, so I know you don't really get on with modern life and wish we would get back to 'living in harmony' with the planet.

 

 

We have a TV and radio show here ' Ask Doctor Karl ' . Okay, feedback: I moved from the very mild, have it great version of outer fringe suburbia with wild nature just over the river (our first National Park ) , yes I live down in a valley , no it isnt the ;outback', I cant see any cars backed up on a highway, or a highway or a road from here - just my driveway ... where the hell did that one come from ? I do get on with modern life, I have done great thanks, haven't you read my other posts over the years in various areas. I am happy and successful and appreciative . I think of all the places in the all the times through history and ll the paces and times here , I landed pretty well . I even thought I might have skipped in a few years ealrier and had access to those brand new British 'vintage; motorcycles ... but then I would have been old enough for the Vietnam call up. Born later, I would have missed the amazing lifestyle one could have here and 'now' which has just passed . Modern life ? I 'killed it '

 

Wish we would get back to living in harmony with the planet ? Of course I do ... I am not crazy ! This is not harmony this is sickness :

 

 

 

 

 

I'm trying to show you that man doesn't work like that, despite how you wish it, I don't say it's perfect, it's not perfect for you, but no one stops you moving to an area and living a Stone Age existence if that's what appeals, it just doesn't appeal to me, I see it as entirely a retrograde step, but I note you haven't given up on your 21st century computer technology :-)

 

More Dr Karl knows . Ummmm .... I started studying anthropology at school before I ever knew there was such a subject. Later I studied non-graduate at Sydney Uni. I havent stopped since . I have barely scratched the surface , and specialized in ' Cultural Anthropology " . I happen to be fortunate enough to live and have access to one of the oldest partially extant cultures on the planet, that WAS successful over a vast period of time . yes we have to much to lean from them and many other indigenous people that our cultures have conqured and that we outnumber .

 

Thou art my Callicles , Karl.

 

If you want, then PM me and we can continue the discussion. I really didn't mean to be dissing the Abo's.

 

 

Then if you are sincere dont call them that, many would not like you calling them that. It would be like calling an African American a word even I would not use here (as once I got censored here for referring to white people as 'honky', even in my innocence, people had to explain why. )

 

As far as PMs go ... now how is that gonna make Junko's thread the longest running thread on TB's ever ?

 

and in case anyone is still reading this, yes, it actually does relate to the origins of 'mankind', man is distinguished by his culture. Its all about culture and 'Man" ( anthropology) .

 

That is what 'makes' us Men (and please dont tell me its who ever has the most men or who can beat the other guy up )

 

Well here we are-no where in particular :-)

 

Let's skip back, where I said that it wasn't suprising that ancient people thought man arrived out of something (like an egg) and that we now know about evolution and DNA etc which the ancients did not understand. When you said 'they knew a lot of things' I paraphrase, 'having survived 40K years'.

 

Then we got side tracked into talking about the relative merits of what constitutes success. So this is a different argument to the one above .....I'm correct on that score ? I struggle to see the link otherwise unless you point it out. In respect of this argument only, yes, I measure success in relation to mans ability to adapt to new circumstances. To use his mind to gain value. I don't say I agree that the use of force, armies or superior killing weapons are the measure of success, that is an ethical question. Rather I reverse that position and ask about the fitness of the invaded people to resist/adapt to the new situation. The natives took the practical approach eventually and integrated with the higher technologically advanced invaders.

 

I must have had you confused with someone else who mentioned they were glad to have left the city ?

 

I'm quite fine about being called a honky/snowflake, because that's what I was. I was called that very often when I worked with an Indian and a Jamaican guy. I never took it as an insult. I get fed up of all this prissy PC nonsense.

Edited August 5, 2016 by Karl

[Nungali]

Oh , Karl, I missed this bit '

 

" I'm trying to show you that man doesn't work like that, despite how you wish it, I don't say it's perfect, it's not perfect for you, but no one stops you moving to an area and living a Stone Age existence if that's what appeals, it just doesn't appeal to me, I see it as entirely a retrograde step, but I note you haven't given up on your 21st century computer technology :-)  "

 

 

I dont know what you mean by 'man does not work like that ' .  Man modern men and groups and companies are developing our technology towards working in harmony with the planet and nature , after all, it does sustain us .   Did you read my series of posts a while back about USA and UK scientists working with the indigenous elders and their knowledge in NW South America ?  The scientists acknowledge what the indigenous tell them to do works, but they do not understand how it works.  But they are desperate fro results, results win, every time , science or not.   The same way blushwood berry juice shrivels a cancerous tumor and causes it drop off in days AND then has another substance to rapidly heal the after sore.  It hapenned in front of the scientists eyes, repeatedly, in lab conditions.   Cant argue with results. 

 

What has me on my computer got to do with anything, Are you suggesting that when I go and visit indigenous friends that live a fairly  trad lifestyle that I long to live like that and be one of them ? You have to be kidding, I would be speared in the leg within the week . The only reason I havent been is I am a visitor, and they are polite and welcoming  and hospitiale . Live with them as one of them ... no thanks !  

 

But then again, you appear to know all this about me before I said any of  this,  eh ?  Jumping ahead without reading because you know how it is all panning out  anyway.     

 

 

[Nungali]

Yes, all the elements are made in stars, just so you know I agree with you on this one. It balances where I don't agree with you. All very Yin Yang.

 

 

Ah yes ... OH the quote function is actually working ! 

 

Ah yes  BUT  .... that is pretty much hard science, so its easy to agree , the science I am dealing in is soft science  (anthropology ) so more easy to find a disagreement .   Especially when one side is anthropology and the other is ... well .... Callicles  .

[Nungali]

Actually, I agree that all the elements were initially created in the stars.  But that's not the end of the story.

 

And it wasn't a matter of concern to the point I was trying (and failed) to make.

 

You seemed to be saying oxygen was made on earth in the oceans . I said  twernt. I knew all the stuff about photosynthesis  and agrred with you, but there was more to it and you seemed to be opposing that there was .  there was NO 'converted into' in the begginning, I bought that into it . 

 

You guys are funny, Karl is classic in that he  'figured it all out again' ..... anyway

 

 Its all JIM'S FAULT , he started it ....

 

speaking of whom ... where is he  .....   

 

 

 

[Marblehead]

Yeah, maybe Jim ran away.

 

So the saying goes:  We are all star stuff.  That is, at its roots, true.  Life is simple but explaining it takes a little more effort.

 

But anyway, it was a nice exchange of thoughts.

[Marblehead]

So yeah, if we go back in time we see that the origin of mankind lies in the oxygen breathing algae.  Gooey slim.

[Karl]

Oh , Karl, I missed this bit '

 

" I'm trying to show you that man doesn't work like that, despite how you wish it, I don't say it's perfect, it's not perfect for you, but no one stops you moving to an area and living a Stone Age existence if that's what appeals, it just doesn't appeal to me, I see it as entirely a retrograde step, but I note you haven't given up on your 21st century computer technology :-) "

 

 

I dont know what you mean by 'man does not work like that ' . Man modern men and groups and companies are developing our technology towards working in harmony with the planet and nature , after all, it does sustain us . Did you read my series of posts a while back about USA and UK scientists working with the indigenous elders and their knowledge in NW South America ? The scientists acknowledge what the indigenous tell them to do works, but they do not understand how it works. But they are desperate fro results, results win, every time , science or not. The same way blushwood berry juice shrivels a cancerous tumor and causes it drop off in days AND then has another substance to rapidly heal the after sore. It hapenned in front of the scientists eyes, repeatedly, in lab conditions. Cant argue with results.

 

What has me on my computer got to do with anything, Are you suggesting that when I go and visit indigenous friends that live a fairly trad lifestyle that I long to live like that and be one of them ? You have to be kidding, I would be speared in the leg within the week . The only reason I havent been is I am a visitor, and they are polite and welcoming and hospitiale . Live with them as one of them ... no thanks !

 

But then again, you appear to know all this about me before I said any of this, eh ? Jumping ahead without reading because you know how it is all panning out anyway.

 

 

Because 'harmony with the planet'.

 

If I don't poison my own tea it isn't anything to do with planetary harmony, it's because poisoning my tea doesn't help to sustain my life.

 

The planet is just a big bunch of potential resource that we have to turn into something useful by applying our minds. The idea of planetary harmony is for the fairies. The planet doesn't care less if we are here or not here. It didn't care about the Dinosaurs, Mammoths or Dodo's.

 

I object to the phrase because it implies that man must 'fit' into nature rather than adapting it. We are stuck with obeying nature, but we must adapt it.The planet doesn't sustain us, we have to sustain ourselves.

Edited August 5, 2016 by Karl

[Nungali]

My thread is like my heart...it lives as long as I live.

 

Longer. I plan t make a memorial out of it ! 

 

 

[Nungali]

Thank yoooou!

 

Junko .... I can here wild dingoes howling across the river up in the rainforest tonight 

 

Maybe they are saying thank yooooooou - oooooooooouuuuu !  ? 

 

[Nungali]

Well here we are-no where in particular :-)

 

Let's skip back, where I said that it wasn't suprising that ancient people thought man arrived out of something (like an egg) and that we now know about evolution and DNA etc which the ancients did not understand. When you said 'they knew a lot of things' I paraphrase, 'having survived 40K years'.

 

Then we got side tracked into talking about the relative merits of what constitutes success. So this is a different argument to the one above .....I'm correct on that score ? I struggle to see the link otherwise unless you point it out. In respect of this argument only, yes, I measure success in relation to mans ability to adapt to new circumstances. To use his mind to gain value. I don't say I agree that the use of force, armies or superior killing weapons are the measure of success, that is an ethical question. Rather I reverse that position and ask about the fitness of the invaded people to resist/adapt to the new situation. The natives took the practical approach eventually and integrated with the higher technologically advanced invaders.

 

I must have had you confused with someone else who mentioned they were glad to have left the city ?

 

I'm quite fine about being called a honky/snowflake, because that's what I was. I was called that very often when I worked with an Indian and a Jamaican guy. I never took it as an insult. I get fed up of all this prissy PC nonsense.

 

 

karl, its all to confused to continue as I have, so in brief; yes they did and still know a lot of things, the value of knowledge lies in the facts of how long they survive in successful cultures, from an anthropological perspective that is.  Then yes, you 'paraphrased' . There is no side track into 'relative merits'  its all about relative merits .  It isnt a different argument it is the original one I was making that resulted from your brief and rather ignorant first comment that I reacted against but now you have explained some things a bit clearer than that. 

Re the invasion; its a toss up. The cultural dynamic operating in this isolated mini-world ( over 600 inter related culture/language 'groups'  actually )   that allowed successful and such long term cultures  due to its relative isolation and highly regulated periods of input (more than one  'wave' of Aboriginal migration into Australia )  that , somehow, resulted in their great and long term success may be balanced against the isolated vulnerability that eventuated  is yet to be fully played out, its still underway.  So there is no final out come on that yet.  Personally, I hope to see the best of both worlds and in harmony with nature and the environment .

 

I am glad to have left the city, I never said I wasnt nor did I say I wasnt in the above . I said , well, what i said , Dude,, stop paraphrasing and jumping to conclusions, I am not 'someone else' I am the guy that IS glad every day I left the  ' city '  - even though in the past I had great fun there , but it aint like that no more ! 

 

:  Beep beep : 

[Nungali]

So yeah, if we go back in time we see that the origin of mankind lies in the oxygen breathing algae.  Gooey slim.

 

I am happy with that,  But being a fuss pot I would say the origin of 'mankind' lies in the things that the slime evolved into ... and then mixed with 'other stuff '  ( I like the term ' a factor infinite and unknown ' ) ...  some call it God, Space Turtles , comet delivered, whatever . . .  because  Mankind is unlike all those other critters  , in a special way , that came out of that algae.  

 

 

Thats what "mankind; is about, not just our animal origins but what made us and makes us different . 

 

 So there is the physical stuff, but there is the stuff that makes us different .  That is what anthropology tries to discover and know about. 

[Nungali]

Yeah, maybe Jim ran away.

 

So the saying goes:  We are all star stuff.  That is, at its roots, true.  Life is simple but explaining it takes a little more effort.

 

But anyway, it was a nice exchange of thoughts.

 

 yeah ...     wait !  First I thought .... yeah nice .... but then , doubt snuck in.  

 

I remembered this date I went on once ; 

 

 

Did I just get told goodnight ....

 

" that was a nice exchange of thoughts ....  but anyway .....  "

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Nungali]

Because 'harmony with the planet'.

 

If I don't poison my own tea it isn't anything to do with planetary harmony, it's because poisoning my tea doesn't help to sustain my life.

 

The planet is just a big bunch of potential resource that we have to turn into something useful by applying our minds. The idea of planetary harmony is for the fairies. The planet doesn't care less if we are here or not here. It didn't care about the Dinosaurs, Mammoths or Dodo's.

 

I object to the phrase because it implies that man must 'fit' into nature rather than adapting it. We are stuck with obeying nature, but we must adapt it.The planet doesn't sustain us, we have to sustain ourselves.

 

 

but Dr Karl, that is why I expanded the idea so much and used the term harmony with nature and explained how we rely on it - air and water mate ,,, our food. Thats why I posted the enviro degradation pics,  etc etc 

 

 

and what ? You dont get it, you pull the lets make out Nungers to be new age fairy trip .... gong !  

 

 

from a term you might even have used first (cant be bothered checking now )

[Karl]

The final outcome is that today they have been forced to adapt to a different way of life. Some of their own culture/knowledge has/is being absorbed as the two peoples integrate. If we lost all our technology and knowledge then I don't doubt that the Austrailians that survived would end up living just like the natives did and there would be far fewer of them. As a Britisher, I know all about invasion by higher technology cultures and that it has been a benefit to us despite some of the less than pleasant aspects of initial occupation.

 

You still insist on that 'in harmony with nature' but man has never and will never be in harmony with nature. Man is not given anything by nature, he has to use his mind and body to survive within nature. The planet is a place of potential resource only and we have to fight to survive upon its surface. I'm an adherent to a benevolent universe, but let's not kid ourselves that this means that the universe is a cognisant nurturer. If I was deposited on the African plains without a gun, water, food, or clothing, I would likely be dead within 24 hours. I could be said to be in 'harmony with the planet' as I provided a tasty meal for a wild animal and lots of microbes/ insects and eventually plants.

[Karl]

but Dr Karl, that is why I expanded the idea so much and used the term harmony with nature and explained how we rely on it - air and water mate ,,, our food. Thats why I posted the enviro degradation pics,  etc etc 

 

 

and what ? You dont get it, you pull the lets make out Nungers to be new age fairy trip .... gong !  

 

 

from a term you might even have used first (cant be bothered checking now )

No, we don't rely on it. That's an equivocation on the word 'rely'. You have a tendency to play fast and loose when it suits and then pick to detail when you don't. I call that the Colombo close, after the series that inspired it.

 

It is quite clear that we don't want to destroy our air, water or food supply. Indeed we have INCREASED our food supplies and the amount of potable water we have/we have access to. We have outwitted pests, animal competition, the changing environment, we have water cleaned in vast plants, stored and piped to us. We have drilled deep into underground aquifers, we can even liberate fresh water from salt.

[Stosh]

The final outcome is that today they have been forced to adapt to a different way of life. Some of their own culture/knowledge has/is being absorbed as the two peoples integrate. If we lost all our technology and knowledge then I don't doubt that the Austrailians that survived would end up living just like the natives did and there would be far fewer of them. As a Britisher, I know all about invasion by higher technology cultures and that it has been a benefit to us despite some of the less than pleasant aspects of initial occupation.

 

You still insist on that 'in harmony with nature' but man has never and will never be in harmony with nature. Man is not given anything by nature, he has to use his mind and body to survive within nature. The planet is a place of potential resource only and we have to fight to survive upon its surface. I'm an adherent to a benevolent universe, but let's not kid ourselves that this means that the universe is a cognisant nurturer. If I was deposited on the African plains without a gun, water, food, or clothing, I would likely be dead within 24 hours. I could be said to be in 'harmony with the planet' as I provided a tasty meal for a wild animal and lots of microbes/ insects and eventually plants.

Im usually intrigued by these new tv shows where they dump some people together out in some difficult place , it always seems to me that the biggest hurdle is getting along, and that once the participant is alone they seem to get along better with the environment they are in.  And then my mind wanders to whether someone like an -actively old fashioned style native living Australian Aborigine- , would have similar difficulty dropped into the Amazon or not.  Since a great deal of information is stored culturally. 

[Marblehead]

I remembered this date I went on once ; 

 

Did I just get told goodnight ....

Some women are that way.  They have no problem with telling a guy to fuck off.

[Brian]

*poof*

 

You rang?

 

<grin>

 

Spidey senses told me to check this thread last night (I've been largely ignoring it for weeks) and, sure enough, my presence was requested -- pages back now and I'm not going to bother to find it to quote it but the question of the moment was about plants and animals and how oxygen and carbon dioxide are used.

 

This appears to be a pretty straight-forward explanation but I'll nutshell it:

 

With few exceptions, atomic nuclei are forged in stars. Most elements are inherently unstable and will eventually undergo some form of radioactive decay but the vast majority have such long half-lives that we can effectively treat them as unchanging under normal circumstances. The upshot of this is that neither plants nor animals are really "creating" oxygen or carbon -- they are star dust like almost everything else.

 

Think of them as Legos or Tinker Toys -- elements can be snapped together into various configurations and can also be disassembled. Each configuration has a unique set of characteristics, largely relating to its particular energy signature. These properties include things like how they respond in electrical or magnetic fields, how interact with different configurations, etc.

 

Plants use complex molecules of various types, generally called chlorophyll, to convert electromagnetic energy into electrical energy -- absorbing certain frequencies of light and using that to stimulate electrons. This electrical energy is then used to disassemble carbon dioxide molecules and water molecules from the plant's environment and then use those component parts to construct sugar molecules which are stored by the plant for future use. The "waste" byproduct of this biochemical process (which is really an energetic process involving specific vibratory frequencies) is oxygen molecules (O₂).

 

A brief aside about O₂ which applies more broadly -- many configurations are less energetic than their components. Two individual oxygen atoms coming in contact with each other will "stick together" to form an oxygen molecule and release energy in the process. For this reason, it is fairly rare to find O coming out of a chemical reaction but O₂ instead.

 

Later, when the plant needs to use energy to grow or repair itself or reproduce, for instance, it draws O₂ from its environment and uses it, along with the electrical-nee-electromagnetic energy from chlorophyll, to disassemble the complex sugar molecule it has stored. This releases the usable energy bound in the sugar molecule, along with byproducts of water and carbon dioxide molecules.

 

Notice that this is the same reaction in reverse -- "photosynthesis" uses energy from sunlight (converted to electrical energy by chlorophyll) to assemble sugar molecules to store some of that energy, and "respiration" uses energy from sunlight (converted to electrical energy by chlorophyll) to disassemble sugar molecules to recover some of that energy. The reaction runs in either direction and is "lossy" in both directions. Plants typically create far more sugar molecules than they disassemble, though, so the net result is to draw carbon dioxide and water from the air and release oxygen molecules.

 

We don't have chlorophyll so we get our sugars from plants or from other animals which got them from plants (either directly or indirectly). We only do the "respiration" cycle (with electrical energy coming from disassembled sugars rather than sunlight (again, because we don't have chlorophyll)) so our net result is to draw oxygen from the air and release carbon dioxide and water.

 

Makes sense?

[Marblehead]

Makes sense to me.  All life is plant based.   (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

[silent thunder]

and all humans start out female...

[Junko]

Some women are that way.  They have no problem with telling a guy to fuck off.

This is important.When it's about a woman,find out about how polite this woman can be.....I mean try to see if a woman is polite or not.

[Brian]

Makes sense to me. All life is plant based. (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

Well, except all the lifeforms that aren't...

[Jim D.]

Remember when I told you guys that I taught Ecology. I did and it was in a Maximum Security prison for females. I had never taught Ecology before but sad yes to the offer to teach because I needed the money. I totally bombed it...and I admited it to the class at the end of the semester. The lady's went to commisary and bought me a card to emotionally support me. One of the nicest gestures I have experienced in life.

 

I have not responded in kind because I don't know as much as you guys that have been debating the issue of what came first, the chicken or the egg. But what does make sense is to accept that we as humans need oxygen to live, and plants need carbond dioxide to live. I do not know how it is that a plant can live in an enclosed cookie jar, of which I have three that have tropicla plants in them. I open them up from time to time and feed them plant food. But that is it. They do the rest. I even feel sorry for them at times that they are closed in. But it seems they like it as evidenced by their continual growth.

 

I have propagated African Violets in a sealed pickle jar, and they lived without Carbon Dioxide. I never gave it a thought until you guys talked about it.

 

So, here are some thoughts on the universe and earth. After the big bang, debris went out from the center and traveled through space. Earth landed just right and was able to create and sustain life. Oxygen was created by a plant called algea according to the scientist that said so. Was he absolutely right. I don't know. Do we have a scientist or two in this discussion, or are they really good researchers. I don't know. But the question still remains a topic. And it is about the origin of mankind. Not the origin of oxygen. So, is the question a religious or anthropological one. If it is an anthropological question than we are still on target to  also bring in the physical sciences and humanities.

 

As a psychologist I don't understand the attacks on Karl. He is really good at arguing theoretically and philosophically. And if he makes a error or two, so what? Allow him to be who he is. Without Karl, we would be less one in our group. And that is not good.

 

I get the idea that Nagali is living like an Aboriginal Australian. I don't see anyone making fun of him. Brian seems to a professor of sorts. No one is making fun of his logo as if he could be a mad scientist. I mean look at that face. Would you listen to anything that came out of that mouth? But we do, because he makes sense. Or how about the Gorilla man???

 

It says at the top of this post that Junko started this sometime in March 2016. Maybe we should wonder where she is.

[silent thunder]

Speaking of life forms... just took my gal to see the latest Star Trek.

Sadly I didn't get to work on this one, but it was a fun watch.

 

I still hold that the origin of humans is awareness.  And awareness lies under all.