[galacticsurfer]

I have been pondering a lot the coming problems approaching our civilization, lately in terms of so-called "Generational Dynamics" also featured in the book "The Fourth Turning". Since I have a standard education including biology and evolution but also a very high interest in spirituality and history and even in astrology I tend to mix a lot of ideas together, that is I am no specialist but rather tend to crossfertilize ideas and possibly see something that has not been observed before("Standing on the shoulders of giants leaves me cold, a mean idea to call my own").

I had this morning the realization that the 80-100 year 4 generational cycle described by Strauss and Howe in Generations and The Fourth Turning is, with its pendulum swing from crisis era(depression and WWII) to spiritual awakening era (60s-70s) a Yang and Yin pendulum or said otherwise male and female dominated. Now this realization is nothing in and of itself. What is important is that the basic mechanic of the spiral of human development and therefore of societal and most likely also the physical evolution of species is likely however explained with the alternating generational cycles. Even among animals and among primitive societies a 4 generational dynamic is likely to be observed, although very subjective and therefore hard to isolate scientifically as Strauss and Howe have found even in their analysis of well documented history which is not accepted by the majoprity of historians.

I would therefore presume that a society has a crisis of some sorts, which could lead to extinction or civilizational death or simply a very high stress level common in total war. The young generation which fought in the war is typically very logical and dominated by a yang or male mind set. They want to build and control the external environment. This was evident with the G. I generation who built suburbia, the interstate highway system and sent men to the moon after WWII. This logical bent is how the species changes the environment to suit its needs. The children of the so-called hero generation just described then raise children in a time of physical safety and abundance with much freedom for the children and a very strong female influence at home. The fathers remain distant and authoritative and concentrate on building up the society. In a very real sense then the society evolves to take advantage of the new found social concepts developed during the previous awakening (social justice in light of industrial expansion and movement from farm life in this case) to provide the theoretical(from prophet elders) and just as importantly the practical basis(hero youth carry this out) for the new society. The two recessive generations ameliorate and communicate between the two dominant generations in the intervening times between crisis and spirtiual revolutions and vice versa.

Now Darwin and modern biochemists concentrate mainly upon adaptation of the organism to nature as well as freak mutation of individuals to explain evolution of organisms. Watching a simple scientific evolution program on television gives a sense that the first amphibeans somehow wanted to get legs to adapt to their environment. Evolutionary critics laugh at this. Also the idea of a simple freak mutation(which is of course one in a million chance of somehow happening at all) which is then just coincidentally advantageous to survival of a particular species happening simultaneously in a male and a female of this species at the same time who then just happen to mate and pass this on is statistically impossible. So how do we close the gap between the supposed conscious desire of an animal to improve its lot with the concept of mutation and organism change which has obviously happened over eons. I mean seriously, the fossil records show rapid change and development. God did not just make everything like it was and leave it there. Pure coincidental mutations of the sort purported by evolutionists are preposterous. Evolutional Generational Dynamics is the probable solution to this quandary. The focus of a species first on male dominance and then on female dominance in turn helps to develop a societal preponderance towards inward looking theory and then on practical development. In an evolutionary sense each new cycle has a higher developed nervous system in terms of communication between the two brain hemispheres (female) and a specialization within each hemisphere(male dominated cycle). The animals then develop themselves and their environment in competition with other animals until they reach a stasis type of situation often found in jungle and other ecosystems where many animals and insects depend on one another to survive. We see in the millions of years of development of the dinosaurs that the became more dominated by huge grazing animals and hunters as time went on. Mammals went from large animal dominance to dominance by larger brained animals. Humans are the logical development of primates though of course not its end. Generally speaking a species develops as a group and not as an individual in isolation. Therefore the concept of evolutional generational dynamics lends itself to the development of an entire species more than freak mutations. Also since the whole society (group of biologically related animals in a limited geographical area) develops itself and its environment corresponding to its own internal(neurological) changes a higher level of stability occurs at the next cycle. This is the well known concept of an upward spiral development of civilization.

We must presume this is how we developed language and tools. Women dominated at times, developing language skills very strongly in particular generations. The emphasis then went over to male primates who developed handtools in another generation quite effectively. The development of these skills and tools in a cyclical manner allowed the humans more control over their external environment which they then gradually learned to shape, which improved nutrition and so the cycle spiralled upwards enabling higher brain functions and longer life spans.

It is entirely another question if species as such must always come to an evolutionary dead end like the dinosaurs. Where our species is now in its cycle of development can hardly be predicted at this point although that is basically all we think about lately on PO sites-a dead end.

[Doly]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('galacticsurfer', 'A')lso the idea of a simple freak mutation(which is of course one in a million chance of somehow happening at all) which is then just coincidentally advantageous to survival of a particular species happening simultaneously in a male and a female of this species at the same time who then just happen to mate and pass this on is statistically impossible.

[galacticsurfer]

Hey now I never would have thought of that. That makes evolution easier to achieve regardless of the mechanism which causes the mutation as only one party is needed.

What influence do we have over evolution in the sense of microevolution?(not like I want to grow wings, but rather I work hard on some aspect of nutrition or learning and develop inadvertently brain cells or something like that which somehow changes something in my genes in that direction so that I pass on this characteristic for which I had strived).

My interest in history and books like Fourth Turning of course gave me the idea of sex specific alternating specialization(male vs. female dominance in attitudes-) over generations as I read all of the books written by those authors. It just lends itself to a spiral development of animals in an evolutionary cycle (from internal "spiritual development and then external use of that development to control the environment using learned techniques- from baby boomers navel gazing in 1970 to millenials massive construction of windmills ca. 2030).

Could we then actually evolve in orderly "self-controlled" way(although somewhat subconsciously and non-deliberately)?