Talk:Developing A Universal Religion/Why Bother?

On speaking about a universal religion one should seriously consider the 'collective subconscious' as a real and immaterial existing entity which is something that engulfs the entire globe, like an egg shell. This 'thing' exists within our solar system and has over the life of the planet collected all experiences by every oxygen breathing being. We all add to it. No life experience is in vain and we also collect from it (as in dreams) continuously (sort of like a biological internet. The question to be raised is whether this 'thing' is of and simultaneously separate from the planet and does the planet leave it's experiences behind if it should exit this realm of 'collective subconscious' for another planets inhabitants to inherit?


 * What evidence is there to think this, please? David Hockey 19:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Based on the evolution of life on earth, a collective organism where we are just a part could be the next logical step. As one cell united to other cells as complex ogranism developed like us, the same process may happening now. It is not immaterial though, but it is not easy to see, because we are just a part. As for a cell in your body, for the cell it is not obvious its purpose, or the meaning why it's there. There is no evidence, just analogy. We are getting more and more dependent on each other and on a system. If you look into a cell, it's small, but still very complex. A singe cell organism was able to survive on its own, but not the cell in your body, it became specialized and dependent. We as human being are getting more and more specialized and dependent. Ervinn 00:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Life could evolve so that separate entities become closely interdependent and thus form one composite structure.

However, a mutation can modify a cell to form one that may assist their host’s survival; this cell may survive and be replicated. This is how new cells originate. Organelles (for example, the bacterial endosymbiont that may have evolved into mitochondria, possibly) may be absorbed by a life-form and eventually become an integral part of the absorbing life-form.

Cells in our body obtain their energy from our body and, in return, contribute to our body’s maintenance or survival. This is why they are there. And you are right—a cell doesn’t live outside its supporting body for long.

What you suggest may happen, but it is likely to take a long time. Between then and now, I think that we have to evolve a better social-survival structure than the hit-and-miss one that organisations like the United Nations use now. David Hockey 15:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Based on your suggestion, that is to aim to create oB (omnipotent being), a 'conscious civilisation'(collective consciousness) came to my mind. For us, the 'conscious civilisation' would look like as an omnipotent being. We would be the "genes" of these "beings". Actually we would be the keeper of "memes" coined in 1976 by famous evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, refers to a unit of cultural information transferable from one mind to another. We exsist so our genes can survive. Civilisation exsist so we can survive. Genes have the information how to build our body. We have the information how to build a civilisation.

By undertanding how consciousness works, and some other things, we would keep the information how a "good" conscious civilisation should function. Those information would be copied when a new civilisation is created. The newly created civilisation would live in isolation with the other so it can change and improve or die, using the force of natural selection. Then it will be just metter of time when a civilisation will be able to leave our solar system, before the sun burns out. Ervinn 03:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If only what you write could happen!
 * But, I think that religious beliefs prevent humans from contributing to the formation of an oB entity.
 * Most religions teach us that this life is just a precursor to an after-life, and that behaving to achieve that is more important than behaving to ensure civilisation’s future.
 * However, many groups see the need to plan and act for our future. For instance, many of us know that we should reduce our pollutants, lower our population (so that the bio-system could support it), etc. But this knowledge achieves nothing—because these groups do not unite. They do not formulate a single, unifying purpose. If such a thing existed, then a critical mass of people might form and they might formulate the kind of goals that are needed for our civilisation to survive.
 * Perhaps another civilisation, maybe in a few million years on Earth, more likely upon other planet (since humans are exhausting this planet’s resources), might help form some kind of oB.
 * But I don’t think our descendants will contribute. David Hockey 17:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)