Thursday, September 19, 2019


Being fed intercerebrally may be just one indication of a cognitive change in humans that will result in a Darwinian evolution of our species.   From a prior post.

In the first half of the twentieth century people invested cognitively; they read magazines and books; they listen to radios programs that required focus and a cognitive investment; they corresponded with written letters and spoke to each other in person or on the phone; they played games like chess, checkers, cards, backgammon – and even children’s games required thinking and imagination.   People’s everyday life required attention to details for most actions.   People did math – they balanced their checkbooks, and advanced math was assisted by slide rulers that required translation into powers of ten.    Even the movies, as corny as they seem now, relied more on dialogue: Who’s on first base?

Today people require little cognitive investment.   There is little personal interaction.  People correspond by abbreviated tweets.    Young people sit together in a room focusing on their phones.   In restaurants people have their phones beside their plates.  Entertainment is designed to stimulate, not inform.   Young people play video games that are interactive, but not cognitive stimulating.   Research for students is now Google.   Alexa takes our voice commands and changes our channels or plays our music, computers can control our environment, cars can drive themselves…

We are advancing into an environment where humans are required less and less investment in their daily lives and well-being.  We are becoming the mushrooms fed and entertained by technology. 

This will bring about a Darwinian change in our species.  One that will be totally distinct from Homo Sapiens Sapiens (modern man.)   Perhaps we might name our future selves Homo Sapiens Sapiens Rex: the pentacle of the species.

Of course, the Rex of a species becomes less adaptable.

And in evolution, it is not the biggest or the smartest or the strongest of a species that survives; but the most adaptable.

We are becoming less adaptable. 

the Ol'Buzzard  


  1. So that fancy five-dollar word is a synonym for "dumbing down"? Sounds about right!

  2. Buzz:

    A very intriguing essay. I have ideas that I will share, and will do so when I am at a computer tomorrow. Phone typing does not lend itself to the more “nuanced” ideas I want to try to express (at least for me).


    1. I'm a "touch typist" myself. I DEFINITELY need a full keyboard.
      (My speed's not worth a shit, but that's because I'm so fastidious when it comes to perfectionism---a.k.a.: proper spelling, grammar, and proper use of words/terms.)

  3. Buzz:

    I was unfortunately not in the right frame of mind to get back yesterday, so I am adding my comments now:

    I think the ideas you suggest have tremendous value and input into how we appear to be evolving as a species. I cannot however say that we as a whole are becoming LESS adaptable... instead, from a biological perspective I think what you highlight is that we are becoming a) adaptable in CERTAIN avenues at the expense of other avenues, and b) that the "intercerebral feeding" we now undergo to a far larger extent *may not* be particularly stable or sustainable.

    In biological thought, there is a concept called the "Shifting Balance Theory" that was proposed by Sewall Wright which basically suggests that there is in all environments an "optimum" arrangement of alleles that be most successful in terms of the members of a species that will survive, thrive, and reproduce in that given environment.

    Right now, in today's world, we are in an environment that HIGHLY values and encourages (if not also coaxes and demands) this "intercerbral feeding" behavior. It is especially prominent in younger folks. Now.... if this particular type of environment remains stable enough for a long enough period of time that these younger folks are successful in reproducing and making the human species have more and more of these "intercerebal feeling" alleles be a bigger percentage of the species' genome... then in theory at least... all will be "ok" as far as the species goes.... we will remain viable, albeit different from what we have been previously.

    However, if this "intercerebral feeling" environment is unstable, or short-lived, or destabalizes in some sort of sense.... then, there is far, far greater risk for our species. If the "intercerbral feeding" group does populate our genome with a high percentage of their allelic forms AND a sudden shift occurs in what is the environment... we may have lost a sizable chunk if not most of our allelic adapatability. If that sort of sudden/rapid shift were to occur... it could (especially with a higher percentage of "cerebral feeders" lead to the severe decline, and potential extinction of our species.

    So, from my perspective.... it really all hinges on how sable or unstable the current "cerebral feeding" environment will be that will determine our future.


    1. Pipe Tobacco; your last paragraph is exactly what I was predicting. When technology fails, which it might at some point due to man's aggression; future man will not be able to adapt to an environment without higher technology. As you say, It really depends on how stable the "cerebral feeding" environment extending into our future.
      Perhaps divining the future from today's society is a fools errand - ie. Future Shock by Alvin Toffler.
      the OL'Buzzard

  4. Intellectual and psychological atrophy seems the order of the day.


COMMENT: Ben Franklin said, "I imagine a man must have a good deal of vanity who believes, and a good deal of boldness who affirms, that all doctrines he holds are true, and all he rejects are false."