My opinion

---

Humanity sees and reflects through the prism of innumerable -isms. The number of -isms keeps expanding as human language blooms and human interpretation glooms. As human language evolves with time, human interpretation devolves with time. Thereafter, humanity looks back into its past and interpret its past with the prism of its present. Is that appropriate? It is not the question of propriety. The question is about misunderstood intentions and misplaced interpretations. The core is very simple. Before everything, there was nothing. After everything, there will be nothing. Moreover, to escape and/or exit anything between the very beginning of everything and the very end of everything, there is always nothing and its nothingness. There is no clue whether and how nothing’s nothingness created everything unless it was or must have been just a random creation of the first thought. There may be some clue whether and how nothing’s nothingness can be created from everything by breaking free from thought while practicing thoughtless meditation. However, thoughtless meditation can be practiced only by humans, primarily by the very few enlightened ones. Where does that leave rest of the humanity and its non-human peers? Where does that leave rest of the universe which is mostly non-living? If creation includes humans, non-humans and non-living across the universe, why is righteousness limited to humans and their humanity? Essentially, righteousness along with its invoking is just a ploy in the evolved survival strategy for machines called humans by their ghosts called minds to draw out some sense from the nonsense called matrix. Interestingly, righteousness itself too keeps evolving just like humanity. Therefore, what might have seemed right in the past may appear wrong in the present (and vice versa) and what may seem right in the present may appear wrong in the future (and vice versa) because hindsight in retrospect may never be 20/20 but may rather be 0/20 especially if the present learns to mock the past from which it was born without realizing that the ways of the past must have ensured the survival of the past to allow the birth of present. There can never be right answers despite the absence of wrong questions because existence in the matrix just happened, happens and will continue to happen with those suffering more than others fighting for their place to exist with dignity and sanity while others defending their privileged space in the matrix to avoid escalations in their own current and future sufferings [1-8].

 

Simplistically, questions can be:

1. Can there be cross-group learning from cross-group ancestors so that unrelated descendants can learn from unrelated ancestors in terms of what helped some groups to succeed as compared to other groups and whether this historical success of unrelated ancestors can be emulated by unrelated descendants in the present and future times while adapting or correcting their historically successful ways according to the evolving times?
2. Although some skeptics may say that human evolution might have led to -ism evolution, should humanity explore if -ism evolution itself could have led to human evolution with different versions of -isms contributing to human evolution, positively or negatively or neutrally at different points of times?
3. Is learning role fluidity and role elasticity to adapt to changing times so important for existential fluidity and existential elasticity across the times because acquiring rigid plasticity and its brittleness may easily and eventually break the plastic and brittle molds in the face of role reversals during the charging changing times?
4. Just like adverse childhood experiences reshaping brains, are adverse evolutionary experiences reshaping evolution of brains among not only those presumed or deemed inferior groups but also those presumed or deemed superior groups based on their evolutionary advantages acquired during their successful survival tussles across the evolutionary times?
5. Is it true that there was a time when intelligence mattered something followed by a time when power mattered something followed by current times when management and money matters everything that may be followed by a time of chaos when all who have had the taste of power at some point during the evolutionary times will get into conflicts with those who have never ever tasted power during the evolutionary times [9-13]?
6. Is antonym of natural selection NOT unnatural selection because natural selection is just a selection by the all-knowing nature according to the nature of those being selected wherein humans themselves too contributing to natural selection by humanity itself being a part of the all-knowing nature itself?
7. Does diversity happen because diversity allows sometimes some outliving others depending on the environments forcing expression of certain genes while during other times the same some losing the battle of outliving others because the environments never remain the same?
8. Is that why sometimes intelligent win, sometimes powerful win, sometimes managers win, and sometimes none wins except the all-knowing nature itself depending on the natures of those winning or losing wherein winning simply being the random ticket for the winners to outlive the losers during the trials and errors of evolution?
9. Is diverse humanity across communities and nations always trying to first fit in before trying to outlive others because gene always wants to remain immortal [14] and win immortality on the backs of suffering mortal bodies and beings lost during unavoidable existential evolutionary tussle within the nonsensical matrix?

 

The bottom line in the prism of evolution is that matrix/nature/habitats allow some outliving others and sometimes others outliving some [15-19] because even though we all humans may have almost same genes, our environments cause our genes to express diversely thus allowing our genes irrespective of any environment to always survive immortally by sometimes expressing something while some other times suppressing the same something.

Reference(s)

---

1. Important Studies – The pros and cons of group belonging. https://www.williamsonhomepage.com /opinion/columnists/important-studies-the-pros-and-cons-of-group-belonging/article_03729c2e-98da-5df 0-a251-617b3e635c9c.html
2. The Pros and Cons of Feminism: The difference between benevolent feminism and hostile feminism. h ttps://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/homo-consumericus/200908/the-pros-and-cons-feminism
3. Ambivalent sexism. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2001-01410-003
4. What Is Patriotism? Definition, Examples, Pros and Cons. https://www.thoughtco.com/patrio tism-and-nationalism-4178864
5. What are the pros and cons of spiritual awakening? https://medium.com/spiritual-living/what-are-the-pros-and-cons-of-spiritual-awakening-7d2bc570 82e7
6. The ecological and evolutionary consequences of systemic racism in urban environments. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scien ce.aay4497
7. The Origins of Racism. https://theconversation.com/the-origin s-of-racism-8321
8. How Science and Genetics are Reshaping the Race Debate of the 21st Century. https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/
9. Twitter. https://twitter.com/andgandg/status/1 452457960207175682
10. Twitter. https://twitter.com/andgandg/status/1 392614890121084931
11. Twitter. https://twitter.com/andgandg/status/1 281929656808202241
12. Twitter. https://twitter.com/andgandg/status/1 391334585124986881
13. Twitter. https://twitter.com/andgandg/status/1 404190834602483716
14. The Selfish Gene: 40th Anniversary Edition (Oxford Landmark Science) 4th Edition. https://www.am azon.com/Selfish-Gene-Anniversary-Landmark-Science/dp/0198788606
15. Twitter. https://twitter.com/andgandg/status/1 444683897112088582
16. Twitter. https://twitter.com/andgandg/status/1 444679124484857859
17. Twitter. https://twitter.com/andgandg/status/1 444677159633702922
18. Twitter. https://twitter.com/andgandg/status/1 444677160648814598
19. Twitter. https://twitter.com/andgandg/status/1 444681523974840321

Source(s) of Funding

---

NOT APPLICABLE

Competing Interests

---

NOT APPLICABLE