I am going to be quick, because I have outlined a lot of my confusions and thoughts on my blog which there is a link to in my sig if you are interested in more. I was, however, reading the balance and paganism thread here and finding it really interesting. There's also a thread going on in the New-Age bit started by weather witch trying to define exactly what new age beliefs are. Someone posted very articulatley about the fact that new-ages believe that there is a progression from darkness to light and that is what we should be aiming for, and that 'real' pagans believe in the eternal balance between good and evil, darkness and light, and that this balance is present and unchanging.

This really sparked my interest because I was thinking aloud in my blog about progression, and cycles, about balance, and wondering what I believed. It's all in flux for me at the moment. The thing is, I thought I knew, I thought I knew what I believed, but now I realise that I don't.

If nature and human beings and stuff in general exists naturally in a state of balance, and it is our place to add to that balance, not to disturb it by our actions towards eachother or the environment, then what about evolution?

When things evolve, they grow in complexity, we started out as pondlife and now we have music and language - things are getting more and more complex and to me that is evidence of some kind of natural darkness-to-light progression - we talk about the seasons and the wheel of the year as evidence of cycles and eternal balance, but really, we haven't always had the seasons in the way that we have them now (ask the dinasours...) and the seaons are changing even now due to the changes in the planet's environment.

Could you tell me your thoughts on this? If it really is all about balance, and our job is to be part of that balance, what is evolution for? Why isn't the world just the same as it was a thousand million years ago? Why do things grow, no matter what? I don't want to be labeled as a lovenlighter, christian, fluffy etc, not if its going to be meant as an insult, it just seems all this talk of balance and using nature as an example is missing one big fact: we are progressing from simplicity to complexity as a species, we are growing and changing and it might be linear - we might be evolving TO something, and if so, what?

(again, these thoughts are probably a bit better formulated in my blog, so have a read there if you fancy it)

Oak

I'm not entirely sure what you're driving at here (or even if you're driving at anything!) Are you saying that the "new-age" idea of progression from dark to light is also evolution towards something else, whereas the "real" pagan idea of balance is to stagnate?

My query is, why does it have to be a darkness to lightness progression? Visualise a line... at the bottom you have an amoeba or whatever, and at the top you have... enlightenment, nirvana, whatever it is we're evolving towards. Does dark and light have to be parallel? Why can't it be at right angles, or even on a diagonal?

I’m not even sure I have my head around this yet, am I even close to what you’re driving at? LOL I'll think some more before I post again

I guess, to put it simply, my question is for those pagans who don't believe in a progression, but in a cycle. The impression I've had, of hard-line and brass-tack pagans - those who make balance their mantra (not that I am saying its a bad one).

My question is, if things are an eternal cycle, what about evolution, what about all the evidence in the natural world that seems to show that it isn't natural to go round in circles, in balanced and perfect stagnation, but to plough ahead and grow into something thats 'better'.

I realise light and dark have very little to do with 'better'. So what are we evolving into? Something more complex, something nearer to the divine? Something that is more able to achieve balance? I am not sure.

Maybe not something 'lighter' - no, the dark parts are important and essential, and thats not really my point. Just that all this guff about cycles and eternal balance seems to be ignoring that one of the first principles of nature, the thing that all destructive and creative impulses bow to, is evolution.

So if we are all, as a a part of nature, evolving, surely its not so new-age to think of life as a progression? We talk about self-development here a lot, not about staying the same.

Or perhaps I am having a dark night of the soul and getting myself into a tangle over nothing....

Oak

Ok, so assuming for a minute that there is a cycle of death and rebirth, and that each person strives to remain in balance with the universe for that cycle... Who is to say that they are not evolving towards whatever by being balanced? That balance is what they are learning in this cycle on earth, and once they've learned it, they're on the next step up the evolutionary ladder? So balance in this life, leading to progression over multiple lives?

Please say if I'm missing your point entirely, I'm somewhat groping in the dark here

I guess it also depends on what you consider to be better ? And what viewpoint you are looking at.

In terms of evolution - the crocodile hasnt evolved - its the same as it always was - it survived when other species died out. So its stagnant ?

And as we as a species progress, what we can do is out-pacing our own evolution - hence alot of the health problems of today. So while life may be easier - is it really better ? Is that really evolution ?

Our seasons are changing - and some say its because of global warming - a man made problem - others say the earth has undergone periods of warming before, followed by ice ages.

in the terms of the earth tho - things - evolution and change tends to happen slowly (unless something happens like a super volcano erupting, or a metoer falls to earth) whereas human development has speeded some things up unnaturally.

When the dinosaurs became extinct it was because (so everyone says) because of a meteor - and the world took a long while to get back into balance again.

In terms of human spiritual balance - I dont know - there's an awful lot of negativity and hardship in the world - some peoples lives arent balances at all - look at the third world. But I dont see balance particularly in human terms - I see it more as the co existance of both positive and negative - one needs the other. But as humans, we need to accept they both exist - that both are neccessary - then we have a balanced viewpoint.

I hadn't thought about that - I guess I was stuck in the conception of it being an either/or scenario - we evolve through an emphasis on creative aspects of our nature (the light side, I suppose) or we stagnate through an emphasis on balance.

But you are saying that it is through learning balance that we can evolve?

Does the natural world, or what little we know about it, back this up? Animals aren't balanced really are they? Don't they go all out hell-for leather to reproduce, to get their young to survive, to CREATE? If you count creation as being on the 'light' side and destruction on the 'dark', then the 'balance' of the natural world is definatley tipped towards creation.

What do you think? Or should we not rely so much on what we see going on in the natural world, and instead, learn to evolve through balance because we are humans, not animals, and have evolved (so far) to have a kind of moral agency and philosophical understanding of the choices that they make that (perhaps) they don't?

Oak

edited to acknowledge moongazers post:

You obviously know a bit more about evolution than I do. It seems that seeing it as a more or less linear progression is a vast oversimplification - I didn't know about crocodiles. So when something is perfectly adapted to its environment the progression stops?

As for humans, yes - it is delicate - we are changing quicker than the world is, and often not in response to it. Part of living in balance and yet acknowledging the wider progression of evolution would be to try and live in such a way that we change in harmony with the world's changes?

And part of the balance is that while they are busy creating new life, they are also busy killing other living things so they can survive.

And yes - if we lived WITH the natural world instead of trying to mould it to our will I think we would be better balanced - and therefore maybe even healthier. Electricity extends our day, for instance - we dont live by the natural rhythms of light. I would love to have chance to try and live with the natural cycles - see how it feels to get the natural chemicals in my body in synch with daylight. But my life is too busy.

But - I dont think balance can be reduced down effectively to an individual level. i think it has to be considered as a whole.

No, I wasn't meaning to imply that - just that balance may be the lesson that a particular person my need to learn in a particular life time

On a personal level, I try to be balanced because I feel it is more likely to fulfil my spiritual needs - at least, in this point in my lifetime(s?) - and I feel a balanced person would be more "in tune" with thr rhythms of life, and at this point, that is important to me.



To be perfectly honest, I have no idea LOL I don't by any means think that balance is the only thing to be learned for a person to evolve. I'm not even sure I would put it as trying to evolve... In my opinion, evolution just happens, I'd go with the flow

This is very interesting, nice one Oak.

Evolution is what a species does in order to survive, like Crocs and alligators, sharks , cockroaches and yes probably ameobas too they get on fine as they are so they don't change much if at all. Other species mutate to cope the changes nature throws at it, some don't and die out. This to me is a kind of balance. As far as the progression goes, well perhaps this cycle is just to big for us to see, every circle, if you look at a small enough part, looks like a straight line. maybe well revert back again, start moving down the ladder again.

Maybe I'm talking nonsense.

I guess I see evolution happening as a bit of a spiral (I see a coiled spring in my head) rather than a line - although things seem to 'progress' in a direction, there is also a lot of movement in other directions. For instance (just one that popped into my head), there used to be giant marsupials in Australia - they got bigger, and then got smaller again, to fit with changes in the environment around them - actually I think it was becuase the aborigines killed out all the big ones... European people did that too - got bigger, and then smaller and now bigger again.

So although we are heading in a direction, we seem to be moving all around some kind of balancing point, but most things don't ever get right to that centre (I guess because the centre keeps moving as our environment changes in its own cycles and aging process.).

Hope that made a bit of sense...

Thanks everyone for contributing - you're all definatley giving me food for thought and helping me find out what I think in this tangle I've got myself into.

I guess the major thing I have learned from you all is that scientifically, at least, evolution isn't necessarily a linear progression from something ok to something better - something dark to something light. I've obviously been walking around with quite a simplistic idea of evolution in my head, as from some of your comments it seems a more accurate description of Darwinian evolution would be the way that beings adapt to their environments - sometimes that means by becoming bigger or more complex, and sometimes it means by becoming simpler and smaller. Sometimes, like the crocodiles, no change is needed.

I see no reason why spiritual evolution shouldn't be like this too - sometimes we need to get a bit more complex, maybe move onto the darker side, sometimes, lighten up a bit and lead a simpler life? This feels like it makes sense to me, and seems to accord with what some of you are saying - that it isn't as simple as either 'balance' people or 'progression' people seem to make out - as always, there are shades of grey and each individual's evolution in the spiritual sense is bound to run along a different line (or spiral, or circle).

Some other thoughts: Moongazer - yes, animals are killing things so they can eat them, but they are eating in order to grow and survive and breed, not really because they enjoy it (they might enjoy the run, or the hunt, or the feeling of doing what instict says is right for them, but the enjoyment isn't the primary reason for doing it - it is to sustain life). I am getting dangerously close to saying that destruction and creation, light and dark, aren't equal and oposite at all, but that creation is what its all about and desctructive tendencies (the dark side) are one of the tools we use to bring that about... or does that make no sense? We need to kill sometimes, to live, but we don't live in order to kill. And does this make me a love and lighter after all?

Still interested in hearing your thoughts - I'm finding this, listening to you, facinating and its what I missed most while we were in yahoo limbo land.

Regards

Oak

I don't think that's nonsense at all. In fact, it sounds like a hell of a lot of sense to me. Sheesh - I'm twenty-two years old. I don't need to know all the answers yet, although wondering about them and talking about them is good too.

I understand where that's coming from, but I think maybe it's a bit simplistic. Nature tends to keep a balance between life and death - the populations of most animals (humans being the ovious exception) is either reasonably stable, or moves in cycles. Some cycles move with seasons, some with years, and some with exceptional circumstances (a really good year etc.)

Yes animals kill to survive, but if one species get too numerous, all the species get out of whack and the system goes ka-put. Eg, if you get too many lions, they'll kill all the prey and there won't be enough prey to breed and provide food for next year, so the lions all die of starvation.

I dont' think light and dark are opposites to be fought against, but opposite sides of teh same coin - you can't have one without the other. You can't live without killing, and you can't live if you kill too much...

Thanks Faith - I think I was specualting really, that in order for evolution to 'work' and the species to be able to progress, that the creative aspect would have to win out over the destructive... but I realise, after reading what you wrote, that looking at one species that would be okay - if humans stopped killing each other and the world and generally got rid of the dark, destructive side so that we could work together in a fluffy-kind of way and take over the world... its very species-centric.

I didn't take into account, as you have, the fact that we don't live here alone. The balance between species is as important as the balance between destruction and creation within each species.

Thanks for that, and I hope this makes sense... it is sunday morning after all.

I think there is a key difference in the terms balance and evolution in so far as what you are getting at here (at least how I am interpretting things). I don't think that balance means there is no evolution, on the contrary, to maintain 'balance' between darkness and light, good and bad as you say, evolution is actually the key to the balance. Because things get out of kilter or are no longer working the way they once did, evolution finds away to balance things again - a kind of cause and effect, if you will.

Evolution, as far as I see it, is the cause and effect of both little and big events - progression/adaptation/diverisification of a species to the changing environment and big, global events such as the extinction of the dinosaurs, led to the uprising and dominance of a different species. Where once large rreptiles had ruled the world, now smaller mammals took over in their wake.

So evolution is the way nature achieves her balance? That makes a lot of sense to me.

What would you say then, about the impact human beings have on the world, evolution and natural balance? Is living in a way that consciously promotes balance and aids the natural means of doing this (evolution) as far as we can a moral obligation? Or should we 'go with the flow' because as natural beings nothing we really can do is unatural?

Oak

Ooh a toughy! Thanks for asking

How can we as humans really determine what is in and out of balance with nature's true path? As one answer/possibility I think we should "go with the flow" as who knows where we may end up? Yes it could turn out horribly, but at the same time it could all turn out in ways we had never dreamed of - how exciting to live in a world filled with such amazing possibility???

It's a toughy though. For I would hate to see the demise of truely wild landscapes filled with diverse flora and fauna, and it is something worth fighting for - our world and spirit would be all the poorer if we did not have these things to co-exist with. Nature (all nature) has many tricks and surprises up her sleeves waiting for us to discover, learn from and benefit from - if we lose these then how will we learn/discover? We may loose a vital clue to our own survival, here on Earth or on some other planet far away.

I guess the question is do we want to steer our own course or go with the river? What I don't think is good is that we should be stick in the muds and refuse to change (an (in)action that would be to our detriment). For without change we would stagnate and ultimately falter, possibly die out. Any civilisation that has been worth its salt, has taken up the challenge of steering it's own course and of going with the changes that faced it.

Not sure whether that answers your question, but I feel like I'm starting to bang on a bit, so I'll pause there for now.

It is a toughy - I asked because I really have no idea myself although your answer seems to contain a lot of wisdom. If, as you and I have kind of suggested, evolution is nature's way of keeping things in balance, the fact that we have evolved enough awareness and intelligence and a moral sense of obligation to 'take care' of the world and act in order to right the balance again (in terms of individual lives and wider conservation issues) seems to suggest that we should do just that.

Nature has evolved us as the earth's caretakers? What do you think? It reminds me of the part in the bible where god tells Adam he is the steward over the garden and the animals and to name and take care of it all. We seem to have the ability to act as stewards over the earth and its rescources, and are failing miserably.

Or perhaps this view is arrogant? The earth has been around long before us and will be around long after us, I assume. Perhaps it is incredibly arrogant to assume that nature needs us and our frail moral reckoning in any way at all?

Oak, (sounding like an eco-warrior)

I'm sorry to throw another question your way, but are we truly taking care of it? Or simply imposing our ideals on how things "should" be?

I agree we seem to be getting our "stewardship" all wrong - even the best intentioned of us seem to get it wrong at times. Yes the world has and will be around at lot longer than we might be, and after all it did a great job of getting us here in the first place with no outside influence or assistance in the process. Unfortunately however clever we might become we won't ever have the power to stop the final curtain on our world ending (when our star and then galaxy dies). However in the mean time I do think that we can work to keep as much of our natural world in its natural state for as long as we are able to do so - afterall it would be a shame to find that in the centuries to come our decendents have only myth and legend of the great tigers and whales that once roamed the land and swam the oceans - "Were there *really* tigers mommy?"

What I think is that in our desires to do the right thing and maintain the balance, we don't inavertantly do the wrong thing.

The curious thing is that through our understanding of the mistakes we have made (such as global warming) we may actually find the answers to living on other worlds - it is by understanding climate change that we can even concieve of the idea of terraforming such places as Mars. Also, take the very contraversial GM foods and cloning/genetic manipulation for example, by understanding these new sciences we may find answers to colonising other worlds without having to change the natural environment of these new potential "human" colonies. Even we "humans" may benefit from these modifications so that we adapt ourselves to these new environments rather than they to us - now wouldn't that be more environmentally friendly?

Yes - I agree that even attempting to 'take care' of the planet might be imposing the way we think things should be on an eco system that is entirley self regulating and may not need us anyway.

I suppose I was trying to extrapolate some practical, ethical response to the ideas we've been throwing around here, basically saying that if evolution is the way that nature keeps herself in balance, and we have evolved to have a concern for this balance and an ability to do something about it, surely we should do something, and perhaps that is the very reason why we have evolved the awareness?

Your point though, about debates and controversies is exactly right - just deciding on the basis of some philosophising that we do have some kind of duty or obligation to live in a balanced way doesn't really help us decide what it means.

I don't want there to be no tigers either though.

Maybe it is the fact that we are aware of what happens when we meddle in nature's playground that will be the saving grace in the end of it. Maybe by knowing what happens when the world heats up and the delicate requirements that life as we know it (Jim) needs to survive, we can understand the reprecussions that global warming will have on our way of life and work towards a solution - by reversing the effect, slowing it down or adapting to it.

The problem is that these changes are so long term that large leaps of climate change will not probably happen in one person's lifetime, and so tackling the problem when there are more immediate ones (terrorism etc.) to deal with get left behind on the agenda. We humans are brilliant in preserving our current lives - the "I will survive" syndrome - but absolutely crap at saving others with whom we have no relationship/connection with.

The other problem is that not everyone's agenda is the same. This, along with differing information to back up or support environmental claimes makes things all the harder to define the best course of action.

It is all politics. Woop-dee-doo!

It is *always* about politics in the end, which is the sad thing - most people can agree that something or other needs to be done, but moving along and deciding what and when and who and how it all gets done never seems to happen.

Still, you mentioned terrorism and going back to what we were saying about balance - I have thought before and still think, that part of the reason why fundies of all kinds are going mad with violence at the moment is in a reaction to (in order to balance?) the general apathy and laziness that I feel is characteristic of the way things are at the moment. This is possibly a controversial topic to bring up and one for another time or place...


Oak

I think that's a major part of it. I remember reading a mewspaper article that was saying that when they did a survey 25 years ago about current and future issues in the world, a lot of people said the environment would be a major issue in 20 years time, but had it lower on their list for 'current' issues. They repeated the survey a couple of years ago, and the same thing came out of it... the environment, because is such a 'long-term' issue (doesn't directly affect us in the next 10 years, or may I be even more cynical and say it doesn't affect the government's chances of re-election in 1-4 years) it tends to get ignored.

In the first Matrix movie, Smith likened the human race to a virus, and sadly enough, I think it's pretty accurate - we take over the place and use it to our advantage without worrying about what will happen to our host after our own lifetime...

But aren't viruses and parasites 'natural' too, and therefore part of the balance, the eco-system? I realise what you are trying to say - I just find it interesting that we have got this moral awareness, a feeling of responsibility towards the planet and the eco-system that sets us apart from animals, and yet we don't really do anything about it. We act just the same as the rabbit population in australia - letting things get out of hand as if we don't know any better.

Perhaps it is nihilistic to say so, but maybe thats the way things are always going to be, and trying to change the way we behave will make no difference at all - the eco-system will right itself again because we'll die out, or something else will happen. When all the rabbits in australia run out of food to eat, they'll die - we really aren't so different except we can see it happening.

(I'm as bad as everyone else here, so don't take my words as me waving from my moral high ground... if I can't afford to buy organic and non-factory farmed meat I shouldn't eat it, but I still do..)

I wonder if anywhere in the natural world there are animals or plants that adjust their breeding and feeding behaviours in order to fit in with the foodchain/ecosystem they are a part of?

In some ways they do.

Many species of birds, for instance, will produce an extra clutch of eggs if it's a good year, and there is plenty of food available. But when resources are scarce, they will produce less, and will tend to favour the strongest chicks, even if it means losing one or more of the weaker ones.

I didn't know that - and it's interesting.
Thankyou.

Oak

Thought I'd add my thoughts to this - reading the thread what came to mind was :

i) balance tends to imply dualistic thinking - I am inclined to question how helpful this construct is.

ii) Evolution - as used by new agers and so on, seen in terms of progression, is as has already been pointed out an inaccurate appropriation of the term. Evolution in the biological sense has no pinnacle or end goal, it is a process whereby the individual who is best suited (due to random mutation) to survive at a given time is most likely to go on to reproduce and pass on their genes.

iii) My personal view on cycles is that a spiral is their "truer", dynamic form , a circle flowing through time and space, transformed and drawn out into the future. It seems to be the lot of humans to always think of ourselves as being at the end of time. For christians its the end times and apocalypse, Pagans perhaps see it in terms of environmental crisis.
"Perhaps it is nihilistic to say so, but maybe thats the way things are always going to be, and trying to change the way we behave will make no difference at all - the eco-system will right itself again because we'll die out, or something else will happen. When all the rabbits in australia run out of food to eat, they'll die - we really aren't so different except we can see it happening." -Oak
I don't know whether I find this view nihilistic or strangely optimistic - that the earth is big enough to take care of herself, whatever comes and goes; ebbs and flows.

interesting topic

Oak can I ask why evolution and balance appeared to be at logggerheads for you? I'm just curious as I missed this threads evolution and now I'm a little lost among several different points up and down the thread!
The thoughts and philosophies on balance interest me too!

at first, before listening to the opinions of others I thought that all the talk of balance was a bit silly because it seemed to ignore the fact that everything in nature evolves. Because I had misunderstood the nature of evolution and how it worked, I assumed that evolution, while encompassing death and desctruction, was heavily weighted in terms of creation and nurturing, growth and progression - and so was more 'fluffy' than people who preached that balance was everything really accomodated for.

Like I said, that was my original quandry but I have learned a lot since then, and perhaps others have to, you never know.

Does this answer your question?

Oak

Yep.

Good!

I personally see life, evolution, the universe as a balance. I think, tho I am not sure I understand, that there is a force driving it all behind it and I personally believe that this force is what we worship as the god/goddess or deity of your chosen religion. Humanity has given this force a human form to make it 'easier' to understand.

I guess to be honest I have very contradictive views. I believe strongly in the Goddess element - maiden/mother/chrone and I believe in angels and spirits etc etc But I think at the top of all of this there is a 'force' pushing it all through. This force evolves us etc.

I guess I only make sense to myself so I will shut up now.

So do you think the force has something in mind that we are going to end up as? I think you have a point, evolution may be directed or influenced by some kind of higher being or beings, but if it is purposeful as you say, and not just a way the eco-system keeps itself in balance, where do you think it is heading... what are we evolving to?

Interestedly,

Oak

Wow Oak - there's a question!

To be honest I don't know if we are aiming for something but I guess that if there is something pushing us we must be. Without sounding nuts I guess something more 'superior' like sci-fi almost where we planet jump, communicate completely with the mind and become much more 'spiritual'. I guess maybe in the way that we all identify ourselves with something larger out there. It's like when in ancient times pagans lived their lives round the wheel of the year - their food, their well being depended on it to one degree or the other a lot more than the modern day does. I guess this force could be pushing towards an age where both aspects blend. I have to say a huge part of me does believe in good and evil in the christian form - the devil being the entity who brought materialism etc to the world - I kind of believe that this devil/evil force made us all become so materialistic. Don't get me wrong I am a very materialistic person to my detriment but I think that life is more about living and the elements which are alive around you - nature for instance and tuning into these things. I think this force I speak of would push us more towards a time where we appreciated this a lot more than we have done recently.

I am probably talking complete jibberish - like I say I make sense to myself and that's about it!

Thought trails like this are so complex and almost scary because there's just no answers out there and we can each only reach a point where we are satisfied in ourselves with our own beliefs - that's the joy of being a pagan I guess you kinda get to create your own!

I do believe tho that all the deities/gods etc in this world are connected we just worship or identify with them in a different way.

I do love it on a starry clear night when you're in the country and there's no light pollution to just lie on your back in a field and look up at the night sky and just - think. I mean we can't just sit here on our little planet and come up with answers about something that is sooo completely huge we have not even seen a tiny percentage of it! Maybe there's a life form out there that have us sussed, that have this sussed that just know where we're going.

Maybe I'm just nuts and talking rubbish cos it's 4.40 on a Friday afternoon.

I don't know Oak - did I answer your question?

Hee hee... I know its a big question... I wasn't expecting you to have the answer, I am just interested in what you think.

I like the idea one of the posters above made about the spiral - things cycling but moving forwards and evolving at the same time... is that kind of what you mean when you talk about evolving to be more spiritually superior by regaining some of what we've lost from the past? That means kind of going backwards and forwards at the same time, doesn't it, or maybe going in a spiral.

I find this kind of thing interesting too - have been thinking about it a lot over the past few days and it's been great to hear what lots of people have had to say about it.

With thanks

Oak

Yeah I guess that's what I meant - the spiral thing - taking a step back but forwards at the same time.

I think that modern day things like the internet for example are going to be paramount in this and although they are material things they are also beneficial cos of course it gives us a chance to communicate exactly like this.

Again balance.

You're welcome - it is cool to talk about these things and get others opinions as most people do have their very own unique opinion on the 'larger picture' if you like. Well, when I say most people I mean most of our people if you know what I mean.

Merry meet

My thoughts are in Green ...
"'real' pagans believe in the eternal balance between good and evil, darkness and light, and that this balance is present and unchanging."

I do believe in a Natural balence, totally but I also believe it is constantly changing, It has to to keep up with evolution.

If nature and human beings and stuff in general exists naturally in a state of balance, and it is our place to add to that balance, not to disturb it by our actions towards eachother or the environment, then what about evolution?

I believe we DO add to the balence. There are those who hate, fight, and generally do wrong, then there are the people like us who try to calm, heal and be positive.

When things evolve, they grow in complexity, we started out as pondlife and now we have music and language - things are getting more and more complex and to me that is evidence of some kind of natural darkness-to-light progression - we talk about the seasons and the wheel of the year as evidence of cycles and eternal balance, but really, we haven't always had the seasons in the way that we have them now (ask the dinasours...) and the seaons are changing even now due to the changes in the planet's environment.

The seasons are changing slowly working their way around the christian calendar till Oz will have hot summers in the height of July while we have winter.
Things may grow in complexity but we always seem to go back to our roots. Look at all the technology - the PC you are usuing at the moment, the watch you're probably wearing - I'd be willing to bet theres a quartz crystal at the heart of it
All the shampoos and heath products are all starting to realize that we want NATURAL products not chemicals.

we are growing and changing and it might be linear - we might be evolving TO something, and if so, what?

It may well be linear for us but the next species to rise above the rest will have to work to evolve the same as human kind have.

I'm no fluffy I'm proud to say, but I do believe we have to look to nature to understand balence. Nature combats the tip human kind leaves on her natural balence. eg - medical science. We have discovered how to cure SO MANY different illnesses yet new viruses keep appearing. Where did the myth "you can only get chicken pox once" come from>? I've had it twice myself. The diseses are evolving too to combat us. AIDS - where did that come from? Natures way off helping to stop our over populated planet.

I do have other theories on over population but I think i best keep those to myself as I'm a newbe, don't want to get off on the wrong foot.

Love and light,
TD.x.