That’s too good not to have been stolen from one of your speeches.

We literally possess the power to move mountains.

What makes this a co-creative situation is that we can choose to do these things consciously. While we exist as a part of nature and are subject to its processes, we also have the ability to act upon those processes. It’s as if humanity is becoming a self-aware part of nature, like a computer program capable of modifying its own code. We already possess the ability to modify our own genetic code to a fairly significant degree. And our co-creative powers continue to increase year after year; in fact, the rate of increase is accelerating.

What’s crucial to the success of this evolutionary process is that our consciousness must evolve as well. Otherwise, there’s tremendous risk of co-creation becoming ever more powerful co-destruction. We’ve already sent most of the other species on this planet into complete extinction during our tenure here. If too many of us continue to live unconsciously over the next several decades, our species may not survive either; the degree of environmental destruction may become too great to reverse (and some scientists believe we’ve already past that point). The question is whether our consciousness can evolve fast enough for us to assume enough direct control over these natural processes to correct the present imbalances which threaten our survival. This doesn’t mean we must biologically evolve per se; it means our noosphere (our evolving knowledge and collective abilities) must evolve to the point where we can harness the needed solutions. Fortunately the noosphere evolves far faster than the biosphere (i.e. our knowledge evolves faster than our bodies).

The good news is that there are now groups of people around the globe dedicating themselves to consciously directing our evolution to do whatever it takes to ensure that we succeed. One example is http://www.evolve.org, and there are many more.

You havent truly accepted you are part of nature else this statement wouldnt arise.

“We are now co-creators with nature”

This is unfortunately an arrogant statement. At what scale? Can we create a galaxy? Or even bacteria? We are just sampling nature and manipulating it but pretend to understand it completely and marvel at our power to change it whilst nature is truly unknowable. The wisdom is truly understanding it and not trying to act as if we can somehow change it.

However, even though we are a part of nature, we needn’t be victims of nature. We have the ability to use our consciousness to direct our own lives and not live merely as passive unconscious beings. This is what I mean as the difference between going with the flow (unconscious living) vs. driving your life (conscious living).

Human beings have evolved to the point where we need not merely turn our lives over to the forces of nature. We are now co-creators with nature. We have become a force of nature ourselves — that’s the power of our own consciousness. Look at what a single human being can achieve today through the full application of their conscious will. If one person became totally committed to it, s/he could redirect the course of all life on this planet and even alter the course of nature itself. Many people have already done this, for good or ill. This is far more significant than what a single ape can achieve.

Of course with this power of consciousness comes tremendous responsibility. To shirk that responsibility and sink back into a lower level of unconscious living, such as animals do, is cowardly. It means choosing to live as a mouse instead of as a man.

For even more on this subject, read The Courage to Live Consciously.

And an outstanding book on this subject is Conscious Evolution by Barbara Marx Hubbard.

This whole discussion reminds me of western philosophy against eastern. Western people tend to assume humans to be thrown into a hostile environment (i.e. nature) where eastern people think of humans born out of nature.

“To me this is not a time in history to be lazy, complacent, and cowardly.”

“You see, if you want to accept the philosophy of going with the flow and living in accordance with nature, then you must accept the whole package, which includes giving up control of your life to natural processes outside your control.”

Steve, you say being lazy means the same as being cowardly. At the same time, you are afraid of giving up control and living in accordance to the flow of (your) nature. Personally, I think allowing oneself to be lazy and giving up control to your very own nature is more brave than fighting your fear with hard work all the time.

“We humans are the only earth species to have left our planet. We visited the moon. Isn’t that absolutely incredible? … What we’ll accomplish over the next 100 years is astonishing to even contemplate.”

Humans are at the same time the only species that know what hard work is. No other living entity works hard on this planet. There’re species that live on this earth for millions of years and will survive us for a longer period of time without ever working hard.

Steve is focusing on how you get there (hard work), while Fred is focusing on the goal (doing less work.)

Farming is hard work. So you develop better methods of agriculture (also hard work - possibly even harder) but it makes life easier for you. What do you sing the praises of - hard work or laziness?

“Here’s the thing I see as the real core problem that nobody talks about: When you’re stuck doing something you really hate and don’t see the point of it any longer, how do you change your situation so you’re back on track to fulfilling a purpose you like and being happier?” and “It’s not quite so easy for people who have outstanding social obligations.”

I think Steve’s Dexterity.com article “Burning the Bridges” addresses this pretty well.

I know this debate is supposed to be relatively informal, but does Fred even know the general rules of debate? Or was he too lazy to figure them out?

Fred was too lazy to even provide his own definitions of terms and he just accepted Steve’s definitions, avoiding the so-called “punishment” of going through the effort of laying the groundwork for his own argument. Which by itself is totally fine. But then Fred made his argument in total contradiction to the definitions (”hard work”, “lazyness”, etc.) he just accepted from Steve a second ago.

I’m not saying I have an answer, I’m probablly not smart enough to come up with a really good one. Heck, I don’t even know if there IS a universal answer, or something that can roughly be generalized.

If you truly don’t see the point any longer, then make the decision to stop doing it and replace it with something that does have a point. For me, I recently decided not to register for grad school classes for the coming quarter. I realized that grad school just doesn’t make sense for me right now. I finished the last quarter mainly because other people had an investment in my education (namely my parents), but otherwise I simply decided “No more”.

So these coming weeks will find me dedicating to clarifying what exactly I want to do. I used to have the excuse that I couldn’t do things because of school. I don’t have that excuse anymore. Now I’m in the spotlight, and I have to make it count. What other choice do I have?

I really don’t think the both of you are saying anything terribly different. I see Gratzon as saying “Avoid everything or at least as much as possible that doesn’t appeal to you so you’re happier with what you’re doing.” and I see you as saying “Try and do what you want to do so it’s more fulfilling, satisfying, and makes you happier, but don’t quit when something distasteful rears its head, push on.”

Gratzon, I think, is intentionally structuring his language so people will debate with him.

Here’s the thing I see as the real core problem that nobody talks about: When you’re stuck doing something you really hate and don’t see the point of it any longer, how do you change your situation so you’re back on track to fulfilling a purpose you like and being happier?