Do We Need Proof That Humans Are Better Than Animals

Many believe that humans are more than just a cut above animals; in fact they believe humans are so special that they are indeed divine. Who makes these claims; Humans of course and it makes sense. But if your dog could talk he would say you are nothing more than a two-legged dog and really you are not worth much more than dog crap as far as he is concerned. When was the last time you took him to the park to play Frisbee?

Do we need proof that Humans are better than Animals? Should we do a study? A survey or simply ask the other species what they think of all our BS? We already know what your dog thinks now and the pigeons made it pretty clear on your car this morning?

Actually you know, personally I am quite satisfied with my observations that Humans are Animals and in all my years of observing humans and their behavior and tracing back the causes, I see nothing uniquely different from "most" all of them. Although during my life experience I have indeed met some standouts, which seemed quite ahead of the game; that is to say the observational average human in society and their cognitive abilities.

In the end humans are merely animals, no better no worse, except maybe if you are the environment, then of course from your perspective humans suck and big time. Should we let humans do a study to determine if humans are better than animals and deserving of their own category? If so who should we let do the study; certainly not humans after all you cannot trust them like you can trust your dog's honest opinion of the situation. Consider this in 2006.

"Lance Winslow" - Online Think Tank forum board. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; www.WorldThinkTank.net/. Lance is an online writer in retirement.

Basic Difference Between Humans and Animals

When you train animals good and lovingly they, more generally than not, become worthwhile, valuable and trustworthy creatures. When you educate children lovingly with high education many of them become adults with a criminal inclination that can do great injury to other people or even to a great segment of society. I mean hereby that a well-trained animal will lose its predatory nature and will trust its master for its needs in return for its obedience. That is what animal training is all about and people are very good at training animals- -any kind of animal.

When you train children through a well-rounded university training the child's predatory nature seems to be reinforced and awakened in the adult. We can see this in the behavior of professionals- -such as lawyers, financial gurus, doctors, and many other types of professionals catering to the needs of individuals. One cannot expect full dedicated service from them because they set things up so that you will become dependent on them so they can continue to charge you their outrageous rates. They give you diluted, marginal service.

When you go to a medical doctor, for instance, you are not expected to pay your fee for all the things he knows but you do not need. You pay him for knowing, exactly, what you do need. If he starts guessing and his guesses do not pay off for your health situation, the doctor has not provided you with the skill and knowledge you do specifically need. You, thus, got nothing of value in return for your fee to him. My wife has good experience with that with many of the medical professionals she has seen. It just does not seem fair.

We must realize that we, the public as a collection of individuals, provided for their training. We are the ones authorizing their education and paying a great deal toward their education through taxes, grants, voluntary services, etc. They bite the hand that allowed them to be educated.

For instance, I know of a patent lawyer to bring a patent application into the best shape possible so that the patent application does not become a sort of ping-pong ball, bouncing back and forth between the lawyer and the patent office. One has to pay through the nose upfront to retain them. The lawyer never returned any phone calls, emails and letters. It was as if he were god, unreachable. His office typed the invention as given by his client. There was no iota difference. The lawyer was told repeatedly to rephrase the wording of the claims in the patent. It ended up that the client's wording, not the lawyer's was sent in to the patent office.

He was also demanded of him, repeatedly, to request for priority handling because of old age allowance for the client, because the nation would save huge amounts of diesel fuel and because the patent could have military significance. This request can only be made once- -together with the original filing. Yet, the application was filed without this request.  

Then, the lawyer was paid extra, upfront, to belatedly file that request. This was never done either.

On the other hand, it happens quite regularly that I pay for $30.00 groceries or prescriptions with a $100 or $50 bill, and then walk out without even thinking of receiving my change. It has never happened that the clerk did not call me back, or followed me to my car to hand me the change. See the picture. Doctors, dentists and psychiatrists always take my money (I do not have insurance), and will not return a dime even though their involvement did not resolve my problems. We all can tell similar stories about that.

Doctors, psychiatrists, dentists, even clerics of the many diverse religions, you name them- -they all do the same routinely. A dentist some twenty years back claimed to have found 15 cavities that needed his attention. The fellow never came back to him but the next dentist he went to 3 years later claimed he could only find 3. I wonder if that guy even had those 3. It truly is outrageous that educated people deliberately do these things. I am sure that all of you can recount many similar incidents.

I can go on and on finding ever more instances myself. We have all felt serious losses due to the foul play of top-level financial gurus and bureaucrats in this present economic crisis. Since the inception of the Federal Reserve Board financial crises are manufactured. The Board's powers and authorities lie exactly in the role of guiding the economy so that such crises cannot take place. The board's powers are so great that it is just a minor routine to create a financial crisis.

I believe that the difference between trained animals and humans lies in that animals have no trouble loving and respecting their masters for what they are. Educated people, however, strife to love themselves more than others; and to be master more than being of being a subordinate or of true service. Their drive for success and scholarly recognition seems to thwart many from using their learned skills for altruistic goals.

Trained animals understand that trying to be a master is an endeavor in futility but humans erroneously believe that when enough authority, power and cunning are exerted there can be no one greater than he or she. Power leads to insanity and insanity leads to everlasting unhappiness.

Trained animals, because they strife to have no more than what is needed now for their maintenance can find happiness and can accept love and return love genuinely towards their master(s). Educated people, however, because they are driven by gain of lucre, vanity and jealousy, insist to gain more power, wealth and recognition than others at whatever costs to others; which drive leads to an insane type of competitive existence where happiness and love are sacrificed for the goal of being seen and recognized as a master of some sort. Utopia cannot be found on earth because enough, supposedly intelligent, educated people intensively strife to prevent it.

Masters are feared and envied but are never loved and honored. Masters in any kind of endeavor rely on their prowess and cunning to produce riches and arts of the material kind. Whoever reveres a master cannot know love and is spiritually lost. Fear and love for the same entity cannot coexist. Both love and fear produce obedience and cooperation. Genuine cooperation comes either through love or fear- -never together by the same person for the same master, not in animals and not in humans.

Both emotions produce somewhat the same effect, but the master insists on being feared over being loved. Masters instill fear. Masters feign love, but with a blunt instrument held behind the back, which instrument enforces fear in subordinates and masters practice deceit on their clients routinely and professionally.

However, there is one type of master that does not seek riches, power and prestige. There are very, very few of such masters because they seek to bring understanding of spiritual truth to others. It is a futile type of endeavor because there is no commercial market that can be served. The true master's teaching is absolutely not sought in the world or even in the universe. The truth these masters are willing to give will destroy a supposed pupil's dependence on physical reality. It will leave them in a physical and mental void. For physical creatures this is an utterly ridiculous proposition because it would destroy the primary purpose of their physical nature. Yet, physical nature is but a spiritual dream. It is an extreme in cold turkey effect in humans that prevents soul's true redemption.

Any form of belief is a state of brainwashing. The more certain a person is about, for instance, his religious faith, the more wrong the person is. Religions brainwash their adherents. It makes adherents comfortable in their physical situation and gives them false 'hope' in a comfortable 'here-after'. It is the only way creeds get into existence and by which they become wide-spread and by which they are maintained. For instance; being a dedicated American citizen, as recognized by the news media and the general public, is a state of conditioned brainwashing. Having physical awareness as a creature is a state of spiritual brainwashing. It is the spiritual entity's conditioned state of believing a spiritual lie over the spiritual truth. A soul who believes a structural lie about true reality negates and forgets that reality completely. Humans as physical creatures can only see the truth according to the spiritual lie believed by their brainwashed spiritual entities (souls). The word 'soul' truly means a spiritual entity spiritually deceived and of no real effect.

Our deceiver is our god Jehovah, the serpent. Because of a spiritual lie believed we, as souls, are dead to the true spiritual reality. Now, according to the supposed truth about the lie we have physical, but not spiritual, awareness. The physical reality has taken on a guise of being genuine. This is exactly the result professional brainwashers seek to instill into their victims/pupils. Totally brainwashed people see the world through brainwashed conditioned awareness. They are convinced that what they now know is the truth about reality- -but unfortunately, this state of being brainwashed spiritually, when one does not receive outside spiritual help, closes all mental doors for return to the true state of affairs in spirit. That is the very, and only reason that the spirit in Jesus came among us. We, as hallucinatory projections of deceived spirit, are the only means for this spirit of truth in Jesus to get in touch with our deceived and comatose souls.

Brainwashed people are extremely outspoken and adamant about the propaganda they believe. It is the mental effort of making sense of, and believing in propaganda that makes the brainwashing stick in one's mind. That is the reason for the authoritative behavior of highly trained people. They truly believe all the hype they learned, and if they do not do so they pretend to reap whatever reward they think is due to them for having all that education. It does really pay off.

Any outside effort to correct a brainwashed/educated person's misperceived outlook on reality will meet with very strong adamant resistance. If one wants to do this to a group of brainwashed people/professionals, the group can become seriously hostile toward the speaker and might even want to kill the speaker (as they did to Jesus).

Here is the real problem: the more education (brainwashing) a person has received in his life, and the more the person relies on making a livelihood with the material learned, the more easy it is to continue to brainwash the person and the harder it is to make him/her see the falsehood of his misperceptions. This is a general truth, well understood by propaganda scientists and technical experts.  Educated people had to absorb enormous amounts of truly unverified information. They are sitting ducks for clever propagandists.

It is much harder to shed one's false beliefs on which one's whole physical existence seems to depend than to believe a lie about the original 'truth'. What parades in our minds as the 'truth' is easy and unencumbered by mental gymnastics because we grew up, and were continually conditioned into it. One could say it is cheap because it costs us no mental effort to remain in original truth (whatever one could conceive this truth to be- -this truth could very well be a lie). So, when someone comes along and tells a differing opinion about this 'truth' that so far outshines the conditions for him in the present truth, it is easy to make the lie stick and make this differing opinion the new truth and to chuck out the previous truth. This called a process of seduction or propaganda- -I call it a system of lies. That is what happened between Woman and the serpent. Once a lie is believed about her true 'reality', she lost that reality because the lie made it disappear so that a reality based on the lie can appear and can now be disguised as the truth.

All creatures are caught in a spiritual delusion that is the foundation of some sense of physical reality. Because of the spiritual delusion presently held in soul physical reality appeared and established itself as true reality; but it is the common spiritual fiction held in the mind of all physical creatures. We all see the universe for what it is because the delusion is common. We were taught to see it the way we see it and we reinforce this delusion on each other every moment- -just as religious groups reinforce their delusions on each other.

We must get a grip on our spiritual nature. If we are spiritually awake, why do we have a physical sense of awareness and absolutely no spiritual awareness of being? We either are spiritually awake or physically awake. Again the proposition is to be or not to be. Not to be is to negate our higher or innate spiritual reality and thus to be aware in the physical sense. In physical nature nothing is laid down in hard and fast rules. Everything is relative- -even our physical sense of awareness. This clearly indicates a spiritual confusion. Spirit can only be confused when it is unaware of it true environment; hence physical creatures are delusions of souls' spiritual minds.

Because of the spiritual delusion true reality vanished and its surrogate "physical reality" came into expression and true reality was deliberately rejected, repressed and utterly forgotten.

The truth that will set one free is that creatures have believed a spiritual lie and are now caught in utter nothingness, which nothingness is the necessary foundation for the acceptance of a surrogate fictional reality- -physical reality.

True reality cannot be lost as long as one is in full agreement with it. One is eternal. The proof that physical creatures exist in a fictional reality is that they must be born into it and must die and lose the physical sense of the reality of their, supposed, primal mode of being. Creatures, obviously, are not eternal so they must be ficitonal.

It is only possible to enter into and exit from a sense of reality when one realizes that one is dealing with fiction. One can, also, exit true spiritual reality, only, when one is cleverly seduced to accept a structural lie about that sense of original reality; because once a lie is introduced into one's spiritual sense of true reality (incorporates a fiction in one's understanding of the true environment) it is not a true reality anymore but a fiction. When this is fully understood, one has learned what the "Tree Of The Knowledge Of Good And Evil" offers to teach us as spirits. Lies/propaganda when believed will eject us from our sense of previous fiction into a new, cleverly arranged fiction. This process is always at work in physical reality- -that is why our understanding of reality will not be that of our offspring in the near and farther removed future.

The true master enlightens the pupil on the truth that was lost by taking the delusion seriously. Once a pupil again grasps the spiritual truth of its condition, and the reality of a spiritual realm that was lost thereby, he/she can relinquish the physical universe and is in a position to wake up in true reality- -the true reality on which all spiritual beingness is based. That, folk, is true soul travel!

Humans, however, have a remote ability of grasping the truth of their spiritual dilemma, while animals are utterly incapable of it. Therefore humans have a chance on spiritual redemption while animals have not. However, animals can contemplate their situation and experience like humans but in most cases are incapable of taking rational action, because of physical and mental limitations in their bodily make-up. The hyper-anxiety native to their nature prevents any spiritual thought.

Animals are like humans but animals have accepted a greater set of systems of lies than humans. The lies they, as souls, have believed have overcome their spiritual capacity to seek redemption. Truth has become out of reach and reality based on a lie has taken the foreground permanently. Humans, by default, are on a journey to become fully animal. Spiritual evolution spirals downward away from spiritual reality into situations of even more confining traps of receding, spiritual and physical aliveness. Only understanding the truth of our spiritual situation can abruptly reverse this downward spiral and reestablish soul in true reality. The truth, as Jesus taught, will set us free from bondage of existence in a set of spiritual and universal lies believed.  This is the only message the spirit in Jesus came down to earth to teach.

Even though most religious creeds teach that 'truth will set you free' very few have any idea what class of truth this statement deals with. Many people have stated the true facts about an incident as they can remember or perceive them and by stating the true facts may have gotten them selves in serious trouble. By not knowing with what sort of truth we are dealing in Jesus' statement people must continue to reincarnate; because there are only two sorts of reality- -true reality and a derivative of true reality by including a structural lie into the true reality. This lie will erase reality from one's spiritual mind and substitute a false one.

As long as souls continue to accept the lie there is only one place they can be at all- -the false reality.  A reality where everything is relative; where good can become evil simply through clever propaganda campaigns and evil can parade as good. The Bible states that the devil always comes to you in a disguise of good- -a shining angel of truth. What is more like such a brightly shining angel than our god Jehovah, himself? He is the serpent we took as the truth-sayer in spirit; and Jesus is his adversary who came among us to reclaim back those who can have his true spiritual truth; its opposite- -the original true spiritual truth. Or, of course, Jesus can be made to be seen as a spiritual adversary/serpent in Jehovah's garden- -the physical universe. So, if Jesus parades as the Christ in our, Jehovah-conditioned minds, then from the perspective of the spiritual war, Jesus, the intruder from beyond the boundaries of the universe, is really an adversary/anti-Christ of Jehovah.

Seek to grasp the truth of your spiritual situation before your soul will atrophy to sole dependence for beingness in the natural, physical realm as animals. Animal life is the first step in hell that is irreversible.

Everything we have learned and experienced in earth: of a physical, religious, philosophical and scientific nature is spiritual fiction that will reinforce the delusion of fictional reality on you and continues to hide the spiritual reality. One can see that regaining the original spiritual truth is most improbable for almost all of us- -even our understanding of spirit is delusion. We have been so deceived spiritually that souls continue to determinedly negate their own real existence (remain comatose to true reality) and pretend existence in a philosophy of lies. This pretense reveals itself as, very real-seeming physical reality.

Hans van Krieken

You can learn more from http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Hans_VanKrieken and his website http://www.sciencefictionofreality.com

c) Copyright - Hans van Krieken. All Rights Reserved Worldwide.

The Evolution of Running in Humans - Why We Are Among the Best Endurance Runners on the Planet

If you have been running for any length of time, you've probably received derisive comments and odd looks from friends/family regarding your running habit. "You're going to ruin your knees" is a common one, "humans aren't built to run long distances" is another. Fortunately for runners, these sometimes scornful comments couldn't be further off-the-mark. Read on, and I'll attempt to explain why it is that humans are among the premier long-distance runners among mammals, how we got to where we are atop this podium, and why sitting on the couch is really what is most unnatural for us as a species.

Ever since I started to run in earnest, I've had a sense that running is something natural, something that we as humans are supposed to do. To a certain extent, this probably arises from my training as an anatomist/physiologist and evolutionary biologist. If you think about human history, our human body evolved under a very different set of conditions than it is exposed to today. Our bodies did not evolve in an environment where obtaining food simply required a drive to the nearest supermarket or fast-food restaurant. Rather, humans evolved from ape-like ancestors in an environment where food generally had to be either gathered, scavenged, or hunted, and thus physical traits that enhanced the ability to accomplish these food-gathering behaviors were critical to our survival as a species. Of these physical traits, being able to run is hypothesized by some scientists and anthropologists to have been exceptionally important - our ancestors had to be able to catch prey on the run and get to carcasses before they were scavenged by other animals.

Indeed, endurance running is still a tradition in some native cultures, such as among the Tarahumara of northwestern Mexico. The Tarahumara are widely admired for their endurance running capabilities, and a hunting tradition in the tribe is to chase a wild animal like a deer until it collapses from exhaustion, at which point it can be caught and killed. This type of hunting, called "persistence hunting," is also practiced by some Kalahari bushmen in Africa, and was described in detail in one of my favorite episodes of NPR's This American Life (Episode 80). In this episode, titled "Running After Antelope," Scott Carrier recounts his story of trying to catch a pronghorn antelope by running it down on foot. There was something raw and emotional in Carrier's story that really struck a chord with me, and if you're a runner of any kind it's a must listen. The book "Why We Run: A Natural History," by Bernd Heinrich, also describes persistence hunting (as part of the larger story of why he, and we, run), and is probably the most enjoyable running book that I have read.

Before I explain the evolutionary hypotheses in more detail, let me start by emphasizing that we humans are darned good endurance runners. In fact, we may just be the best among all mammals when it comes to endurance running. What we lack in speed, we more than make up for in our ability to run long distances at a slow, sustained pace. For this reason, we are one of the few species on earth that can actually complete a marathon. Take dogs for example - I frequently run with my black lab Jack. In a flat out sprint, Jack would blow me away (he spotted a deer behind our house one afternoon, and his sprint through the woods was a thing to behold).

However, when I'm marathon training, I'm careful not to take him much more than 6-7 miles since he burns out after about that distance. Even in winter, there are times when we return from a run and he has to roll around in the snow just to cool down. Keep in mind, dogs are pretty good endurance runners as animals go, but we humans blow them away when it comes to running long distance. As another example, most people would hold horses up as a prime example of an animal designed to go the distance. However, during the annual Man versus Horse Marathon in Wales, humans have defeated the fastest horse in the race on at least two recent occasions, demonstrating that when it comes to endurance among mammals, we are right there at the top. Indeed, in a 2007 article in the journal Sports Medicine titled "The Evolution of Marathon Running," authors Daniel Lieberman (Harvard) and Dennis Bramble (University of Utah) report that "for marathon-length distances, humans can outrun almost all other mammals and can sometimes outrun even horses, especially when it is hot."

So lets look at the the data supporting the hypothesis that humans evolved to be runners in a bit more detail. The logic according to the 2007 article by Lieberman and Bramble goes something like this:

1. Our primate ancestors are not good runners. The reason for this is that their anatomy is more suited to life in the trees, and whereas chimps can sprint, they cannot do so for much more than 100m.

2. Fossil evidence shows that about 2 million years ago, our already bipedal ancestors began to exhibit anatomical traits that make for more efficient running (see list below, also see a 2004 Nature article by Bramble and Lieberman titled "Endurance Running and the Evolution of Homo").

3. These anatomical changes appeared in association with the invasion of a new habitat and the appearance of new food-gathering tactics (i.e., a new niche in ecological parlance). Human ancestors were moving from the trees onto the ground, and we were becoming daytime hunters, with a penchant for eating meat. Fossil evidence (e.g., tooth characteristics) suggests that human ancestors began incorporating meat to a larger degree about 2.5 million years ago (this is not to say that chimps don't eat some meat - they do). In order to get meat into the diet, we had to hunt and scavenge (and keep in mind that our earliest ancestors didn't have stone-tipped spears, bows, or high-powered rifles and shotguns).

Lieberman and Bramble (2007) cite a 2006 paper by John J. Shea from the Journal of Archaeological Science (citation provided below) that indicates that stone-tipped spears didn't appear until about 200,000 years ago, whereas bows have been around for only about the last 50,000 years. Thus, to kill an animal, we had to do it at close range, which means either ambushing them (which can be dangerous to the hunter) or chasing them down. We also had to compete with other carnivores and scavengers (think lions and hyenas) for limited resources in a hot, arid environment. This placed high emphasis on speed and endurance, as well as efficient heat regulation. End result = we as humans evolved to be outstanding runners, and what's more, we can run efficiently for long distances in environmental conditions that would rapidly exhaust or could potentially even kill most other mammals.

So what is it about humans that makes us such good distance runners? What are the traits that separate us from our nearest relatives? Bramble and Lieberman (2004) and Lieberman and Bramble (2007) suggest the following:

1. Energetics - Humans have springy ligaments in the legs and feet (e.g., the Achilles tendon and the Iliotibial Tract are examples) that allow us to store energy during each down-step and then release that energy like a spring on the up-step. Conversely, in apes these tendons/ligaments are more poorly-developed or absent.

2. Stabilization - It is harder to stabilize the body while running than it is to do so while walking, especially in bipeds. Humans have unique anatomical characteristics that confer much greater stability while running. Among other things, these traits include a well-developed gluteus maximus that is mostly active while running (yes, big butts!), a narrow waist, mobile torso, and improvements in the inner ear that help us to better maintain balance.

3. Thermoregulation - As any runner knows, physical exertion generates body-heat. Because running is muscle-intensive, it generates much more heat than walking, and if we don't get rid of that heat we can get into trouble (i.e., hyperthermia). One of the reasons why many mammals can't go the distance is that they don't have specializations to offload all of the heat produced while running. This is why my dog, Jack, can't join me for a 20-mile marathon training run in the spring or summer. Humans, on the other hand, can run long in the heat (like on the African plains, or in the Badwater 135 Ultramarathon) because we are expert sweaters. We have no fur (well, most of us) to heat us up, and our sweat glands are densely and widely dispersed across the surface of our bodies. When we run, we sweat, often profusely. When we sweat, we cool down. The trade off here is that we humans lose a lot of salt and fluid when we're active, which is why companies like Gatorade stay in business.

To summarize the logic of what's above, I offer the following: We humans evolved to be hunters. To hunt without bows and guns we needed to run. In order to become more efficient hunters, we evolved anatomical and physiological traits that made us better runners. Now that hunting is no longer a necessity, our species for the most part has stopped running, but that absolutely does not mean that running is unnatural or dangerous. Rather, I would argue (strongly) that running is completely natural for humans, and that not running is in fact what is aberrant. Think about it for a minute or two and see if you agree.

Let me finish with a few thoughts. First - the next time someone tells you that running is unnatural, refer them to this article or to the work of the scientists cited here. Simply stated, we as humans evolved to run, and there is nothing more natural that we could do. Does this mean that running marathons every day is natural? Probably not. Does it mean that running a race like the Badwater 135 Ultramarathon is natural? Probably not. Does it mean that running everyday on asphalt and concrete is natural? Probably not. What it does mean is that the next time you lace up your shoes for a run, you are simply celebrating our evolutionary history as a species, and doing something that we have been doing effectively for millions of years. In short, you are being a good animal, a good human. To look at this in one last way, I'll quote the final paragraph of Lieberman and Bramble's excellent 2007 article:

"In short, the human ability to run long distances, such as a marathon, is neither a simple byproduct of the ability to walk bipedally, nor a biologically aberrant behaviour. Instead, running has deep evolutionary roots. Although humans no longer need to run, the capacity and proclivity to run marathons is the modern manifestation of a uniquely human trait that helps make humans the way we are."

How's that for motivation.

The author of this article, Peter Larson, writes a blog, Runblogger, that provides thoughts and tips on running, blogging, and living an active life.

A complete version of this article with images and links can be found at: http://www.runblogger.com/2009/04/evolution-of-running-in-humans-why-we.html

Are Humans Ever Born Again As Animals?

The question as it is posed; I do believe in reincarnation but am a little confused in that I have read in some books that a human person can be born as an animal in another life. Could you explain this and set the matter straight for me?

I guess we will have to assume that anyone who reads our little one way chat already has some suspicion that life does not end when the physical body is jettisoned by the inhabiting personality. There have been so many ample proofs of reincarnation that I won't attempt to convince anyone of the obvious, but leave those who are dead set on a one life scenario to their own beliefs. Funny thing about this is that no matter how vehemently a person believes that they are entitled to only one life, followed by a somewhat nebulous future, there is nothing they can do to limit themselves to just one paltry existence if that is what they so desire.

Reincarnation is one of the natural characteristics of "physical reality", that is, reality existence in a world of concrete, rigid objects and events, formed from the inner nature of atomic structure. The main reason that reincarnation is a necessary characteristic of physical reality is that no physical  objects or bodies last can last forever, and in the case of your physical body, its demise must not be a permanent condition but a time of rest and renewal. In other realities such as your familiar dream world, reincarnation is not needed since dream constructions, unlike physical ones, do not deteriorate and die as physical bodies do. A thought never dies, nor does a dream even though you may lose track of it.

Reincarnation is just one of the two main characteristics, the other is that all physical worlds (and there are many), exists in a psychological bed of probabilities. What that means in simple terms, is that all events, past, present and future exist in a very real inner universe of creative impetus toward things to come, providing an inner psychic storehouse of possibilities for future development. Having said that, back to the main subject for this discussion, reincarnation, what is it, why does it exist and how does it work?

Self aware, self propelled inner energy is the source of all manifestations, objects and people, animals and plants alike. If it were not for your propensity to classify and catagorize things by dividing them arbitrarily into groups to your liking, then you could easily see that these groupings are very misleading. It is you who decides who or what is ALIVE and what is not, and for that matter, what does alive really mean? Why do you say man is alive and a rock is not? Are they not constructed of many of the same elements? Is a rock, not alive (dead) because you do not see it move? You do not usually see coral move, but you cannot deny that coral is alive.

All of what you consider living organisms reincarnate, from snails to humans, the difference being that the lower life forms move in and out of living structures more easily than you because they are not burdened by the existence of ego awareness and intellect as you know it. The reality behind all  living matter lives forever in those terms only not continuously, but surely maintaining a certain continuity of life from one existence to another.

When an animal reincarnates, it may do so only within its specific classification, and I don't particularly like that term, since it is also arbitrary, but it will have to do for now. It will usually, as in all species, seek to reincarnate in either the same form, a cat into a cat, or join consciousness with other species to form a more complicated species within the same classification, as in a squirrel reincarnating into a dog. In other words, a squirrel may live again and again as a squirrel, but there will come a time even within these seemingly lower classifications, when the need for advancement will necessitate the combining of energies with other species to form a more meaningful existence in terms of psychological values and satisfactions. There are no real limits to the possibilities within the reincarnation progressions of animals or men, but there are practical limitations. What I am saying here is that even simple cell is an incipient entity, that will sometime, somewhere be realized.

All reincarnational realities are therefore practically limited to intra-species lives, meaning that mammals will reincarnate as mammals, birds as birds and fish as fish. It only seems to your from examination of fossil records that birds evolved into dinosaurs through the process of reincarnation and evolution, but you are not seeing the whole picture and you are missing evidence that would show countless in-between species that did not take, that ran into an evolutionary dead end, leaving confusing gaps in your understanding of reincarnation. But for the sake of our discussion, all species  reincarnate and evolve withing their own classifications, developing refinements and changing and adapting to their environment.

Then, in answer to the original question, NO,,,,,,,man does not reincarnate into any animal and likewise, no animal ever reincarnated or evolved into a man or woman. In other words, there is NO transmutation of species. Period. There is no inter-species reincarnation or evolution even though you incomplete records may lead you to believe there is.

There is another ramification of life and death that you have probably not considered. Lost somewhere in ancient times when countless early species were sorting themselves out for significant meaningful lives in a new and rapidly changing environment, between man and primate, there were countless varieties of man-monkey and monkey-man that died out, leaving you to think that you are seeing a continuous progression of monkey into man. That is not the case, man was always man as fish were always fish, birds always birds, mammals always mammals. The similarity in gene structures simply indicate that all life is very much alike.

Finally, if you want to get really specific, you could say that there are elements of monkeys, dogs, flowers and trees in man. Lets say that you die, your cells finally drop from your body into the earth where they lie dormant for years, combining with other natural elements in the soil.. Lets also say that in that same location, other animals and plants have died and their bodies have also assimilated into the earth. A farmer plants corn on that very same plot of land that is made up of many elements and past cellular structures of countless creatures and plants. The corn crop assimilates nutrients from the earth, some of which carry traces of past living things.

An expectant mother eats corn that she purchased from the super market that was grown on that very same plot of land and her body uses these nutrients derived from the corn to facilitate the growth of the fetus within her body. Your mother did the same, not thinking that in doing so, she was passing along to you the remnants and history of the Earth and its ancient and current life forms, so life always springs forth from death and you could say in a rather real way, that in your physical make up, you carry the traces of many other past species.

Conclusion; There is NO transmutation of species as you think of it. You will never be a cow.

Next Article Preview: Don't take life too Seriously.

My name is W. Allan, single male 62, a resident of Naples Florida. I graduated from Washington University in St. Louis and have in the past, written a column called SECRET REALITY which was carried by spiritual and metaphysical magazines. I have recently started a blog to publish my work with the intent of incorporating expanded versions of my blog in book form. You can contact me any at my e-mail address: w.allan@hotmail.com. You may also read other articles at my blog at: http://answersbygod.com

Humans Are Animals But Animals Are Not Human

Introduction:

It seems that there is a lack of understanding and more than a few misconceptions when it comes to the subject of animals. This article will discuss some of these misconceptions and the realizations that we need to make if we are to avoid deaths and animal attacks. The problem seems to lie in our misconceptions that animals are driven by emotions rather than by pure survival instincts. This causes us to attribute an animal attack to the human emotion of anger or revenge. I know that all people do not hold these misconceptions, which would be presumptuous. What I am saying is that a majority of people do, simply based upon the evidence. The evidence I refer to includes television shows on Discovery, Animal Planet, TNT, etc. It also includes the news media, and even Academia. Again, some shows are guiltier than others, but the fallacies range from the small to the absurd.

The main point the reader needs to take from this article is that animals are animals, driven by basic instincts necessary for their survival. They do not feel anger, jealousy, love, or plot revenge. Although some animals may contain the capacity for these emotions, I doubt those senses are as highly developed or reasoned through as ours seem to be. So, when we attempt to attribute human emotions to animal motivations we are making a silly mistake. We need only try to look at the situation from the animal's point of view. This shouldn't be hard, because we have the ability to reason. We need only attempt to return to a state of mind that we haven't had since we rubbed sticks together and drew on cave walls.

The Main Issues:

The tree hugger is as much to blame as the hunter. When a nature lover is attacked brutally by an animal and survives they usually make the statement; "It didn't know what it was doing". This is not true. The animal knew full well what it was doing. They would also make the claim that they should not have put themselves in that situation. That statement actually is true, to an extent. When we venture out into nature we cannot expect that we will not be attacked by a wild animal. What we must expect is that there is a possibility, and we must accept responsibility for this if we are going into the woods anyways.

Animals are finding their natural lands threatened by housing developments, businesses, and other activities that bring human beings into areas where animals used to roam. Their territory is shrinking. So, when we go out into the woods than it is our responsibility. If a person enters the forest for any reason, and is attacked by an animal, whatever the reason; it's their fault. Why? Because they know in the back of their mind that it is a possibility. If you go into the woods with your children and they are attacked, then it is the parent's fault. Why? Because they knew it was a possibility. You have every right to take the risk, but when and if something bad happens, you can't blame the animal.

There are people out there who believe that animals are of no consequence. The only thing that matters in this world is the human race. If an animal is hit by a car, shot, or killed by anything other than natural means; so what. This is a very ignorant viewpoint to have for one reason. We live in a world that is governed by balance. One thing affects another and if one species disappears it will affect other species. Sometimes it can be in a good way for that species and sometimes it can be in a bad way. If all predatory birds were to go extinct than it would be great for rodents. It would not be so good for whatever the rodents feed upon and it most certainly would not be good for us. Granted some species can go extinct without greatly upsetting the balance of things. It's when multiple extinctions occur that a major problem will arise. These individuals that do not hold animals in high regard, when attacked by animals, usually are quick to anger. That animal attacked me and therefore must die! I doubt that they would even consider the possibility that they bore any responsibility whatsoever for entering the woods that day. The bottom line is that if people enter the woods, we must be aware of the dangers. This goes for any natural environment that we consciously enter, knowing full well that we could be attacked by a bear or a shark.

I will never forget an episode of Worlds Most Amazing Video or maybe it was the Most Extreme, where an elephant was rampaging through the streets of Mexico. If I remember correctly, this elephant was performing in a circus, turned on its trainer (killing him), and then began running through the streets. This elephant ended up being shot to death in the street. I had no problem with that, it was clear the animal had to be taken down. What I did have a problem with was the statement made by the bonehead commentator of the show. He stated, "This is a tragic event, but let's not forget why this was necessary." That may not be his statement word for word, but the point is clear. The elephant had to die because it was a rampaging monster! How ignorant is that? In my opinion that was an extremely ignorant statement that had me cursing out loud at my television set. It is true that the elephant did kill his trainer. It is also true that the elephant was out of control. Why are these the only valid points? Did anyone stop to think that the elephant should not have been there in the first place? Elephants do not belong in circuses and they do not belong in zoos. The only purpose a zoo should serve is to rehabilitate injured animals or to shelter animals that are endangered.

Animals are wild, the only mistake made in the elephant situation is that "WE", thought we could tame or control this animal. Can we do it? Yes, we can, but should we, NO! Personally, if an animal that is in a zoo or a circus attacks a person then I do not want to hear about it. No sympathy will be found with me. The bottom line is that animals belong in the wild. I do not care how tame or domesticated we think that they are. The chance will always remain that they can attack for reasons that really do not matter. I have a hard enough time trying to figure out why people do some of the things they do. The last thing I want to have to do on a daily basis is try to figure out what an elephant, bear or a shark was thinking.

When I was younger, I went to zoos. The last time I visited a zoo I was 21 years old, and it was at Busch Gardens and Disney's Wild Kingdom. I am 31 years old and I have not been to a zoo since. I will never go to a zoo again simply because I do not believe in them. To take a wild animal and stick it in a cage for our amusement is simply ridiculous. How many of us would like to be stuck in an enclosure, I don't care how natural or comfortable that it is, and then told we can never leave? Not many, but since we are not talking about people than it does not matter. Animals do not belong in cages. They are meant to be out in the wild. So, when we place animals in situations that they instinctually do not belong in then we cannot hold them accountable for their actions. The only people that can be held accountable for animal attacks occurring in zoos or a circus are we. Not just the owner of the zoo or circus, but the person that was attacked as well. After all, they are the ones paying the fee to enter an area where dangerous animals are kept. Its all about responsibility and too often are we not willing to accept our share of the responsibility in this day and age.

Animals are not governed by the same things that we are. If a person wrongs us then we get angry. If a person loves us then we love back. Human beings are capable of an array of emotions including, jealousy, happiness, sadness, anger, fear, etc. We also have the ability to plot and scheme. If someone makes us extremely angry or jealous then we may wish to do harm against that other person. Animals do not think this way and yet whenever I hear, or read of an animal attack; I always hear someone try to attribute human motivations to why the animal behaved the way it did. Real life is not Lady and the Tramp, or Over the Hedge. Animals do not reason like we do. The only activities that animal are concerned with are eating, sleeping, pooping, peeing, and reproduction. From the day they are born till the day they die, they are only concerned with life processes.

Our way of life along with our highly developed brain allows us to move beyond these simple processes. They are still there and will forever remain the focal point of life, but they will never consume as much of our lives as it does for animals. Humans still need to eat, sleep, poop, pee, reproduce, etc. We have more free time that allows us to focus on other things. We work for food and recreational things. We get water from a well and live in houses and apartments. This allows us to apply our energies elsewhere. Animals are not afforded this. Mainly because they have not evolved to the extent that humans have. This is nobodies fault, its just how it is. With this evolution comes responsibility on our part. We have to realize that we are responsible for our actions because we are aware of our actions. It is different with animals, they are not aware of their actions.

If I am walking in the woods and a grizzly bear attacks me, it does not do so out of anger. The grizzly may simply see me as an easy target. If it is hungry then it will look for food. It is wrong to say that human beings are not part of what they eat. A bear will eat just about anything if it is hungry. We know that bears eat meat. In fact, bears have been known to eat everything from berries to bucks. I think the reason that we say things like, "They don't normally eat people", or "We are not part of their diet", is because we are rarely in contact with bears. Since our evolution we have put ourselves in contained environments called houses, which are surrounded by towns and cities. No bears here, although in rural areas, residents can catch glimpses of bears in their back yards. The bottom line is that we are meat. Yes, human beings are meat. We are. You can slice us, dice us, stick us in a frying pan, and eat us. You will not starve either. I'm sure we are packed with tons of protein and fat, perfect for surviving long winters. We don't normally think of us as food, because we tend to frown on cannibalism. We eat chicken, beef, pork, lamb, duck, lobsters, crabs, etc, etc. There is very little on this earth that we don't eat.

Why is a bear eating a person any more appalling than a human eating a bear? I think the main reason is that we then imagine if it were we getting eaten, and then we conclude that it would suck. Whether it sucks or not does not matter. What does matter is that we are edible just like any other animal on this planet. To say that a bear is blood thirsty, or got the taste for blood is a ridiculous statement as well. From the time they are a bear cub; they have the taste for blood and they eat plenty of it. What they mean by "have a taste for blood" is that they have tasted human and like it. Here is a good example. If I had never tasted Chinese food before and then I try it, and then it turns out that I love it. I am going to want to eat Chinese food as often as possible. In reality I love Chinese food, and would eat it everyday if I could. The same may be true for bears. How do we know what we taste like? We don't eat each other so how do we know whether or not we taste good? For all we know human meat could be the greatest freaking tasting meat on the face of the earth. I will bet it is very tender, given the less active nature of our society.

So, if a bear attacks me, and he gets a taste; it may just be that he likes it. It is only natural for the bear to seek out some more of that tasty meat. So, it is not that a bear is blood thirsty, it just means that he has tasted human, likes it, and continues to seek it. Human beings make nice targets. Look at us, we have no claws, no long sharp teeth, we are not very big, and have lost the ability to protect ourselves in the wild without a club, knife, or a gun. The only thing we have going for us in that situation is our higher intelligence. Since we can't kill the bear with our bare hands we are forced to try and outsmart it by playing dead. Incidentally we are not the only animals that employ this tactic.

Another very important piece the grizzly bear attack puzzle is human expansion. We are constantly expanding into new territories that were once inhabited by these animals. How can we be sure how they view this activity? As I said before, I doubt they exhibit any rational human thought to the situation, but they do recognize change. Some animals may be able to associate humans with this change that threatens their home. This may trigger a natural instinct to attack. This may lead an animal to kill for the sake of killing. It is not out of anger or jealousy. All the animal knows is that we are responsible for the changes, they feel threatened, and they attack. This is much the same as a young male lion challenging the older lion for control of the pride. During rutting season, bucks lock horns for the right to mate. These are instinctual actions that may be triggered by human encroachment into an animal's territory. This would then cause an animal to see us as a threat, and in the animal world you only do two things with a threat: you either drive it away or you kill it. This behavior may account for some of the animal attacks that occur in this country and around the world.

Of course; It depends upon what animal you are talking about. Bears, deer, big cats may exhibit this behavior but it is highly unlikely that a shark or a crocodile would. In the case of many shark attacks it is either a case mistaken identity, or they just don't care, because it looks edible and they are going to eat it. It can't say for sure about crocs, but I would assume that the majority of attacks are about food with a handful about territory.

Conclusions;

The bottom line is that many of the animal attacks that occur in this country are simply a matter of an opportune meal. Human beings wander into environments where animals live and they simply view us as an easy target. Animals see us as food, nothing more. How often do we think twice before cutting into a steak or eating a burger? This is much the same way, as a predator would view us in their environment. They don't see us as a person; they see us as a nice juicy steak...for arguments sake. We need to keep this in mind before we venture out anywhere that we can come into contact with these animals. Even if you don't think of some of these animals as dangerous, you still have to be cautious. Just ask anyone that has been attacked by a deer! Many of us would not assume a deer would pose a threat, but they can do damage. In the end we cannot ever really comprehend why the animal attacked us. The fact remains that animals can and do attack. Sometimes we live and sometimes we die. If we choose to enter the woods then we much accept this consequence. We must also keep this in mind when moving into a new housing development. It will take animals time to let go of old territories and seek out new territories. Unfortunately they may not always be able to and this brings humans and animals into contact more and more. As much as we like to think that we rule the earth, it's only an illusion. It is an illusion that can cost us dearly if we are not careful in the future.

I am not saying that if a bear kills a person or a child that it should not be killed. Personally, I believe it depends upon the circumstances of the attack and the wishes of the family members. Ultimately, whether or not the animal is put down I assure you that the animal has no sense of right or wrong. If an animal such as a bear eats a person, than in all likely hood it will try to eat another. We must taste good to them, or else the statement, "That bears got a taste for blood", would not have survived as long as it has. So ,what do you do with an animal like that? I guess the only thing we could do is try not to give them the opportunity to get a liking for people meat. We need to be more aware about how the world works beyond the confines of our cities and towns. There is another world that we left long ago called the wild. Knowledge is power. We need to be aware of the possibility of an attack when we enter the woods. We must always be aware that if we live in rural areas that the possibility still also remains. We should familiarize ourselves with the animals that pose a threat in our region and find out what measures we can take to ensure our safety.

As far as zoos go, we should take full responsibility there. If an animal in captivity eats one of us then oh freaking well! It's our fault the animal is in that situation in the first place. Elephants belong in Africa, polar bears belong up north, and lions belong in Africa, and so on and so forth. We can't expect them to suppress millions of years of natural instincts simply because we want to train them to entertain us. That is simply absurd. The same can be said for a circus or any other form of entertainment that utilizes wild animals. No matter how well trained we think they may be, they can still attack us for whatever reason. The bottom line is that we would not get attacked if we did not put animals in the position to attack us. If we had left the elephant in Mexico in Africa where it belongs than that trainer would still be alive today, hopefully in a different profession.

Even the most domesticated animals on the planet can still be unpredictable. A dog can turn on its owner in a heartbeat. It may have never done so before and it may never do so again. Still, it is not that animal's fault; it is the fault of the person with the animal. I have had more than my fare share of cats and dogs in my lifetime and I have had a few scars to prove it. As far as I am concerned it goes with the territory. If I am willing to have a pet then I must be willing to bear the consequences of that animal's action.

Dennis James Huff