Peter

Believe in the goodness of Homo Sapiens - but recognizes that a severe psychotic upset exist in a lot of people due to the evolutionary induced human condition.

[Peter @NonviolentX]

Evolution or how we change.
In order for a genetic change to manifest and become viable it has to survive and be reproduced. If it's to become a permanent feature of the specie, it has to have an evolutionary selective pressure that limit the reproduction of the current prominent feature.
If you are an aggressive species you will need whatever features are currently supporting your aggressive functions in order to survive and to support your chances of of reproduction.
If you can't survive until reproductive age, you will go extinct. If you are not capable of reproduction, you will go extinct.
Being capable of reproduction can be achieved in two ways. You can force reproduction by raping (very unlikely) or you can be selected for reproduction (much more likely).
Our ancestors way back 7 million years ago had big canines, implying instinctive aggressive behavior, but we don't have that feature anymore.
So what has changed?
There must have been a better chance of survival or a better chance of reproduction if you, as an individual, with smaller canines were you become the new representative of a future predominant feature of the evolutionary lineage of the specie.
Survival:
If your specie is in any way dependent on aggressive behavior for survival, it must be very unlikely that less effective weapons would become predominant. Eating differently is not going to change that because you still have to survive aggression. Being less aggressive is also not going to increase your chances of reproduction in you are selected based on aggression.

Reproduktion:
Fundamentally it doesn't matter how dominant and aggressive a male is if he can not produce offspring.
If a social change in behavior happned in the female population of the specie, it would almost certainly have to do with securing better chances of survival for their children, which protecting their children against aggressive males could accomplish. Creating tight social connections amongst females to counter more individualistic and aggressive males and preferentially mating males with the lesser aggressive behavior, would naturally favor males with lesser aggressive features such as smaller canines, claws and aggressive behavior in general.

If we look at Gorillas that are almost exclusive herbivores (except for maybe eating insects on rare occasions), they obviously have retrained their huge canines, even though they don't need them for nutritional survival. They do need them for reproductive survival though, because gorilla females prefer the strongest male so they need them for display of aggressiveness.

There are two primates that we are approximately equally genetically distant from by only 1.3%, the chimpanzee and the bonobo.

Chimpanzee:
The male chimpanzee has aggressive behavior for both territorial- and reproductive reasons and they need their canines to dominate. The females display their fertility (ovulation) so the males are aware, and mating primarily takes place in those periods and with preference for strong/aggressive males. They copulate almost exclusively by males positioned from behind.

Bonobo:
The bonobo females are always sexually receptive/generous at all phases of their menstrual cycle. They have sexual intercourse face to face and they are organized socially in a sort of matriarchy where females don't fear males because they are tightly bound to other females and the males don't force themselves on them. They have never been observed in any meaningful aggressive behavior. Their male offspring stay with their mother and in the group for their entire life. Their female offspring join another group when they reach reproductive maturity.

Now the question is:
Which of these primates do you think we are most instinctively behavioral related to?

[Peter @NonviolentX]

Evolution of Homo Sapiens
https://t.co/d52XfjvPYZ via @LinkedIn

[Peter @NonviolentX]

@Stevenrutledge @furkangozukara @johncusack What you are saying is that it is more expensive to not use human shields.

[Peter @NonviolentX]

@Stevenrutledge @furkangozukara @johncusack They don't have to, they could be placed in a ring outside.

[Peter @NonviolentX]

@p_nis @RnaudBertrand China is the largest trader with most countries in the world because they produce the most products in the world and to the best prices.

[Peter @NonviolentX]

While we are developing the AI and energy tools that could bring prosperity to every corner of our living planet, we are being dragged into a mental state of paranoid and schizophrenic psychosis. Humanity, we need to work on our destructive hallucinations.

[Peter @NonviolentX]

@GreenGlory_88 @AlonLeeGreen You should understand how hallucinations come about in AI through incomplete training and that way be able to compare it to hallucinations in Biological "Intelligens" (B(I)) and understand that it is basically the same.

[Peter @NonviolentX]

@Stevenrutledge @furkangozukara @johncusack Defensive weapons are the target in any war, what is your point?

[Peter @NonviolentX]

@trefab2022 @AlonLeeGreen I think he is aware.

[Peter @NonviolentX]

@faniaoz We know why AI hallucinate and the same is the case for non-instinctive prefrontal cortex situated and evolved Biological Intelligence (BI). Know how AI becomes hallucinating and you will know how humans become psychotic.

[Peter @NonviolentX]

@Steve_Laws_ You have to be a hallucinating Biological "Intelligens" (B(I)). Research into AI and hallucinations might be the only hope to understand our own.

[Peter @NonviolentX]

@furkangozukara We are at a war between our natural instinctively social, nurturing, non-aggressive neurons and an evolutionary acquired Biological "Intelligens" (BI) that has no prior knowledge about its own existence, evolution nor operating environment. The ones who did, created religions.

[Peter @NonviolentX]

@JohnStark837762 @TweetingNinja1 @LeoTerrellDOJ You really are a breakthrough in mental dysfunction but as such you are obviously completely unable to understand it. I wonder if you have won any medals in having the most minimal brain function in any living creature.

[Peter @NonviolentX]

@AXChristoforou Then China has to collapse too and I'm sure that is not going to happen.

[Peter @NonviolentX]

@TheDataRules @HenMazzig Muslims are very nice people.

[Peter @NonviolentX]

@AlonLeeGreen Thank you for supporting humanity

[Peter @NonviolentX]

@roobiescoobie @NoaMagid @twittlebird21 Did you know him personally or do you only write this because you pretend to care for exactly this poor child?

[Peter @NonviolentX]

@AlonLeeGreen Thank you for supporting our struggle for humanity.

https://t.co/C2Vl0ovZRq

[Peter @NonviolentX]

Life is sacred and so are we...
Humans are capable of transitioning into another specie mentally when manipulated into having their "cognitive" neurons suppress their instinctive neurons, primarily during adolescence. It will mute their neural connections between their social, nurturing and non-violent Bonobo-like instinctive neurons and their hallucinating human "cognitive" neurons and leave them with extremely upset instinctive neurons that will produce enormous amounts of stress hormones and drive their "cognitive" neurons to effectively a hallucinating biological neural network of insanity, if sufficiently disconnected from our purpose driven instinctive neurons. In an attempt to alleviate the pain they will project violence and anger against the "reason" for their stress/pain on whoever their source of the manipulation is telling them is the course of their upset. They will never feel any meaningful joy in life, only superficial non-enduring instant gratification, because their instinctive neurons will be in constant stress because they are unable to fulfill their purpose. The only way out of their pain is through cognitive therapy where they relearn to connect with their instinctive neurons and become peace-loving, nurturing and truly social, just like they were when they were born but with real understanding about what it means to be a human being.
In case you don't know, we have very small canines because our female human ancestors instinctively protected their children by preferentially mating the least aggressive males in order to protect their children, which of course made males with smaller canines more attractive. The story about an aggressive species eating differently should somehow make them more fit if they got smaller canines is simply ridiculous because it has only negative impact on their ability to reproduce if aggression and violence is truly a part of their instinctive behavior.
Gorillas only eat greenery, fruit and berries but the need aggressive display to attract females and they certainly haven't lost their huge canines and that is because their instinctive purpose is to display aggressive behavior in order to attract females and produce offspring.
As for the bonobos, our human females ancestors aquired hidden ovulation and sexual generosity as a way to relieve stress and avoid aggressive behavior.
In essence, mental upset was unavoidable because our aquired cognitive neurons had no idea about being confined in a small space with 90% occupied by an instinctive, purpose driven neural substance that already existed before it came about and any deviation from instinctive behavior would of course put stress upon those instincts, which in turn will release a stress response felt by our cognitive neurons and interpreted as doing something wrong, but without knowing the source of the pain and therefore likely to project it outward, as we know all too well. Adam & Eve, or buddha, is the interpretation we adapted because some philosophers knew we were supposed to be non-aggressive, nurturing and extremely social, but they lacked the tools we have today, so they explained our natural behavior by creating religions throughout the entirety of humanity.
All humans are instinctively good but the mental upset created by not having this knowledge hardwired into our cognitive neurons we were left "free" to hallucinate that we were infact evil.
this is what is known as "The human condition" and until we understand the true goodness of our instincts, we are doomed to be in and to cause pain.
On the bright side is that if we as humanity come to understand this, we can relax and become a completely new specie mentally and enjoy the fruits of our cognitive/cultural evolution by not having to fear each other.
This will be Homo sapiens 2.0 and a new planet will be born without racism and deadly competition and our children will thank us for what we have accomplished.
Dedicated to all children in the world.

[Peter @NonviolentX]

@iamyesyouareno All humans are instinctively wonderful but cognitively very fragile if we grow up to doubt that we are. Maybe he lost his mother in some violent act and completely lost his belief in humanity because nobody gave him comfort in his sorrow. We don't know.

[Peter @NonviolentX]

@Khaledhzakariah Have you ever thought independently about why we are the only primate species that only have vampire canines in movies?

https://t.co/JAnEwB63wH

[Peter @NonviolentX]

Evolution or how we change.
In order for a genetic change to manifest and become viable it has to survive and be reproduced. If it's to become a permanent feature of the specie, it has to have an evolutionary selective pressure that limit the reproduction of the current prominent feature.
If you are an aggressive species you will need whatever features are currently supporting your aggressive functions in order to survive and to support your chances of of reproduction.
If you can't survive until reproductive age, you will go extinct. If you are not capable of reproduction, you will go extinct.
Being capable of reproduction can be achieved in two ways. You can force reproduction by raping (very unlikely) or you can be selected for reproduction (much more likely).
Our ancestors way back 7 million years ago had big canines, implying instinctive aggressive behavior, but we don't have that feature anymore.
So what has changed?
There must have been a better chance of survival or a better chance of reproduction if you, as an individual, with smaller canines were you become the new representative of a future predominant feature of the evolutionary lineage of the specie.
Survival:
If your specie is in any way dependent on aggressive behavior for survival, it must be very unlikely that less effective weapons would become predominant. Eating differently is not going to change that because you still have to survive aggression. Being less aggressive is also not going to increase your chances of reproduction in you are selected based on aggression.

Reproduktion:
Fundamentally it doesn't matter how dominant and aggressive a male is if he can not produce offspring.
If a social change in behavior happned in the female population of the specie, it would almost certainly have to do with securing better chances of survival for their children, which protecting their children against aggressive males could accomplish. Creating tight social connections amongst females to counter more individualistic and aggressive males and preferentially mating males with the lesser aggressive behavior, would naturally favor males with lesser aggressive features such as smaller canines, claws and aggressive behavior in general.

If we look at Gorillas that are almost exclusive herbivores (except for maybe eating insects on rare occasions), they obviously have retrained their huge canines, even though they don't need them for nutritional survival. They do need them for reproductive survival though, because gorilla females prefer the strongest male so they need them for display of aggressiveness.

There are two primates that we are approximately equally genetically distant from by only 1.3%, the chimpanzee and the bonobo.

Chimpanzee:
The male chimpanzee has aggressive behavior for both territorial- and reproductive reasons and they need their canines to dominate. The females display their fertility (ovulation) so the males are aware, and mating primarily takes place in those periods and with preference for strong/aggressive males. They copulate almost exclusively by males positioned from behind.

Bonobo:
The bonobo females are always sexually receptive/generous at all phases of their menstrual cycle. They have sexual intercourse face to face and they are organized socially in a sort of matriarchy where females don't fear males because they are tightly bound to other females and the males don't force themselves on them. They have never been observed in any meaningful aggressive behavior. Their male offspring stay with their mother and in the group for their entire life. Their female offspring join another group when they reach reproductive maturity.

Now the question is:
Which of these primates do you think we are most instinctively behavioral related to?

[Peter @NonviolentX]

@TakForDetElon @furkangozukara I feel deeply sorry for what your life experience has turned you into.