Darwin didn't wear deodorant.
Chris: My friend, as a rational individual, I have a hard time reconciling Darwinism with humanism. Being the emotive and emotional lovable liberal that you are, I was hoping you might shed some light on the subject. You wanna get nuts? Let’s get nuts!
Jim: Oh, you want to get heavy? Humanism? More like "creationism."
Chris: No no, let me be clear that I'm not an Evolution denier, we're not in Kansas...I mean humanism defined as humanitarian concerns and efforts...human intervention in events that could be considered "natural selection". Surely such a topic is not beyond the grasp of pseudo-intellectuals such as ourselves. Or perhaps we're more suited to ponder about how badly that beard smelled after two days with sea turtles.
Jim: I'm from San Antonio my friend...I know from sweat...But humans are part of the natural selection process...we are merely animals.
Chris: Making no judgment, my contention is that evolution has essentially ceased at the hands of humanism...or for the sake of "humanity" in the emotive sense...
Africa is an example...and I don't mean to make this about color (I'm not Don Zaluchi from 'The Godfather'; "I don't want it near schools -- I don't want it sold to children! That's an infamia. In my city, we would keep the traffic in the dark people -- the colored. They're animals anyway, so let them lose their souls...") ...but if people can not rise above poverty on their own, then by natural selection and their inability to adapt to their environment or survive their condition, they should NOT be contributing their genes to future generations.
That's the way evolution works: the weak die, the strong proliferate…black, white, or brown…But through human intervention and outreach efforts, we are prolonging and proliferating the lives of people who would otherwise NATURALLY die and as a result their genes are removed from the gene pool.
Jim: But that assumes that there are no man made external forces bearing down to squelch that, though evolution may allow a species to adapt. So taking Africa, man-made (western) economies and biases have contributed to the struggle of these people ... I bet you Darwin didn't factor that in…
Chris: But it's survival of the fittest, no? Surely animals compete with other animals, they don't coexist peacefully. Ok, forget Africa, it was just a starting point and what sparked my interest in this topic…medical advances prolong life and drain society as well, even for the economically advantaged...we pass on genes that without human intellect and innovation would not be present...vaccines, medical procedures, et al, that save lives that otherwise would succumb to their inherent "weaknesses." Between you, me, and Justin Timberlake, one of us should have died by the age of 12...god willing...
Jim: He brought sexy back, give the little monkey his due. So maybe Darwin theorized only about the animal kingdom?
Chris: Prides of lions compete with one another, etc, etc...not much different from economic subjugation or man waging war.
Jim: So maybe man is flawed with a gene to self actualize and feel empathy.
Chris: In this sense, humanism, or what you call empathy, is in direct conflict with--is diametrically opposed to-- Darwinism…our intellect, our ethics oppose evolution. I’m not judging humanism…I’m saying we have come to the end of the line for human advancement.
Jim: Maybe on the surface, but can you really fool mother nature? She always finds a way to compensate...e.g., mutated virus that is unaffected by vaccines.
Chris: Yes that will happen...but then man steps in and changes the natural course…let’s use the Big Easy as an example… Economically disadvantaged people with the inability to adapt on their own without government intervention...humanity thwarting natural selection.
Jim: How the hell is a flood affecting mostly poor people natural selection ?
Chris: Their environment was disrupted...left to their own devices many more would have died...fewer people remain to contribute to the gene pool.
Jim: There are quite a few smart people who don't have money to live on high ground (and therefore adapt), I don't want to kill off those smart people.
Chris: yes, it's called the eastern seaboard...now now, I shouldn't be so provincial...I'm sure there are plenty of smart southerners Jimbino...Anyway, it’s not an economic issue so much as an issue of meritocracy. The smart and industrious should ideally rise above their economic origins. Money does not necessarily correlate to ideal human traits or good stock…look at the British Royal Family for chrissakes…bunch of inbred pod-people…money only buys better health and improves the odds of perpetuation.
I guess what makes it an interesting topic is that in this country evolution is contested by the radical religious right and the under-educated (and the politicians who prey on them) buy into the creationist fervor...on the left you have a more objective view of evolution that is in direct conflict with the socialist ideal that the government is responsible for the well-being of its citizens…How does one reconcile the two?
Jim: I’ll give YOU an example…A mother bear sees her cub flailing in danger of drowning, instead of jumping in, she knocks a branch into the river for her cub to grab hold of ... under your thinking, there should be no external intervention to save lives...if your genes don't allow you on your own to survive a perilous situation, then "f" you
Chris: That's one smart mama bear...and with opposable thumbs no less...but to address your example: no, not individually...on a mass scale, yes...animals do not have the capacity to think outside of their herd or beyond their nuclear "family”…and your example involves the same gene pool…a bear protecting its own genes in the form of its offspring. Only humans protect the genes of others.
Jim: Very good distinction but what about the case of animals that care for another’s young?...monkeys are know to do that .
Chris: Let’s not go down a rabbit hole…I’m not impugning humanism...evolution is not a conscious process...but we are consciously eschewing it...2 BILLION people lack ready access to potable water...think about that...and through intervention these people not only survive but thrive...and on that basis poverty survives...instead of thwarting it, our efforts feed poverty. The alternative--to let them die--is ethically deplorable...so what do we do?
Jim: So, what you are saying is that if humans are animals subject to the forces of natural selection but man is able to revise, adapt or amend those forces, then the theory of natural selection is bunk?
Chris: It has become obsolete to the human condition…and I don't pretend for a moment that I'm not riding the coattails of much greater men than myself...put me in the middle of the woods and I'd be weeping as soon as the sun went down…as we say, being born in America is like winning the lottery.
Jim: Nonsense!! Man's brain grew because of the evolutionary process...the inventions or interventions of man are part of the process...who's to say that compassion was not the next major step of evolution that leads to ...?
Chris: Man has "improved" his situation through technology and knowledge...but have we evolved much in the past 10,000 years? Caligula appointed his horse a senator two thousand years ago…two millenia later men are having their colons perforated by horses…nothing has changed.
Jim: Other than the fact that most people smell better and crap indoors, I have to agree.
Chris: 10,000 years is a nanosecond on the cosmic scale, but in terms of human evolution, I think it's a mighty long stagnation. Let us not confuse prosperity with evolution.
Jim: I'd say more on a down slope as evidenced by the relatively recent introduction of reality TV and Donald Trump.
Chris: Don’t forget Texas.
Jim: Ouch.
Chris: So what are we talking about here? Seems like a bunch of malarkey…I guess it boils down to the idea that we are living at the pinnacle of man…surely there are more Einsteins and Tesslas waiting to be born, but this is as good as it gets…it is high noon and Lee Van Cleef is waiting with a six-shooter. Cue the Ennio Morricone score…
Read more...
Jim: Oh, you want to get heavy? Humanism? More like "creationism."
Chris: No no, let me be clear that I'm not an Evolution denier, we're not in Kansas...I mean humanism defined as humanitarian concerns and efforts...human intervention in events that could be considered "natural selection". Surely such a topic is not beyond the grasp of pseudo-intellectuals such as ourselves. Or perhaps we're more suited to ponder about how badly that beard smelled after two days with sea turtles.
Jim: I'm from San Antonio my friend...I know from sweat...But humans are part of the natural selection process...we are merely animals.
Chris: Making no judgment, my contention is that evolution has essentially ceased at the hands of humanism...or for the sake of "humanity" in the emotive sense...
Africa is an example...and I don't mean to make this about color (I'm not Don Zaluchi from 'The Godfather'; "I don't want it near schools -- I don't want it sold to children! That's an infamia. In my city, we would keep the traffic in the dark people -- the colored. They're animals anyway, so let them lose their souls...") ...but if people can not rise above poverty on their own, then by natural selection and their inability to adapt to their environment or survive their condition, they should NOT be contributing their genes to future generations.
That's the way evolution works: the weak die, the strong proliferate…black, white, or brown…But through human intervention and outreach efforts, we are prolonging and proliferating the lives of people who would otherwise NATURALLY die and as a result their genes are removed from the gene pool.
Jim: But that assumes that there are no man made external forces bearing down to squelch that, though evolution may allow a species to adapt. So taking Africa, man-made (western) economies and biases have contributed to the struggle of these people ... I bet you Darwin didn't factor that in…
Chris: But it's survival of the fittest, no? Surely animals compete with other animals, they don't coexist peacefully. Ok, forget Africa, it was just a starting point and what sparked my interest in this topic…medical advances prolong life and drain society as well, even for the economically advantaged...we pass on genes that without human intellect and innovation would not be present...vaccines, medical procedures, et al, that save lives that otherwise would succumb to their inherent "weaknesses." Between you, me, and Justin Timberlake, one of us should have died by the age of 12...god willing...
Jim: He brought sexy back, give the little monkey his due. So maybe Darwin theorized only about the animal kingdom?
Chris: Prides of lions compete with one another, etc, etc...not much different from economic subjugation or man waging war.
Jim: So maybe man is flawed with a gene to self actualize and feel empathy.
Chris: In this sense, humanism, or what you call empathy, is in direct conflict with--is diametrically opposed to-- Darwinism…our intellect, our ethics oppose evolution. I’m not judging humanism…I’m saying we have come to the end of the line for human advancement.
Jim: Maybe on the surface, but can you really fool mother nature? She always finds a way to compensate...e.g., mutated virus that is unaffected by vaccines.
Chris: Yes that will happen...but then man steps in and changes the natural course…let’s use the Big Easy as an example… Economically disadvantaged people with the inability to adapt on their own without government intervention...humanity thwarting natural selection.
Jim: How the hell is a flood affecting mostly poor people natural selection ?
Chris: Their environment was disrupted...left to their own devices many more would have died...fewer people remain to contribute to the gene pool.
Jim: There are quite a few smart people who don't have money to live on high ground (and therefore adapt), I don't want to kill off those smart people.
Chris: yes, it's called the eastern seaboard...now now, I shouldn't be so provincial...I'm sure there are plenty of smart southerners Jimbino...Anyway, it’s not an economic issue so much as an issue of meritocracy. The smart and industrious should ideally rise above their economic origins. Money does not necessarily correlate to ideal human traits or good stock…look at the British Royal Family for chrissakes…bunch of inbred pod-people…money only buys better health and improves the odds of perpetuation.
I guess what makes it an interesting topic is that in this country evolution is contested by the radical religious right and the under-educated (and the politicians who prey on them) buy into the creationist fervor...on the left you have a more objective view of evolution that is in direct conflict with the socialist ideal that the government is responsible for the well-being of its citizens…How does one reconcile the two?
Jim: I’ll give YOU an example…A mother bear sees her cub flailing in danger of drowning, instead of jumping in, she knocks a branch into the river for her cub to grab hold of ... under your thinking, there should be no external intervention to save lives...if your genes don't allow you on your own to survive a perilous situation, then "f" you
Chris: That's one smart mama bear...and with opposable thumbs no less...but to address your example: no, not individually...on a mass scale, yes...animals do not have the capacity to think outside of their herd or beyond their nuclear "family”…and your example involves the same gene pool…a bear protecting its own genes in the form of its offspring. Only humans protect the genes of others.
Jim: Very good distinction but what about the case of animals that care for another’s young?...monkeys are know to do that .
Chris: Let’s not go down a rabbit hole…I’m not impugning humanism...evolution is not a conscious process...but we are consciously eschewing it...2 BILLION people lack ready access to potable water...think about that...and through intervention these people not only survive but thrive...and on that basis poverty survives...instead of thwarting it, our efforts feed poverty. The alternative--to let them die--is ethically deplorable...so what do we do?
Jim: So, what you are saying is that if humans are animals subject to the forces of natural selection but man is able to revise, adapt or amend those forces, then the theory of natural selection is bunk?
Chris: It has become obsolete to the human condition…and I don't pretend for a moment that I'm not riding the coattails of much greater men than myself...put me in the middle of the woods and I'd be weeping as soon as the sun went down…as we say, being born in America is like winning the lottery.
Jim: Nonsense!! Man's brain grew because of the evolutionary process...the inventions or interventions of man are part of the process...who's to say that compassion was not the next major step of evolution that leads to ...?
Chris: Man has "improved" his situation through technology and knowledge...but have we evolved much in the past 10,000 years? Caligula appointed his horse a senator two thousand years ago…two millenia later men are having their colons perforated by horses…nothing has changed.
Jim: Other than the fact that most people smell better and crap indoors, I have to agree.
Chris: 10,000 years is a nanosecond on the cosmic scale, but in terms of human evolution, I think it's a mighty long stagnation. Let us not confuse prosperity with evolution.
Jim: I'd say more on a down slope as evidenced by the relatively recent introduction of reality TV and Donald Trump.
Chris: Don’t forget Texas.
Jim: Ouch.
Chris: So what are we talking about here? Seems like a bunch of malarkey…I guess it boils down to the idea that we are living at the pinnacle of man…surely there are more Einsteins and Tesslas waiting to be born, but this is as good as it gets…it is high noon and Lee Van Cleef is waiting with a six-shooter. Cue the Ennio Morricone score…
