- Your evolutionary theory is silly. You have the time scale all wrong. There is no significant genetic difference between societies. The genetic differencesMessage 1 of 111 , Nov 12, 2012View SourceYour evolutionary theory is silly. You have the time scale all wrong. There is no significant genetic difference between societies. The genetic differences between individuals of an ostensible group is greater than ostensible differences between groups. To big atopic to review. Try caveli-sforzzi check spelling. Not really a whole lot of genetic difference during last 60000 years.Whether all societies have recognized human rights doesn't matter at all to question of natural rights. The first issue is what does it mean to be human - in its fullest sense. When we figure out that then we can more fully figure out what rights and obligations naturally flow from our true nature.Jefferson obviously thought that part being fully human was being happy.
On Nov 12, 2012, at 4:30 PM, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@...> wrote:
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John David Kromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:
> Roy, you have created such a narrow view of human rights that I must dissent.
"Narrow"? How so? Given that a person's rights can only be violated by other people, I see no other logical alternative.
> And no wonder Walt,
> prefers to avoid the concept of "natural" human rights and prefers what
> used to be considered the "soviet model" human rights are that which government decides they are.
The ultimate basis for that government decision is natural rights.
> Now, in a truly free, democratice and
> transparent society that may get us eventually to something close to
> "natural human rights".
Natural human rights are the rights societies would implement if they knew all they needed to know, and could discern all its relevant implications. A key criterion of natural rights, then, is that they can't logically conflict.
> I start from a different place - "human". What is the nature of being
> "human"? When figure out that then we sort out the rights (and
> obligations) that would "naturally flow" -
That's where I'm coming from. We have rights -- they are characteristic of all known societies -- because our evolutionary history put them there: they enhance human reproductive success. IMO the most likely mechanism for this enhancement is inter-society competition: societies where people have rights out-compete, defeat, and exterminate societies where they don't. The effect of the defeat and extermination of one's society on one's genes' reproductive success, even if one survives personally, is worse than personal extinction. This sets up a selection pressure favoring rights not only as a societal characteristic, but as a genetic one.
> yes, life, liberty, property
All of which are free of logical conflict, and have a clear beneficial effect on a society's ability to compete, which is why all known societies have recognized them in some degree.
> but also including but not limited to work, education, basic health care, leisure both while we can work and when we can't, family, exposure to the
> arts, as well as freedom from all sorts of things, and the right to
> sufficient land to cultivate one's garden and provide for one's self and
> family, all constrained and supported by the obligations of being human.
Now things become less clear. Many societies have not recognized various of these "rights," and the reason is clear: they potentially conflict with one or more of the first three more basic rights, or with each other, or even with themselves. A "right" to leisure can only be secured at the expense of someone else's leisure. If I have a "right to family," someone else has no right not to be in my family. Etc.
> It could be that having a good government is also a basic human right.
Well, good government is implied by the effective recognition and security of rights, which, as Jefferson reminded us, is government's job.
-- Roy Langston
- JDK, Those who survive are presumably the fittest to survive for the fittest just describes those who have survived. With regard to your last sentence –Message 111 of 111 , Nov 23, 2012View SourceJDK,Those who survive are presumably the fittest to survive for the "fittest" just describes those who have survived.With regard to your last sentence – Stalin got there first.Harry
********************The Alumni GroupThe Henry George Schoolof Los AngelesTujunga CA 90243(818) 352-4141********************
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 9:54 AM, JDKromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:Evolution is not really: the survival of the "fittest" It is just survival of that which survives. Evolution is a way of describing the process of how variation within a population will lead to variation eventually of species. There are plenty of genes along for the ride which are not particularly "the fittest".Yes the survival of the two apostolic lungs of Christianity (Catholics and the Eastern church) despite its massive weakness and in fact embracement of weakness of the god who becomes human and is rejected and put to death is a puzzle and crazy on its face. It drove Nietzsche crazy (well that and syphillus drove him crazy). It also drove the communists crazy too. Massive defense? How many tanks does the church have?Jdk
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 16, 2012, at 11:26 PM, "mattbieker" <agrarian.justice@...> wrote:
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John David Kromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 12:01 PM, mattbieker <agrarian.justice@...
> > wrote:
> > The catholic church has one real function: serving the clergy. When it
> > was able to, it dominated a large swath of the earth in an imperial form.
> > It can't now, so it fills out whatever niches it can; but the main thing is
> > ensuring that members of clergy don't have to go and get real jobs.
> Thanks for sharing this one too. I'm getting better picture of Land Cafe.
> It really is best if we get it all out in the open. It's for the same
> reason I won't hide my background.
> This isn't a cocktail party, where we need to avoid the topic for
> charitable purposes - or at least for the purposes of not interfering with
> mutual love of beer or gin or your choice. I'd still have a beer in
> Baltimore (once), with any of you clowns.
*shrugs* Whatever one thinks of Roy's evolutionary basis for morals, I think there's fairly clearly a pseudo-evolutionary basis for ideas and institutions. Dawkins made this case in his "The Selfish Gene." Basically, ideas are duplicated, with variation, in the minds of individuals; from there, it's survival of the fittest. The conceptual equivalent to a gene being a "meme." Why do religious institutions survive despite being a load of crap that generally act as a drain on society? They're very advanced critters in the world of memes; they've evolved a whole host of defenses to offset their massive weaknesses, such as the notion that it's not polite or even acceptable to question a man's faith, or that without beliefs in these memes, we have no basis for social behavior.
Catholicism isn't necessarily the most egregious case of this sort of memetic virus (that has to go to Scientology, don't you think?), but that's what it is, and all the bottom line of them all is the same: enrichment (both financial as well as emotional) of clergy. Still and all, its senseless and generally ad-hoc opposition to contraception, even in the light of AIDS epidemics, is horrible enough in and of itself to give me a fairly thoroughgoing distaste for it in particular, and I'd pretty much rather not see any meme I deem useful or good to be mixed up with it.
Personally, I think one of the best parts of online discussion is that there's less tendency to hold back one's beliefs; many lament this, saying that the internet just makes everyone rude because they don't fear social repercussions, but I believe there's inherent value there, as it allows for a more rapid evolution of memes. The noise and nastiness comes with the territory, and I think people will just eventually find a new normal.
One common Christian meme is certainly right though: hate the sin, and not the sinner. I agree, I'd have a beer with any of you. It's worth making a conscious effort not to take attacks against our beliefs too personally, because it turns out everyone tends to be wrong quite often.