Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: FT

Expand Messages
  • roy_langston
    ... OTC, your claim that it is silly is pointless, infantile trolling. My theory is similar to other theories that have been gaining respect in evolutionary
    Message 1 of 111 , Nov 12, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, JDKromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:

      > Your evolutionary theory is silly.

      OTC, your claim that it is silly is pointless, infantile trolling. My theory is similar to other theories that have been gaining respect in evolutionary psychology.

      > You have the time scale all wrong.

      No, I do not, and your claim is outrageous and dishonest given that I did not even mention a time scale.

      > There is no significant genetic difference between societies.

      Yes, there most certainly is.

      > The genetic differences between individuals of an ostensible group is greater than ostensible differences between groups.

      So what? Evolution works on a time scale where very small differences in gene frequency in different populations are magnified over time by selection pressure, leading to speciation.

      > To big atopic to review.

      Especially for someone who clearly knows nothing whatever about it.

      > Try caveli-sforzzi check spelling.

      Cavali-Sforza. I'm familiar with his work. It has very little relevance to what I am talking about, as it is based on statistical measures of relatedness, migrations, and population branching history.

      > Not really a whole lot of genetic difference during last 60000 years.

      How much genetic difference do you erroneously imagine is required to create a predisposition to respect rights? That very difference may have been one of the factors that led to our ancestors' displacement of the neanderthals at roughly that time.

      > Whether all societies have recognized human rights doesn't matter at all to question of natural rights.

      Yes, it does.

      > The first issue is what does it mean to be human - in its fullest sense.

      Invoking the "fullest" sense is clearly just a way of making the meaning of "human" a matter of opinion.

      > When we figure out that then we can more fully figure out what rights and obligations naturally flow from our true nature.

      Our true nature is still a work in progress. Anthropology, evolutionary psychology, economics, and other disciplines are all still working out what rights best suit our biological identity. But evolution points to a first approximation: the ones we have most consistently had.

      > Jefferson obviously thought that part being fully human was being happy.

      No, _pursuing_ happiness. Lots of people are unhappy, but pretty much everyone tries to increase their level of happiness.

      -- Roy Langston
    • Harry Pollard
      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, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        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 – Stalin got there first.

        Harry

        ********************
        The Alumni Group 
        The Henry George School
        of Los Angeles
        Tujunga   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.
        >
        > JDK

        *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.


      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.