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

RE: [existlist] Larmark & Darwin

Expand Messages
  • Eduard Alf
    Bill, Actually the most human act of all is to all one s neurons to be happy. Attorney General Ashcroft ... From: Bill Harris
    Message 1 of 13 , May 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Bill,

      Actually the most human act of all is to all one's neurons to be happy.

      Attorney General Ashcroft
      -----Original Message-----
      From: Bill Harris [mailto:valleywestdental@...]
      Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 10:02 AM
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [existlist] Larmark & Darwin


      tHANK YOU , jUDITH, WELL PUT. bILL*/*/
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: judith@...
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 8:39 PM
      Subject: Re: [existlist] Larmark & Darwin


      Dear Bill

      Playing with big ideas is a brainsport that has kept us alive and
      kicking
      and may even be essential to human evolution - therefore we cannot not
      be
      existentialists. However, at the end of the day, you are only one being
      in a
      reality of many beings. The weight of the world/humanhind does not rest
      upon
      your shoulders alone; you are free to just be. Indeed the most humane
      act of
      all is to allow oneself to be happy.

      Hope that helps.

      Regards, Judith.

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Bill Harris" <valleywestdental@...>
      To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 4:36 AM
      Subject: Re: [existlist] Larmark & Darwin


      > Judith, any time. Glad to hear you are happy. What more can one ask?
      You
      can join Edwards nooisphere of happy neurons. Your point no.3 is really
      a
      fine statement and on ocassion I visit that happy place. I get there
      when I
      am presented with some wonderful new mystery of fact. Ex: the quarkstar
      or
      hypernova events.
      > I also understand your no. 4, so I just refuse to even consider the
      concept of a collective consciousness. To my final damnation I deny
      any
      shared sense of humanity. I refuse to swim in a pool of acid Bill
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: judith@...
      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 8:57 AM
      > Subject: Re: [existlist] Larmark & Darwin
      >
      >
      > Hi everyone!
      >
      > 1. I've made a big spello Lamarck only has one R
      >
      > 2. Equality as a construct is not what we are aiming for - as each
      > individual is really constantly searching out not for what will make
      him/her
      > whole, rather what he/she does not already have/know, a symbiotic
      > experiential expansion - a yearning to live more fully. And as for
      larger
      > socio-economic inequality, it is an undeniable ulcer on our shared
      sense
      of
      > humanity that causes unremitting disturbance to the conscience.
      Therefore it
      > would seem a sensible thing to target a baseline that does not
      offend
      our
      > moral decency (most people don't have any problem eating McDonalds
      or
      > feeding it to their kids on occasion, nor with the pubescent, starry
      eyed.,
      > milky toothed attendants who whizz around behind the counter, nor
      the
      ease
      > and economy of it all - McDonalds in fact projects the simple
      solution
      we
      > are hoping might exist for real-life issues of global poverty and
      widespread
      > human misery). At this point in time, an acceptable base-line does
      not
      > exist.
      >
      > 3. Re Lamark v Darwin, I think philosophy has defeated itself into
      one
      great
      > big anti-climax and if not that, then the only conclusion can be for
      each
      > individual to really enjoy being - to really live without allowing
      our
      > mental faculty to consume itself/ourselves
      >
      > 4. My new conclusion is that the collective conscious is now
      simultaneously
      > converging (into one) and diverging (toward greater inclusiveness).
      >
      > Thanks to everyone for helping me arrive at this point.
      >
      > jml.
      >
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: "james tan" <tyjfk@...>
      > To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
      > Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 10:27 PM
      > Subject: Re: [existlist] Larmark & Darwin
      >
      >
      > >
      > > hi judith,
      > >
      > > im not familiar with larmark (are u actually referring to jean
      lamarck?),
      > > although i find darwin interesting. jim was saying how society
      could
      have
      > > been better in terms of helping the less fortunate?, but i am not
      sure
      > what
      > > is his specific blueprint for that kind of social progress. while
      i
      agree
      > > with his ideal, i was saying that such ideal has to be realistic.
      for
      > > example, it is just not feasible for a mcdonald staff to expect a
      standard
      > > of living beyond what their qualification could entail, that the
      country
      > > does not run on charity. while it is nice to have charity, i was
      > cautioning
      > > that such charity cannot be taken for granted. communism (actually
      i
      dont
      > > read into political and economic theories) attempted to run on the
      idea
      > that
      > > the wealth of the nation should be equally distributed among all
      > regardless
      > > of status, so that ur mcdonald boy may get as much as a doctor. if
      this is
      > > the case, then the question is why should anyone work to become a
      doctor
      > > when they get the same remuneration at the end of the day? there
      is so
      > much
      > > more training and personal sacrifice involved before one is fully
      licensed
      > > to practise medicine on human being. what then is the motivation?
      i
      > contend
      > > that remuneration is a operationalized measure of one's ability to
      > > contribute to an organisation or society. i am not saying that the
      job
      of
      > a
      > > mcdonald staff is unimportant, but compared to a doctor, there are
      many
      > many
      > > more people readily available who can fit the job of a mcdonald
      server.
      > the
      > > mcdonald boy himself should know that he cannot expect a doctor's
      pay,
      and
      > > if he is not contented with the peanut pay, then perhaps he should
      do
      > > something about it. one thing that has to be beared in mind is
      that no
      > > matter how democratic a country is, she does not owe one a living.
      one
      can
      > > dream about a certain standard of living, but one must know that
      one
      has
      > to
      > > fight for it oneself. thomas malthus observed that the world's
      food
      supply
      > > (or generally resources, including woods, water, oil, etc)
      increase
      > > arithmetically, whereas the human population tended to increase
      > > geometrically. as such there is always fierce competition among
      humans
      for
      > > those limited food supply (which can be translated into goods and
      > services,
      > > which in turn could be translated into money). another fact of
      life
      that
      > > darwin observed: we are not born equal, there are individual
      differences,
      > > and some of which are more conducive to survival. this results in
      the
      > > survival of the fittest. jim was thinking that perhaps, the fitter
      could
      > > help the less fit. of course, it could have. but, at what expense
      to
      the
      > > fitter? at his own expense? if that is the case, chances are, he
      will
      not
      > do
      > > so, for why should he? so to be labelled as "compassionate"? but
      what
      is
      > the
      > > worth of one kilogram of "compassionate"? can it be eaten? does it
      satisfy
      > > the stomach or groin? mother theresa is one of those very rare
      human
      who
      > > gave her life to the less fortunate; the vast majority of the
      human
      being
      > is
      > > only too preoccupied with the competition. man is selfish, and man
      is
      > never
      > > satisfied. if i have ten thousand, i look forward to hundred
      thousand;
      if
      > i
      > > have that, i look to a million; there is always room for one's
      > > 'improvement'. for others less fortunate? am i my brother's
      keeper?
      why i
      > > should i give away what i have worked hard for? why can't he work
      hard
      > > himself for himself? well, the survival of the fittest. if the boy
      is
      fit,
      > > he will know how to use the money, little as it may be, to upgrade
      himself
      > > in business venture or fees for higher education over the years.
      if
      the
      > boy
      > > is not fit, let him serve mcdonald forever, and forget about
      complaining,
      > > for it will be useless. if society were to evolve, it simply means
      that
      > the
      > > fit gets more share of the wealth, that is all. for the fit
      deserves
      to be
      > > rewarded, the less fit are simply the one who would not, or could
      not,
      > take
      > > care of themselves better in terms of staying up with the
      competition.
      > then
      > > should they be left behind in terms of standard of living? but the
      > question
      > > assumes as if there is someone up there to decide; there isn't
      such a
      > > person. as a matter of fact, it is all decided by market force of
      demand
      > and
      > > supply, of the reality of scarcity of resources. the fit is the
      one
      who
      > > knows what are the demands (or may even have created those
      demands)
      and
      > have
      > > the resources to supply them. iq and eq are what make a adaptive
      person
      > > getting what he wants. some end up rich, some poor, some average,
      some
      in
      > > prison, some mere day to day surviving. well, to each their own.
      some
      live
      > > well, and it is not by accident that they should live well. some
      don't,
      > and
      > > it is not accidental either. some die, and it is best that they
      should
      > die.
      > > some businesses prosper, some go into bankcruptcy. but no man is
      born
      with
      > > an instinct for his own degradation, although no man is born equal
      in
      his
      > > ability to achieve excellence that is so valued by society, and
      rightly,
      > for
      > > society as a whole evolve, and the weaker part may hamper its
      ability
      to
      > > compete in an international arena for those scarce resources.
      > >
      > > james.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > From: "Judith Michelle Lee" <judith@...>
      > > Reply-To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > > To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
      > > Subject: [existlist] Larmark & Darwin
      > > Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 00:06:48 +1000
      > >
      > > Dear James
      > >
      > > I have just joined this mailgroup for a trial of this internet
      chat
      > > business....
      > >
      > > Anyhow, my purpose for writing is to help you with some more
      insight
      into
      > > this rich/poor person debate. To some extent your existential
      dilemma
      in
      > > this case is not so much about individual decision but rather
      plain
      logic.
      > > By this I mean that darwinism is no longer accepted as the only
      truth.
      > Would
      > > you not agree that in reality, and especially in modern society,
      what
      is
      > > emerging is a more a serendipitous case of simultaneous Larmarkian
      and
      > > Darwinian evolution - in many instances, it is the environment
      that
      will
      > > select. Stemming from this, an individual's actions to promote
      diversity
      > > represents a randomly directed yet logical action to promote
      his/her
      own
      > > future survival. Moreover, with the way modern science is going,
      this
      can
      > be
      > > evaluated from the viewpoint of both cultural diversity and
      ecological
      > > diversity.
      > >
      > > I still have to think about how all of this ties in with existence
      v
      > > ultimate death - in any case, I think any reference to Darwinism
      must
      be
      > > seen in a this re-emerging perspective.
      > >
      > > jml.
      > >
      > >
      > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > From: "james tan" <tyjfk@...>
      > > To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
      > > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 5:01 PM
      > > Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: e: HOW MUCH WORK MUST YOU DO TO EARN
      6
      > > McNUGGETS?
      > >
      > >
      > > >
      > > > jim,
      > > >
      > > > i see what u mean when u say 'what could be'.
      > > >
      > > > i guess i am more a pragmatist than a existentialist. there are
      some
      > > ground
      > > > rules that i guess will remain unchanged forever. i have never
      believed
      > > in
      > > > equality. some are born rich, some are born poor, and as
      someone in
      the
      > > list
      > > > pointed out, the poor has a harder time to succeed in life.
      although it
      > > is
      > > > not impossible that they succeed, it is less smooth sailing;
      this
      is a
      > > fact
      > > > of life. some are born more intelligent, some much less so; as
      a
      > result,
      > > the
      > > > very bright ended up in top universities, get very well paying
      career
      > in
      > > big
      > > > company, get equally bright girl to marry, and ended up in a
      big
      > > luxurious
      > >
      > > > house in no time, whereas u see all kinds of dramas in human
      tradegy in
      > > the
      > > > much less fortunate in terms of wealth or ability. the rule
      that
      will
      > not
      > > > change is the rule of demand and supply, the survival of the
      fittest.
      > > > another rule of human nature: man is selfish. the rich COULD
      HAVE
      > > contribute
      > > > more to the help of the poor. but is it unreasonable if they
      choose
      not
      > > to?
      > > > it is really up to the individual's freedom. but man is
      selfish.
      > > >
      > > > u said:
      > > > "It's irrational to be part of a society if you don't believe
      it is
      a
      > > > good thing. By partaking in it, one obviously perceives a
      benefit.
      At
      > > > that point the individual has a responsibility to it and
      society
      > > > should (and does) force some level of obligation to serve."
      > > >
      > > > i tend to see that, whether one like it or not, one is always
      part
      of a
      > > > society. one can migrate, of course (but it is only the rich
      and
      > educated
      > > > who has the ability to migrate, who are welcomed by the
      receiving
      > > country).
      > > > the poor, the down and out of society is 'condemned' to belong
      to
      that
      > > > society, and whether there is benefit or not, they stick to it,
      if
      > > > helplessly. sure there is benefit, and it is precisely because
      there is
      > > that
      > > > the rich get richer, the poorer still surviving. obligation to
      serve?
      > > what
      > > > and how do u precisely mean by this? the rich can say they are
      already
      > > > contributing via income tax. if they have given 15% of their
      income
      to
      > > the
      > > > tax department, nothing except their conscience oblige them to
      share
      > the
      > > > other 85% - it is theirs, fully. most folks may work their
      whole
      life
      > > what
      > > > these people earn in a week, but still what compel them to
      share
      their
      > > > wealth? that they 'should' try to be equal with others in the
      society
      > in
      > > > wealth? that inequality is no good? the thing is, this are the
      kind
      of
      > > > ideals and morals u cannot force on others, such kind of things
      are
      > > beyond
      > > > anyone's control. u may be able to speak for yourself, but not
      for
      > > others.
      > > > man is selfish. and i am not so sure if there is such a thing
      as
      > > > self-determination of a society. there are things we can
      control,
      there
      > > are
      > > > things we cannot control. u can even write on a steel plate
      taht
      list
      > > down
      > > > all the values that u hope all people in the society will
      follow,
      that
      > > will
      > > > transcent the animal instinct in all of us of eat or be eaten,
      but
      it
      > is
      > > > easier engraved on the steel plate than getting it accepted in
      the
      > heart
      > > of
      > > > other people. u see, man is selfish by nature. there COULD BE
      some
      > > > altruistic individuals here and there, but statistically, they
      are
      > > > insignificant. 'what is' is empirically more founded than the
      > idealistic
      > > > 'what could be', and as such discussion can be more fruitful if
      we
      deal
      > > our
      > > > reasoning based on such well founded facts.
      > > >
      > > > u said:
      > > > "the talents endowed to us by nature could be put to far
      > > > better use enabling the entire race as opposed to the few. "
      > > >
      > > > well, the real question over here is not whether we could do
      that,
      but
      > > > whether we want to do that. it is not a question of ability,
      but
      > > motivation.
      > > >
      > > > james.
      > > >
      > > > From: "clickhereforinsignificance" <livewild@...>
      > > > Reply-To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > > > Subject: [existlist] Re: e: HOW MUCH WORK MUST YOU DO TO EARN 6
      > > McNUGGETS?
      > > > Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 06:00:38 -0000
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > James,
      > > >
      > > > I am not arguing against personal accountability as you seem to
      be
      > > > suggesting, nor to get the government to "dump a lump of
      money".
      Only
      > > > that if we observe nature, equality does not seem to be the
      order
      of
      > > > the things. Eat or eaten is more in favour.
      > > >
      > > > However, the talents endowed to us by nature could be put to
      far
      > > > better use enabling the entire race as opposed to the few. It's
      not
      a
      > > > matter of guilt as you keep focusing on.... it's a matter of
      reason.
      > > > It's irrational to be part of a society if you don't believe it
      is
      a
      > > > good thing. By partaking in it, one obviously perceives a
      benefit.
      At
      > > > that point the individual has a responsibility to it and
      society
      > > > should (and does) force some level of obligation to serve it.
      > > >
      > > > We can choose to build a society that is above the existing
      order,
      or
      > > > just be another example of one. Being part of an Existentialist
      group
      > > > I would think you of all people would understand the idea of
      self
      > > > determination of a society as well as an individual.
      > > >
      > > > You spend your time arguing statements that we both know as
      "What
      is".
      > > >
      > > > What I argue is what could be.
      > > >
      > > > (J.Aiden)
      > > >
      > > > -------------------------------------
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > --- In existlist@y..., "james tan" <tyjfk@h...> wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > jim,
      > > > >
      > > > > u said:
      > > > > "I might mention that they make far less money than a
      baseball
      > > > player,
      > > > > lawyer, or a doctor might... yet I suspect the cognitive
      factor
      you
      > > > speak of
      > > > > is much higher. Yet they still choose that field. Curious."
      > > > >
      > > > > different man is at different stage of needs. for some,
      according
      > > > to maslow,
      > > > > they are at the so-called self-actualising stage, ie, to
      fulfil
      > > > their
      > > > > potential. some are at a 'lower' stage, such as getting the
      means
      > > > to
      > > > > survival, shelter, social status, sex, etc, all of which
      could
      be
      > > > procured
      > > > > if one has money.
      > > > >
      > > > > u said:
      > > > > "but somehow a psychological state exists to share all goods
      > > > equally.
      > > > > What good is it worth saying we are equals if we don't share
      > > > equally."
      > > > >
      > > > > jim, u may have this particular problem, but i can assure u
      that
      a
      > > > lot of
      > > > > people, not least the rich ones, will be happy to keep their
      wealth
      > > > to
      > > > > themselves. there is no guilt that they are richer and some
      others
      > > > are much
      > > > > poorer, and that they don't share their wealth. no guilt, no
      > > > apology.
      > > > >
      > > > > u said:
      > > > > "People tend to think that the road to freedom has someone
      been
      > > > > achieved because someone wrote the declaration of
      independance
      but
      > > > we
      > > > > are equals only in words not substance yet."
      > > > >
      > > > > when someone wrote the declaration of independence, the
      freedom
      is
      > > > the
      > > > > rights as citizens for all, regardless of race, religion, or
      > > > whatnots.
      > > > > naurally, this is understood that the person behaves within
      > > > socially
      > > > > accepted norm of behaviours such as proscribed by the laws.
      u
      wish
      > > > for
      > > > > humans to be equal in substance? by that u mean things like
      > > > intelligence,
      > > > > ability, etc? let's face it: no two person has equal
      ability,
      > > > intelligence,
      > > > > etc. i play basketball, but i can't play as well as michael
      jordon;
      > > > i can do
      > > > > maths, but i know there are people who are much better than
      me
      just
      > > > as there
      > > > > are those worse off than me; i do some programming, but i
      cant
      > > > compare my
      > > > > achievement with what microsoft has done; besides leibniz
      and
      > > > newton, no one
      > > > > could cook up calculus prior to them; when einstein produced
      his
      > > > relativity
      > > > > theories, only a very few in the world at that time could
      > > > understand what he
      > > > > was saying. the fact of the matter is, there ARE differences
      in
      > > > individual
      > > > > in ability. there will always be inequality.
      > > > >
      > > > > u said:
      > > > > "There will always be differences, but those differences
      should
      not
      > > > > be in matters of human dignity or survival. Should the
      McDonalds
      > > > > employee be punished because they lack the cogitive
      abilities of
      the
      > > > > doctor? Please explain how they are less of a human being or
      have
      > > > > less of a right to happiness and life and how the doctor
      earned
      his
      > > > > cogitive skills. "
      > > > >
      > > > > let's face another fact of life: nothing is free in this
      world.
      u
      > > > want a cup
      > > > > of drink, u want a burger, u want to play a game at arcade,
      u
      want
      > > > a
      > > > > ferrari, u want a house, u work for it. unless u are left
      with a
      > > > heritage
      > > > > from ur dead grandpa or pa, u basically work for what u
      want.
      there
      > > > is no
      > > > > doubt that money is correlated to ur quality in life (at
      least
      the
      > > > material
      > > > > life, but we are all materials, aren't we? we get hungry and
      > > > thirsty, don't
      > > > > we?). when a corporation pays u, it is based on what u are
      able
      to
      > > > > contribute to the corporation; they dont give u the money
      for
      > > > nothing in
      > > > > return. and the amount of pay they give u is a measure of
      what
      they
      > > > think u
      > > > > could contribute in return, that is, ur worth as a efficient
      and
      > > > relevant
      > > > > worker, it is NOT a measure of ur worth as a human being. u
      get
      the
      > > > > difference? a doctor is much higher paid than a mcdonald
      staff,
      and
      > > > that is
      > > > > a measure of different wanted or demanded ability or skills,
      it
      is
      > > > not a
      > > > > measure of who is more human. is society then unfair to the
      > > > mcdonald staff?
      > > > > no, simply because the society is NOT obliged to give any
      money
      to
      > > > that
      > > > > individual; the society can give the infrastructure so that
      the
      > > > indivdidual
      > > > > can make a living. the ex- u.s. president kennedy said:
      think
      not
      > > > what
      > > > > society can do for u, but what u can do for the society. and
      the
      > > > trick is,
      > > > > when u contribute to society, the society has her way of
      repaying u
      > > > back,
      > > > > and proportionally. vice versa, a person who does not wish
      to
      work
      > > > and
      > > > > expect his life quality is still good is dreaming, is self
      > > > deceiving, is
      > > > > having unrealistic expectation. the only way to a better
      life is
      > > > not to
      > > > > expect it given to u, but to upgrade yourself in terms of
      skills,
      > > > expertise,
      > > > > or qualification.
      > > > >
      > > > > u said:
      > > > > "We focus too much on comforting the best... the
      > > > > best... the best... Wouldn't it be far more fair to comfort
      those
      > > > > that are lacking? "
      > > > >
      > > > > it is not by chance the best are where they are; they work
      for
      what
      > > > they
      > > > > have, and the system has her way of rewarding people
      according
      to
      > > > their
      > > > > talents and diligence. there is no doubt that those lacking
      need
      > > > help, but
      > > > > what kind of help do u have in mind? maybe subsidies on
      training
      > > > programs
      > > > > based on their income (the lower the income, the bigger the
      subsidy
      > > > by the
      > > > > govt), but to expect the govt to dump u a lump sum of money
      while u
      > > > idle
      > > > > away is not a long term solution. u don't help the poor man
      by
      > > > giving him
      > > > > fish, he will still be dependent on u forever; rather, u
      help
      him
      > > > by
      > > > > teaching him how to fish. we are not here in the business of
      > > > comforting, but
      > > > > getting the man independent and self responsible for his own
      > > > livelihood and
      > > > > upgrading.
      > > > >
      > > > > u said:
      > > > > "I know it's the status quo and since the collapse of the
      Soviet
      > > > > union quite in vogue capitalism... "
      > > > >
      > > > > it is not about communism or capitalism, it is about self
      > > > responsiblity for
      > > > > one's own prosperity.
      > > > >
      > > > > u said:
      > > > > " We are still a society of haves and have nots. Maybe
      someday
      the
      > > > > haves will realize that they didn't earn their abilities...
      it
      was
      > > > > endowed by nature. Regardless of talent... kindness and
      compassion
      > > > > are the traits every human being can participate in. This
      may
      all
      > > > > seem like wishful abstract thinking... "
      > > > >
      > > > > i must admit intelligence, to a large extent, is endowed by
      nature.
      > > > but the
      > > > > question now is: do we just sit back and lament that nature
      has
      > > > been unfair?
      > > > > and keep asking why society is so cruel? wouldn't it be
      better
      and
      > > > more
      > > > > productive instead to ask: how do i deal with this
      limitation
      that
      > > > i have?
      > > > > what can i do to overcome my lack? what ways to overcome my
      > > > poverty?
      > > > > research has shown that the successful in life is NOT
      necessarily
      > > > those who
      > > > > has scored higher in their iq; rather, it is people who has
      shown
      > > > great
      > > > > motivation and desire to work hard to get what they want in
      spite
      > > > of bad
      > > > > circumstances. yes, iq helps, but u don't need the iq of an
      > > > einstein to
      > > > > succeed in life. i believe the american society is one based
      on
      > > > meritocracy,
      > > > > and there are opportunities to climb up the social ladder,
      ie,
      if
      > > > one BOTHER
      > > > > to climb in the first place. instead of complaining mcdonald
      pays
      > > > low (with
      > > > > ur qualification, WHAT DO U EXPECT?), why not think of
      mcdonald
      as
      > > > a
      > > > > opportunity and stepping stone to something else higher?
      > > > >
      > > > > james.
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > From: "clickhereforinsignificance" <livewild@h...>
      > > > > Reply-To: existlist@y...
      > > > > To: existlist@y...
      > > > > Subject: [existlist] Re: HOW MUCH WORK MUST YOU DO TO EARN 6
      > > > McNUGGETS?
      > > > > Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 16:59:52 -0000
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > James,
      > > > >
      > > > > you said that....
      > > > >
      > > > > " nobody is forcing nobody to work as a mcdonald staff"
      > > > >
      > > > > Nobody forces a nuclear physicist to become one either. I
      might
      > > > > mention that they make far less money than a baseball
      player,
      > > > lawyer,
      > > > > or a doctor might... yet I suspect the cognitive factor you
      speak of
      > > > > is much higher. Yet they still choose that field. Curious.
      > > > >
      > > > > Pure capitalism will always be flawed because greed tends
      to
      be
      > > > the
      > > > > motivating factor to achieve, not the welfare of your fellow
      human
      > > > > being. Getting ahead in life is the objective. Ahead of
      what?
      Each
      > > > > other?
      > > > >
      > > > > That being said.. I'm not a communist or socialist
      either. I
      > > > just
      > > > > haven't found a system that I like yet. I like to think the
      ideal
      > > > > system is one based on capitalistic supply/demand and
      freedoms....
      > > > > but somehow a psychological state exists to share all goods
      equally.
      > > > > What good is it worth saying we are equals if we don't share
      > > > equally.
      > > > > People tend to think that the road to freedom has someone
      been
      > > > > achieved because someone wrote the declaration of
      independance
      but
      > > > we
      > > > > are equals only in words not substance yet.
      > > > >
      > > > > There will always be differences, but those differences
      should
      > > > not
      > > > > be in matters of human dignity or survival. Should the
      McDonalds
      > > > > employee be punished because they lack the cogitive
      abilities of
      the
      > > > > doctor? Please explain how they are less of a human being or
      have
      > > > > less of a right to happiness and life and how the doctor
      earned
      his
      > > > > cogitive skills. That the doctor is more useful to society
      at
      large
      > > > > is only a valid statement if there are a shortage of
      doctors. In
      a
      > > > > system where education and knowledge is highly regarded this
      is
      not
      > > > > an issue. Our system artificially limits the number of
      doctors
      (or
      > > > > baseball players) only by selecting the best not because we
      couldn't
      > > > > have more.
      > > > >
      > > > > Were it otherwise... the question arises would I want
      to be
      > > > > treated by a second rate doctor or watch a peewee baseball
      game.
      If
      > > > > it meant living in a society of equals...... I would not
      even
      blink
      > > > > at the thought. We focus too much on comforting the best...
      the
      > > > > best... the best... Wouldn't it be far more fair to comfort
      those
      > > > > that are lacking? OF course the Nazi took the approach that
      they
      > > > > should be exterminated because they are a burden on society.
      > > > >
      > > > > I know it's the status quo and since the collapse of the
      Soviet
      > > > > union quite in vogue capitalism... but doesn't it seem as
      barbaric
      > > > as
      > > > > men of old. Big stick take all. Excuse the cliche, but I've
      always
      > > > > believed a chain is only as good as its weakest link?
      > > > >
      > > > > We are still a society of haves and have nots. Maybe
      someday
      the
      > > > > haves will realize that they didn't earn their abilities...
      it
      was
      > > > > endowed by nature. Regardless of talent... kindness and
      compassion
      > > > > are the traits every human being can participate in. This
      may
      all
      > > > > seem like wishful abstract thinking... but virus, bacteria
      and
      > > > > rodents do not worry about such thoughts.
      > > > >
      > > > > ....but then again perhaps thats all we still are.
      > > > >
      > > > > (J.Aiden)
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      _________________________________________________________________
      > > > > Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device:
      > > > http://mobile.msn.com
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      _________________________________________________________________
      > > > MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
      > > > http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
      > > > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
      > > >
      > > > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
      > > > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > > >
      > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > _________________________________________________________________
      > > Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger:
      http://messenger.msn.com
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
      > > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
      > >
      > > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
      > > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > >
      > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
      > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
      >
      > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
      > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >
      > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
      > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
      >
      > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
      > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >



      Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
      ADVERTISEMENT




      Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
      (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)

      TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
      existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


      Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
      ADVERTISEMENT




      Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
      (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)

      TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
      existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.