One Man's Truth?

[gwnn]

Trust died when honesty became an out-moded concept.

how many thousands of years ago was that? 3?

[helene_t]

If the superior intellects "understand" that centralized power in the Presidency is the "truth", then isn't Mr. Kristol saying that it is proper to misinform the masses in order to accomplish this aim?

I suppose this is a rethoric question, but anyway: The authority of politicians is based on them being democratically chosen. So by manipulating the flow of information that is a prerequisite for the election process, they destroy their own mandate. As for "superior intellects": intellectuals are not a privileged cast in a democracy. They may have persuasive power but people are free to respect them, or not to respect them.

 

Could anyone imagine using Darwinism to convince someone to become a suicide bomber?

Actually, Mein Kampf is partly inspired by The Origin of Man. I think as soon as a particular book becomes accepted as authoritative, distorted versions of it will be used for all kind of purposes, good or evil.

 

 

Trust died when honesty became an out-moded concept.

how many thousands of years ago was that? 3?

I think it's in the millions, since lies have been observed in several other primate species. Presumably the ancestors we share with the chimps were dishonest as well.

 

However, the Internet has changed things. A former CIA director said "three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead", and this is more true now than ever, thanks to the (relatively) free flow of information.

[Al_U_Card]

Notice, I did say "out-moded".

 

Honesty and integrity used to be prized and useful traits. Despite often and severe backsliding during the history of humanity, people demonstrating the reliability of their virtue were revered. Over the last few decades, we have been more than inundated with a culture of getting things done, no matter what.

 

Hopefully our disgust and distrust will suffice to turn the tide back.

 

Notice, I did say "hopefully".

[jtfanclub]

Could anyone imagine using Darwinism to convince someone to become a suicide bomber?

Actually, Mein Kampf is partly inspired by The Origin of Man. I think as soon as a particular book becomes accepted as authoritative, distorted versions of it will be used for all kind of purposes, good or evil.

I'd argue that it isn't even a distortion.

 

Darwin argued that if you have two species occupying the same ecological niche, then eventually only one of those species will survive. It's not a stretch to go from there to saying that eventually, either Jews or Gentiles (which are both obviously occupying the same niche) are going to end up occupying the world, and that one killing the other off was a biological imperitive. If Darwin was right, well, in a few generations the earth would have more humans than it could support, and in a few generations more we'd all be starving to death. War becomes a necessity, and killing off people who aren't your immediate family/race/whatever becomes a biological necessity.

 

It's just that Darwin was wrong. Birds might have as many progeny as they are physicially able to do so, but humans don't. Given a setting where children are almost certain to grow into adulthood, humans only give birth at slightly under the replacement rate. If you cut off all immigration to the United States, the population would quickly stabilize and remain around 300 million, well, forever. The same is true in much of Europe. Humanity isn't controlled by survival of the fittest because we self-stabilize, at which point all genetic subgroups tend to survive.

 

But I think Hitler didn't misread Darwin at all. He just took the book to its logical conclusion.

[barmar]

If the superior intellects "understand" that centralized power in the Presidency is the "truth", then isn't Mr. Kristol saying that it is proper to misinform the masses in order to accomplish this aim?

I suppose this is a rethoric question, but anyway: The authority of politicians is based on them being democratically chosen. So by manipulating the flow of information that is a prerequisite for the election process, they destroy their own mandate.

Why should they care about a mandate? They think they're doing what's best for us. If they have to trick us into electing the right government, that's just a small part of it.

 

This actually works both ways, though. If there are any atheists in Congress, they almost certainly had to lie about it in order to get elected. Despite our constitutional separation of Church and State, it's nearly infeasible to get elected to a high office if you've admitted to not being religious.

 

Basically, politicians tell the populace what they want to hear during a campaign, and what they think they need to know once they're elected.

[jtfanclub]

This actually works both ways, though. If there are any atheists in Congress, they almost certainly had to lie about it in order to get elected. Despite our constitutional separation of Church and State, it's nearly infeasible to get elected to a high office if you've admitted to not being religious.

http://www.secular.org/news/pete_stark_070312.html

[mikeh]

Could anyone imagine using Darwinism to convince someone to become a suicide bomber?

Actually, Mein Kampf is partly inspired by The Origin of Man. I think as soon as a particular book becomes accepted as authoritative, distorted versions of it will be used for all kind of purposes, good or evil.

I'd argue that it isn't even a distortion.

 

Darwin argued that if you have two species occupying the same ecological niche, then eventually only one of those species will survive. It's not a stretch to go from there to saying that eventually, either Jews or Gentiles (which are both obviously occupying the same niche) are going to end up occupying the world, and that one killing the other off was a biological imperitive. If Darwin was right, well, in a few generations the earth would have more humans than it could support, and in a few generations more we'd all be starving to death. War becomes a necessity, and killing off people who aren't your immediate family/race/whatever becomes a biological necessity.

 

It's just that Darwin was wrong. Birds might have as many progeny as they are physicially able to do so, but humans don't. Given a setting where children are almost certain to grow into adulthood, humans only give birth at slightly under the replacement rate. If you cut off all immigration to the United States, the population would quickly stabilize and remain around 300 million, well, forever. The same is true in much of Europe. Humanity isn't controlled by survival of the fittest because we self-stabilize, at which point all genetic subgroups tend to survive.

 

But I think Hitler didn't misread Darwin at all. He just took the book to its logical conclusion.

Hogwash

 

While I confess to not having read much of Darwin's work in the original, I have read a great deal of popularized evolutionary material, and I have seen no suggestion that any Darwinian evolutionist has every argued that the ethnic groupings within homo sapiens constitute separate species or even an internal divergence prepartory to a speciation event.

 

I have read Mein Kampf, many years ago, and I can't remember all of the claims/arguments Hitler made, but to the extent that he was a social darwinist (which Darwin wasn't), he was distorting the ideas of Darwin, not extending them logically.

 

Besides, and perhaps most importantly, only simplistic thinkers and populist politicians think that there are clearly defined, separate ethnic groupings in today's western world. Certainly, as tribal clashes in third world countries show, there remain a lot of divides, but on a global basis, the boundaries between groups is always fuzzy. A tiger and a lion can't interbreed, even tho they share common ancestors not too far back in paleontological time. But any member of any ethnic group can interbreed with a member of any other ethnic group, provided only that they have the physical capacity and are of opposite genders. Ask Tiger Woods to define himself in terms of ethnicity..... or any of the descendants of Thomas Jefferson and his slave mistress. Two of my closest friends are respectively of recent Scottish (Caucasian) and Jewish descent... are they competing against each other for reproductive success? Given that they are married to each other, my guess is that they are better viewed as collaborating :rolleyes:

 

Sorry to go off on you like this, but one of the most invidious arguments against evolution is that it logically leads to horrors such as ethnic cleansing, as we now describe genocide. It doesn't and we should never allow such suggestions to go without rebuttal.

[mike777]

Again I find discussing what evolution or Darwinism may bring the next 50 or 100 years more interesting than what it has the last few thousand. :rolleyes:

 

But maybe that is too scary and we cannot stand the truth or at the very least find more comfort in debating history. :)

 

For instance Charlie Rose tv show last night discussed whether this latest stem cell experiment means we have finally cloned humans in some technical sense of the word.

[Winstonm]

There seems also to be a fine line between intellectual and psychotic - I believe David Koresh also thought he understood the "deeper truth" that was unavailable to the masses.

 

Sometimes, it seems to me this claim of intellectualism is simply arrogance. I note Mr. Kristol speaks of the highly educated - I would surmise from this that Albert Einstein would not qualify for Mr. Kristol's private "truth" club.

 

The lure of believing your intellect superior is you can then scoff at anyone who says that you are wrong.

[kenberg]

If the superior intellects "understand" that centralized power in the Presidency is the "truth", then isn't Mr. Kristol saying that it is proper to misinform the masses in order to accomplish this aim?

I suppose this is a rethoric question, but anyway: The authority of politicians is based on them being democratically chosen. So by manipulating the flow of information that is a prerequisite for the election process, they destroy their own mandate.

Why should they care about a mandate? They think they're doing what's best for us. If they have to trick us into electing the right government, that's just a small part of it.

 

This actually works both ways, though. If there are any atheists in Congress, they almost certainly had to lie about it in order to get elected. Despite our constitutional separation of Church and State, it's nearly infeasible to get elected to a high office if you've admitted to not being religious.

 

Basically, politicians tell the populace what they want to hear during a campaign, and what they think they need to know once they're elected.

Back when I was in high school and college (that would be fifty years ago) I held a variety of jobs of the sort people hold in such circumstances. At that time applications regularly asked for your religion. I was always, for purposes of the application, a Presbyterian. It did not mean that I suddenly was reborn, it meant I wanted the job. As an adult, I don't do that.

 

It's a pity that forty and fifty year old politicians still need to pretend to beliefs that they may not hold in order to get elected. I expect it keeps a lot of talented people from running.

[Al_U_Card]

This is the fundamental flaw with the elective process.

 

People that want to run for office are exactly the people who are subject to the egotistical tendencies that cause leaders to err from the influence of power and the power-brokers.

 

Imagine if, like jury duty, an election resulted in a random group of "representative" people being "elected" to represent the "majority" positions of the electorate.

 

The ultimate democracy. Not that hard to conceive of in a wired world and the decision making process would get easier as the elected "officials" would already represent accurately the electorate.

 

:wacko:

[Winstonm]

I have a better idea - how about an American Idol t.v. show for the next "King or Queen of America"? There would be better voter turnout and Diebold doesn't have a telephone voting machine yet.

[Gerben42]

Again I find discussing what evolution or Darwinism may bring the next 50 or 100 years more interesting than what it has the last few thousand.

 

Evolution won't do anything in two generations of man. Now as for the birds on Galapagos, evolution can actually be observed if you compare Darwin's time and the 21st century. Even since 1850 the Darwin finches have evolved.

 

Any changes in humanity will

 

* only affects those who can afford it

* is voluntary

 

Who wants to live... forever?

[Codo]

Hogwash

 

While I confess to not having read much of Darwin's work in the original, I have read a great deal of popularized evolutionary material, and I have seen no suggestion that any Darwinian evolutionist has every argued that the ethnic groupings within homo sapiens constitute separate species or even an internal divergence prepartory to a speciation event.

Of course they did not. But the Nazis (and others in other times) did so. The jews and the russian had been called lower races. "We" are the "Herrenrasse" and we should lead the world. And the borderlines had been quite clear between arish and other people. Hey, we are German, we can create laws for anyting. Even for something so obscure and horrible. People who had been suspected to be jewish had to proofe their family tree for at least four gernerations. It was possible to find a quite clear borderline between "us" and "them" and the "inbetweens".

 

Besides, and perhaps most importantly, only simplistic thinkers and populist politicians think that there are clearly defined, separate ethnic groupings in today's western world.

 

But unluckily simplistic thinkers and populist are the most dangerous leaders.

And if they have the power (like the Nazis had) to publish their sick views, there will always be a big number of followers.

 

Of course nobody should use Darwins thesises as an argument for ethnic cleaning and other horrors.

But same is true about religion. Nobody should use religions as an argument for horror. But this happens too. The abuse of a theory or a religion takes nothing away from its truth and what it is worth.

[mike777]

Again I find discussing what evolution or Darwinism may bring the next 50 or 100 years more interesting than what it has the last few thousand.

 

Evolution won't do anything in two generations of man. Now as for the birds on Galapagos, evolution can actually be observed if you compare Darwin's time and the 21st century. Even since 1850 the Darwin finches have evolved.

 

Any changes in humanity will

 

* only affects those who can afford it

* is voluntary

 

Who wants to live... forever?

1)

hmm a generation is 20 years so I do not get where you say only 2 generations in this time period.

2)

Also evolution can be accelerated by man, yes?

 

3)

If mankind has zero effect on evolution, nevermind. But then see title of this thread :P

[jtfanclub]

While I confess to not having read much of Darwin's work in the original, I have read a great deal of popularized evolutionary material, and I have seen no suggestion that any Darwinian evolutionist has every argued that the ethnic groupings within homo sapiens constitute separate species or even an internal divergence prepartory to a speciation event.

 

But if you start with the premise that Jews are an internal divergence, then using Darwin you'd come to the conclusion that only one will survive. Keep in mind that Jews have been breeding separately from Gentiles for thousands of years, so much so that there are actually 'Jewish' markers (eg. Tay-sachs).

 

A tiger and a lion can't interbreed, even tho they share common ancestors not too far back in paleontological time.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger

 

Not only can they mate, but the females from the mating are fertile. If we find that some of the males are fertile as well, what would that mean to you? That they no longer compete for the same resources? That Darwin somehow doesn't apply?

 

A lot of the 'species' that Darwin wrote about can interbreed and have fertile offspring. The one I learned about back many years ago was green finches and purple finches, IIRC. If you painted the green finches purple and the purple finches green, they'd mate and have green-and-purple chicks. But they don't mate in the wild, and in fact compete for the same resources. Eventually, for a given island, only the green or the purple would survive.

 

I don't see how Darwinism doesn't apply simply because two groups can crossbreed and have fertile young, if they don't generally do so in the wild (and in the 'Wilds' of Europe, Jews generally bred with Jews and Gentiles with Gentiles until very recently indeed). If you have a pack of wolves and a pack of dogs in the same territory, you don't end up with a pack of wolfdogs. You end up with only one pack surviving, assuming that resources are only sufficient for one pack to make it. If you put a herd of cattle and a herd of buffalo in an area where only one herd can make it, you don't end up with a herd of beefalo. And so forth.

 

What you need for Darwinism is....

 

1. Two or more distinct breeding groups.

2. For both groups to share the same ecological niche

3. Limited resources within that niche

4. Unlimited breeding (over time) for each group. ie., as time approaches infinity, the population approaches infinity given unlimited resources.

 

So, you have a tribe of Tutsi and a tribe of Hottentots, who live next to each other. There's a drought. Both tribes have more kids than the replacement rate. What Darwinism predicts will happen is that one tribe will survive, and the other will no longer occupy the same niche...it will move to another location, or occupy another niche, or it will die off. You won't end up with one tribe of Tuttentots.

 

And that is indeed what seems to happen.

[hrothgar]

What you need for Darwinism is....

 

1. Two or more distinct breeding groups.

2. For both groups to share the same ecological niche

3. Limited resources within that niche

4. Unlimited breeding (over time) for each group. ie., as time approaches infinity, the population approaches infinity given unlimited resources.ppen.

I'd very much appreciate it if the individuals who are using the expression Darwinism made some effort to define their terms.

 

The expression "Darwinism" can refer to any number of different concepts/constructs. It's gotten even more difficult ever since the religious nut cases here in the US started using the expression interchangable with the Theory of Evolution.

[helene_t]

What you need for Darwinism is....

 

1. Two or more distinct breeding groups.

2. For both groups to share the same ecological niche

3. Limited resources within that niche

4. Unlimited breeding (over time) for each group. ie., as time approaches infinity, the population approaches infinity given unlimited resources.

Sounds more like Malthusism. In general, population biologists are not particularly interested in the case when two species share an ecological nice. My hi-school biology teacher went so far as to say that two species never share the same niche. Maybe exaggerated, but not much.