Couldn't have said it better myself.
/end
Iraq's Radioactive Town
-
Lyrs
- Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2002 2:41 pm
- Location: Internet Donation: 5814 Posts
-
Alucard_FoN
- Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 11:01 pm
-
EarthCurrent
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2002 8:27 pm
Alucard_Fon, reread your initial statement, handily quoted above. The way you have it worded, you are not talking about individuals in this statement, you are talking about iraqis as a whole. You are evaluating one culture, America's, to be superior to that of the Iraqi's because you have state that "they're too stupid" and therefore don't deserve help. That is cut and dry Social Darwinism.Toecutter wrote:I say let the Iraqis poison themselves. If they're too stupid to keep a Ba'ath party member like Saddam from taking control, let their citizenry be tortured and killed by a fascist regime, and demand we, a nation who has taken nothing from them, to come in and help as though we owe them, then they deserve to die.
-
Toecutter
- Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2003 2:21 am
- Location: Oregon
There is no difference between Social Darwinism and Natural Selection. Nations are nothing more than collections of cultures and ethnicities, who have chosen a method for survival (fascism, capitalism, communism, etc) according to their choices, which are directly influenced by their genetics. The survival of those nations are dependent on their effectiveness of their political systems with respect to the willingness of the population to make the system work.
For example, China's politburo, while shoving the whole idea of equality down everyone's throat, is the center of under-the-table bribery and corruption worse than anything we as Americans could possibly imagine. Whether Family A or B is tortured, executed, or enslaved in some peansant community is determined only by the whims of those with the most aces up their sleeves. Obviously, this nation is only surviving, because the Chinese do not have a concept of guilt. They only believe in shame. As many American criminals would say, "It's only a crime if you get caught!".
With America, however, capitalism is designed with greed already thrown into the equation. Greed is not considered a flaw in capitalism, as it is in a socialist state. Instead, greed is a good thing, because it influences people to make more money, outperform their peers, and climb the corporate ladder for more power. The more money you make, the more you are willing to spend. It is the circulation of money, not locking it away in some bank or vault, that makes our economy grow. When a rich guy buys a yacht, a profit is seen not only by the corporation, but a chunk of that profit is seen by the employees, who, because they are also greedy, work harder to climb the ladder, and make more money. The transaction of currency goes full circle, and supports every industry in our nation.
What is so different between Natural Selection, and Social Darwinism? The environment in which animals compete, and the political/social systems in which we interact each day (whether they be physical structures, or theoretical constructs of papertrails and transactions) are similar in their limiting parameters. They both directly and indirectly influence the survival of living creatures and political ideals, just as mathematical functions limit the possibility of real solutions.
In the end, it's all the same thing.
For example, China's politburo, while shoving the whole idea of equality down everyone's throat, is the center of under-the-table bribery and corruption worse than anything we as Americans could possibly imagine. Whether Family A or B is tortured, executed, or enslaved in some peansant community is determined only by the whims of those with the most aces up their sleeves. Obviously, this nation is only surviving, because the Chinese do not have a concept of guilt. They only believe in shame. As many American criminals would say, "It's only a crime if you get caught!".
With America, however, capitalism is designed with greed already thrown into the equation. Greed is not considered a flaw in capitalism, as it is in a socialist state. Instead, greed is a good thing, because it influences people to make more money, outperform their peers, and climb the corporate ladder for more power. The more money you make, the more you are willing to spend. It is the circulation of money, not locking it away in some bank or vault, that makes our economy grow. When a rich guy buys a yacht, a profit is seen not only by the corporation, but a chunk of that profit is seen by the employees, who, because they are also greedy, work harder to climb the ladder, and make more money. The transaction of currency goes full circle, and supports every industry in our nation.
What is so different between Natural Selection, and Social Darwinism? The environment in which animals compete, and the political/social systems in which we interact each day (whether they be physical structures, or theoretical constructs of papertrails and transactions) are similar in their limiting parameters. They both directly and indirectly influence the survival of living creatures and political ideals, just as mathematical functions limit the possibility of real solutions.
In the end, it's all the same thing.
GoatMan
was here!
was here!
-
Alucard_FoN
- Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 11:01 pm
-
Toecutter
- Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2003 2:21 am
- Location: Oregon
Because I haven't found the edit function for my previous post yet (I'm that much of a newbie), I'll post my last thought here...
Even crappy games like Tic-Tac-Toe, or Checkers are simplified, but nonetheless functional, environments for natural selection. There are a multitude of parameters and factors, such as the intellect of the players, their manipulation of the trade-off between tactical and strategic offense/defense, the hand-eye coordination of the players, the dimensions and mass of the components, etc. Everything from a writing assignment in an English class, to a rock-skipping contest between your friends at the local pond are all forms of natural selection. It's just the reward that's different.
Quote of the Day:
"In the end, there can be only one!"
-Christopher Lambert-"Highlander"(1986)
Even crappy games like Tic-Tac-Toe, or Checkers are simplified, but nonetheless functional, environments for natural selection. There are a multitude of parameters and factors, such as the intellect of the players, their manipulation of the trade-off between tactical and strategic offense/defense, the hand-eye coordination of the players, the dimensions and mass of the components, etc. Everything from a writing assignment in an English class, to a rock-skipping contest between your friends at the local pond are all forms of natural selection. It's just the reward that's different.
Quote of the Day:
"In the end, there can be only one!"
-Christopher Lambert-"Highlander"(1986)
GoatMan
was here!
was here!
-
EarthCurrent
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2002 8:27 pm
Natural Selection works on the Individual and has a scientific basis.
Social Darwinism was meant to apply itself to a culture or race. It is an apologists way of justifying colonialism and exploitation in underdeveloped regions of the world. It isn't scientific.
That is a pretty straight forward difference.
Social Darwinism was meant to apply itself to a culture or race. It is an apologists way of justifying colonialism and exploitation in underdeveloped regions of the world. It isn't scientific.
That is a pretty straight forward difference.
-
EarthCurrent
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2002 8:27 pm
heh!!! Sorry 'bout that...-
Toecutter
- Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2003 2:21 am
- Location: Oregon
To EarthCurrent:
Why the hell should we have to apologize for the "white-man's burden"? We conquered the Indians because we had superior tactics and weaponry, we defeated the British because we pioneered guerrilla warfare, and we conquered the Soviet Union because Reagan had the guts to ditch SALT II, and outclass the Russians in the second arms race.
We have proven America is the most powerful nation in the world, and it is because of our generocity that the rest of the world has not been absorbed. Do you realize how much financial, medical, and food aid we send throughout the third-world? If we wanted, we could easily conquer every last one of those dirt-poor countries, enslave the population, and force them to help us start a third and final arms race. In less than two decades from now, we could easily own every last square inch of this planet under the United States of America.
But we let these inferior punks in the U.N. pull all this shit on us, lie to us, and manipulate the system to limit our military power. None of the other nations in the U.N. are our equals, so why do we let them push us around?
Why the hell should we have to apologize for the "white-man's burden"? We conquered the Indians because we had superior tactics and weaponry, we defeated the British because we pioneered guerrilla warfare, and we conquered the Soviet Union because Reagan had the guts to ditch SALT II, and outclass the Russians in the second arms race.
We have proven America is the most powerful nation in the world, and it is because of our generocity that the rest of the world has not been absorbed. Do you realize how much financial, medical, and food aid we send throughout the third-world? If we wanted, we could easily conquer every last one of those dirt-poor countries, enslave the population, and force them to help us start a third and final arms race. In less than two decades from now, we could easily own every last square inch of this planet under the United States of America.
But we let these inferior punks in the U.N. pull all this shit on us, lie to us, and manipulate the system to limit our military power. None of the other nations in the U.N. are our equals, so why do we let them push us around?
GoatMan
was here!
was here!
-
EarthCurrent
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2002 8:27 pm
I have nothing against the U.S. being a generous country because it does indeed have the technology and scientific knowhow to make a difference.
However, your arguments are pretty much the exact same of the British Empire over a century ago, you know, the one upon which the sun was never supposed to set. What happened to them? They drained their coffers fighting wars trying to make the world more British. It didn't work, their empire fell apart from with in. Trying to make the world "more American" won't work. All I see in your statement is your own ignorance about the true nature of the world. It is to laugh, for I see no reason to get cocky and act so high and mighty. The meek shall inherit the earth after all...
However, your arguments are pretty much the exact same of the British Empire over a century ago, you know, the one upon which the sun was never supposed to set. What happened to them? They drained their coffers fighting wars trying to make the world more British. It didn't work, their empire fell apart from with in. Trying to make the world "more American" won't work. All I see in your statement is your own ignorance about the true nature of the world. It is to laugh, for I see no reason to get cocky and act so high and mighty. The meek shall inherit the earth after all...