Subject:
|
Re: Will Libertopia cause the needy to get less?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 29 Nov 2000 19:10:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
737 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> Besides, my understanding of altruism is that it is unconditional and
> nselfish. I would think that that would be *counter* productive to evolution
> (nice guys finish last idea). Altruistic people get trampled all of the
> time, but they have a better understanding of what is important in this world.
Current evolutionary theory identifies benefits in altruism, both among
members of the same species and even accross species lines. Such altruism
isn't necessarily conscious or deliberate, but it's altruism all the same.
The idea is that, while competition breeds diversity and strength through
evolution, compromise and cooperation, in the long term, fosters the help of
the ecosystem (macro- or micro- scopic).
> I will say this: without God having had acted in the world over time, we as
> free-thinking humans would have destroyed each other by now. Without a moral
> compass that is beyond human understanding, we are doomed. *That* is our
> nature.
Very James Cameron of you! 8^) Ultimately, though, that assertion is
basically untestable and therefore without much predictive value. How,
precisely, has God "acted in the world," other than in broad, metaphorical
senses?
I flatly reject the notion that we are doomed to doom ourselves. There is
no indication of this whatsoever, and in fact the closest we've ever come
(arguably the Bay of Pigs episode) was averted by human hands. For that
matter, we've only had it in our power to doom ourselves during the last 60
years (a little less than that, since we first developed a sufficient
nuclear stockpile to do the job), and I think that humans can be credited
with keeping themselves from the brink during that brief period.
Any attempt to extrapolate a full man-made destruction of humanity based
solely on episodes of cruelty and warfare (which, in the history of the
world itself, might be termed anecdotal) is at best speculative and at worst
paranoid and reactionary.
As I reread that little bit of vitriol I feel I should point out that I'm
not accusing you of holding that specific view, of course; I'm just
addressing what I find to be a shortcoming of fatalistic predictions of doom
without divine help.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Will Libertopia cause the needy to get less?
|
| (...) I don't understand how "altruism in animals" is different than an instinct of cooperation, compromise, etc. I guess I'm saying that I think only sentient beings who have free will (or the illusion of it-- different debate, but I digress) are (...) (24 years ago, 29-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Will Libertopia cause the needy to get less?
|
| (...) composed in the heat of the moment, and my frustration got the better of me. Of course, if I were truly uncivil, I would have actually *used* swear words and directed them *at* the people, rather than as some sort of lazy adjective. Actually, (...) (24 years ago, 29-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
231 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
