3 ms·

Let's break it down to DNA then, and not "dna-this" or "dna-that" - which I agree is popular and usually incorrect. Can we agree that your DNA(and most species

Let's break it down to DNA then, and not "dna-this" or "dna-that" - which I agree is popular and usually incorrect. Can we agree that your DNA(and most species) does give you an innate drive to reproduce? Past(last 100000+ years) and present mating suitability in a male is perceived by his ability to feed/defend/nurture their mate and offspring. The large amount of "mooches, bums, alcoholics" you reference would be poor mates, yet they continue to reproduce. They do so [mostly] with the assistance of another willing member of the class of "mooches, bums, alcoholics". However, the people that are not "mooches, bums, alcoholics" make more desirable mates, because they have a higher potential to feed/defend/nurture their mate and offspring. That means that yes, your biology is still telling you that you need to work, even if it is only to achieve higher mating success, and fulfill your biological imperative. Hrm...I really don't like the direction my own thought is taking as I write this down. It ends with "well, then those (people) should be eliminated for the good of the species", and no one wants to hear that, whether it is correct or incorrect. It can be interpreted in a very dark and nasty context, and that is absolutely not what I'm trying to promote or champion. In a nutshell, I'm arguing that I will win at the biological imperative because of my drive to work and succeed. Those people that don't want to work and succeed would contribute to their species by going off somewhere quiet, and avoiding consumption of the resources needed by their fellow species members that are grinding away at "life" in the evolutionary sense - not in the "pursuit of happiness" sense, which is subjective and altogether distracting.

kefka 10y ago
Yep. And this argument is in parity with those people who wear white robes with pointy hats, and burn crosses in people's yards whom they do not like. It's also similar to Phrenology, the "science" of skull size, weight, and shape that indicate intelligence. Of course, non-whites were all inferior. There were many interests all surrounding Margret Sanger, with Planned Parenthood and the original intentions of that group. Ideally, blacks, Jews, "retards", and any other undesirable were sterilized as to not continue their genes. But talking of eugenics, even in a roundabout way has a lot of baggage. Is there a way to do it right? I'm not sure. I'd think voluntary methods could work, but only if they were truly voluntary. Remember, the kind of people we have coming in government believe that one can electrocute the gay out of someone (Pence).
- dsfyu404ed 10y ago
  >Remember, the kind of people we have coming in government believe that one can electrocute the gay out of someone Maybe he means it in the tongue in cheek "there's no disease that can't be treated with a 12ga slug" way. /s
- module0000 10y ago
  > Yep. And this argument is in parity with those people who wear white robes with pointy hats, and burn crosses in people's yards whom they do not like. Erm...is it? I thought that groups' entire mindset came from some religious interpretation of doing a deity's work. Maybe I'm wrong, but when a bunch of people(such as those that you mention) are so ridiculously self-destructive, I can only assume some-or-other <insert-religious-stupidity> is behind it. I'm not making a case for any of the things you mention(sterilization...really!?). I'm making a case for the working people building a working civilization and non-working people can't participate or benefit.
sedachv 10y ago
> In a nutshell, I'm arguing that I will win at the biological imperative because of my drive to work and succeed. No, you are just using the same flawed reasoning over and over again. The way it can also work is that a bigger and more aggressive man comes along, kills you, and takes your woman. Even the words you use come from Social Darwinism: "success" and "imperative" at some goal. The innate drive you talk about has nothing to do with reproduction - it is a set of instincts that makes mate finding and mating pleasurable. Goals and even establishing the causal connection between mating and reproduction requires reasoning faculties that not even most apes are capable of. > Those people that don't want to work and succeed would contribute to their species by going off somewhere quiet, and avoiding consumption of the resources needed by their fellow species members that are grinding away at "life" in the evolutionary sense And these people would listen to you tell them where to go and what to do because ...? It is quite obvious that you are trying to use a single evolutionary psychology argument without having any knowledge of the field. Human mating strategies are incredibly diverse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mating_system#In_humans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mating_system#In_humans. You have some kind of Puritan mental hangup about work that you are trying to justify with flawed reasoning.
- module0000 10y ago
  > It is quite obvious that you are trying to use a single evolutionary psychology argument without having any knowledge of the field. No - you're assuming what I mean from text that I never wrote. > The way it can also work is that a bigger and more aggressive man comes along, kills you, and takes your woman. Precisely that. That's exactly how evolution works. At some point, we eschewed evolution for "feeling good". I have a problem with that, and there isn't a damn thing I can do about it. > And these people would listen to you tell them where to go and what to do because ...? They won't, and I wouldn't tell them to do anything, given that random humans have no reason to obey my forum-written thoughts. > You have some kind of Puritan mental hangup I'm not a puritan. Don't lump me in with people that search for meaning and invent a bearded one in a sky/sun/moon/long-dead-arab. Sedachv, I get the impression you really want to argue with someone about something puritan-related. If you want to get together and rant about everything wrong they have done to our civilization and way of life, you would find I'm quite agreeable to that viewpoint. At the root of it all, I hate that I have to "work" so that other people can "not work". I want the "not work"-ing people to go away. Unfortunately, I can't go off and chase those ideals, because I am still taking care of my own biological imperative's fruit until they can are grown and capable of taking care of themselves. When people stop working early(most of them do not do so because they have become rich, as in the article), we have to take care of them. I don't want to take care of them.

kefka 10y ago

Yep. And this argument is in parity with those people who wear white robes with pointy hats, and burn crosses in people's yards whom they do not like. It's also similar to Phrenology, the "science" of skull size, weight, and shape that indicate intelligence. Of course, non-whites were all inferior. There were many interests all surrounding Margret Sanger, with Planned Parenthood and the original intentions of that group. Ideally, blacks, Jews, "retards", and any other undesirable were sterilized as to not continue their genes. But talking of eugenics, even in a roundabout way has a lot of baggage. Is there a way to do it right? I'm not sure. I'd think voluntary methods could work, but only if they were truly voluntary. Remember, the kind of people we have coming in government believe that one can electrocute the gay out of someone (Pence).

dsfyu404ed 10y ago
>Remember, the kind of people we have coming in government believe that one can electrocute the gay out of someone Maybe he means it in the tongue in cheek "there's no disease that can't be treated with a 12ga slug" way. /s
module0000 10y ago
> Yep. And this argument is in parity with those people who wear white robes with pointy hats, and burn crosses in people's yards whom they do not like. Erm...is it? I thought that groups' entire mindset came from some religious interpretation of doing a deity's work. Maybe I'm wrong, but when a bunch of people(such as those that you mention) are so ridiculously self-destructive, I can only assume some-or-other <insert-religious-stupidity> is behind it. I'm not making a case for any of the things you mention(sterilization...really!?). I'm making a case for the working people building a working civilization and non-working people can't participate or benefit.

sedachv 10y ago

> In a nutshell, I'm arguing that I will win at the biological imperative because of my drive to work and succeed. No, you are just using the same flawed reasoning over and over again. The way it can also work is that a bigger and more aggressive man comes along, kills you, and takes your woman. Even the words you use come from Social Darwinism: "success" and "imperative" at some goal. The innate drive you talk about has nothing to do with reproduction - it is a set of instincts that makes mate finding and mating pleasurable. Goals and even establishing the causal connection between mating and reproduction requires reasoning faculties that not even most apes are capable of. > Those people that don't want to work and succeed would contribute to their species by going off somewhere quiet, and avoiding consumption of the resources needed by their fellow species members that are grinding away at "life" in the evolutionary sense And these people would listen to you tell them where to go and what to do because ...? It is quite obvious that you are trying to use a single evolutionary psychology argument without having any knowledge of the field. Human mating strategies are incredibly diverse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mating_system#In_humans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mating_system#In_humans. You have some kind of Puritan mental hangup about work that you are trying to justify with flawed reasoning.

module0000 10y ago
> It is quite obvious that you are trying to use a single evolutionary psychology argument without having any knowledge of the field. No - you're assuming what I mean from text that I never wrote. > The way it can also work is that a bigger and more aggressive man comes along, kills you, and takes your woman. Precisely that. That's exactly how evolution works. At some point, we eschewed evolution for "feeling good". I have a problem with that, and there isn't a damn thing I can do about it. > And these people would listen to you tell them where to go and what to do because ...? They won't, and I wouldn't tell them to do anything, given that random humans have no reason to obey my forum-written thoughts. > You have some kind of Puritan mental hangup I'm not a puritan. Don't lump me in with people that search for meaning and invent a bearded one in a sky/sun/moon/long-dead-arab. Sedachv, I get the impression you really want to argue with someone about something puritan-related. If you want to get together and rant about everything wrong they have done to our civilization and way of life, you would find I'm quite agreeable to that viewpoint. At the root of it all, I hate that I have to "work" so that other people can "not work". I want the "not work"-ing people to go away. Unfortunately, I can't go off and chase those ideals, because I am still taking care of my own biological imperative's fruit until they can are grown and capable of taking care of themselves. When people stop working early(most of them do not do so because they have become rich, as in the article), we have to take care of them. I don't want to take care of them.