Originally posted by Jenyar
You are contradicting yourself. Evolution cannot "enforce", because we are a product of it. "Fighting it" is therefore also an evolved trait - i.e. not accepting the law of death (natural selection), but fighting to live.
Yeah well its a pretty damn easy way to "fight for your survival" compared to what is traditionally asked of living organisms.
Sure the ability to lie is an evolved trait, but the protection one gets for lying is not an evolved trait. Its interference, and it results in breeding without any form of selection, well, I guess one form, might explain why people lie so much today huh?
There is nothing contradictory about what I'm saying its just more complex than you are assuming.
If your reasoning is correct, it would have started out maladapted ("defective") and evolved to become well-integrated and "adapted" - i.e. from non-evolved into evolved. If we are what we are, it is because it has been made necessary by circumstances.
Not necesarry, acceptable, not one trait is now considered defective as far as breeding goes. Its not necesarry to be incompetent, its just that you can be and get away with it so more and more people will be. I know what you are going to say "if they survive they are then considered competent" fine, but don't complain when they eat your baby alive. You deemed everyone so life worthy. Deal with the consequences.
The fact is, breeding without selection starts to degenerate the quality of the entire species over a period of time, maybe improve it in some cases as well, in our case it has basically shown us every where the species could have evolved.
Think of it mechanically, two people have 10 children, 8 die and only the fastest smartest strongest 2 survive to breed, over a long period this makes the species in general faster smarter and stronger. Now if all ten of those children survive and breed, the species is going nowhere and everywhere, its stagnant and starts to stink after a while.
The problem you have is that you don't really know where to let go of evolution, and where to hold on to what we have evolved into. Human laws or natural laws aren't compatible, because evidently every member the same species evolved in such a unique way that our genetic similarities don't ensure that "right" survives and "wrong" persishes by selective pressure alone - the two poles are "fighting" as Lou Natic put it.
Yes that is what happened, Why would you want to "hold onto" the disgrace we have become? We would be a more honest and dignified animal if we took on the behaviour of the dung beatle. We are the least admirable thing on earth. And I'm including parasites, cancer, the tetse fly and aids.
I have no problem with a person taking either side, but you can only have both up to a certain point, and then you have to decide for youself whether you are going to "give in" to your selfish genetic nature, or fight it for the benefit of people who are different than you.
Funny you say that, I consider living to benefit other human beings as flagrantly selfish.
Because to do that you have to ignore other species, it is giving yourself and your species an unfair advantage when all the odds are already in your favour. I guess its more the species acting selfish than the individual. Its funny how it works out, if all the members of a species go out of their way to be selfless and help eachother it in turn makes the species a selfish species.
A species that only cares about itself and doesn't care how its actions affect others.
Because that kind of teamwork will inevitably negatively effect all the other species, this unfortunate result we have seen.
And we rub it in, we are the only animal that takes without giving. This system everything but us plays by has little secrets most people don't know about. A termite colony might kill a tree to make its home, thats taking, but when it leaves, it leaves a whole suitable for a parrot family. Infact certain species of parrot evolved to exclusively live in these holes that termites make for them. Small example, you'll find everything fits in, except us. We'll take a tree, and make sure all of it goes to us. And then when we don't want the tree we'll burn it. We always seem to make sure we don't give back, its like a subconscious thing going on. We even keep our shit away from nature(who believe it or not could use it), we steal food off all the other animals, blatantly, and then we chase them off our trashcans where we store our leftovers, tightly wrapped in non-biodegradable plastic, to make sure no organic matter is wasted going where its supposed to
I agree with the bible that humans are born sinners.
So which stance is truely selfish?
I can't consider a few individual humans as more comfort worthy than the millions of species are existence worthy.
Seems kind of ridiculous.
And I know how important the well being of that diverse array of species is to anything and everything that evolved here.
Its why natural selection is so genius, so genius to the point I worship it.
It keeps everyone "happy", they might not know they are happy, they might be getting mauled to death by a pack of wild dogs, but their species is happy because of it. Its like thousands of jesus', all dying for their species, over and over again in a long cycle of magnificence and improvement(except the improvement of comfort levels for individuals, which in itself is a selfish agenda)
Only these "jesus deaths" make sense in nature, when something dies by way of natural selection it really is dying for everything, it is dying for the spirit of its species. For its health, well being and longevity, in fact it is dying for the betterment of every species on earth.
What did jesus die for again? They never did make that clear..
