Wilhelm-Scream said:
Yes!
Thanks for being more succinct.
That's what I'm saying.
Most Liberals have this logical disconnect.
They insist that Humans are just highly developed animals (highly evolved animals).
I have never heard of this logical disconnect, nor do I know why "liberals" would have it??? Your discussing philosophy here not politics.
And yet they seem to be blind to the fact that, in the same way that sea lions may eat all of the fish and cephalopods in their area, and die out because of it......humans may behave in the same way, on a
larger scale (because they're more highly developed with regards to intelligence and the ability to manipulate one's environment and therefore more able to make the same mistakes that sea lions make on an exponentially larger scale, as long as they all give in to their primal desire to procreate).
So, if you're going to dismiss Divinely-Inspired ideas about "morality", the "fittest" to survive...are simply those that SURVIVE!
The mentally ******ed, amputees, cancer patients, and other fatally ill species die in nature. Sea Lions do not help their fellow Sea Lions live on full lives if they become injured. In fact those little things like scrapes and bruises are far bigger deals to animals than for humans.
Humans seem to prolong the lives of those unfit, even creating justice systems where we attempt to reform the "unfit". This behavior is abscent in the animal community.
We have also brought humans back from near death or in some cases brief stints of "death". However outside of the convention societies these humans are dead.
Human beings have notions animals don't.
THEY.WERE.THE.MOST.FIT.TO.SURVIVE.
Genes and Jesus have nothing to DO with it.
Actually they have a lot to do with it. You seem to dismiss morality. But morality is fairly strong in human beings.
Again, as Socrates points out about almost all humans, you have no idea what is nature and what is convention. Conventional moralities and histories not only alter societal makeups but also how that society views the world. Murder means something entirely different to a Muslim extremist than an American. You tend to see things as very black and white. Hence why you end this claiming it is obvious.
It isn't. Take a moment, sit back and look at something that is not around your town for once. If we wish to talk about conventional moralities there is a huge difference between peoples. Some will never kill themselves based on them, and for that reason survive where a terrorist suicide bomber does not. Yet the bomber is smart enough and cunning enough to create a bomb, slip it into places unseen and create a plan to catch and elliminate his prey.
Is he less or more fit to survive than an American who sits in front of a TV eating BBQ and lives to the ripe old age of 80, probably not. I would guarentee if you took that kind of fanatical devotion and put it in a society where it is directed elsewhere you would create a human being whose survival abilities vastly dwarfed those of his peers.
Consider also an invalid who gets the world's best medical care. Who lives for 30, 40+ years in a coma on life support. While a distance runner dies due to a passing automobile. She survives, he doesn't. She doesn't have the risk of passing cars, he does. Is he less fit to survive, or should she naturally be dead but due to now successful children can be kept "alive".
The guy who's strong enough to get the gun out of my hand and turn it back on me was "the fittest to survive".
And sure, he may be a dolt when it comes to agriculture, medicine, or sorcery.....and all that means is that he will become
"Not Fit Enough To Survive" when those challenges arise.
I'm...I...it's so obvious.
If something is obvious I would suggest thinking about it a little harder. The only thing that is obvious is math, because it has rules and generally very few exceptions. Whereas anyone who studies politics, philosophy or sociology realizes humanity is riddled with contradictions.
So a guy who can wrestle a gun from you is more fit. What if guns don't exist, what else do I know about this man? Is he strong, or can you just not hold onto a gun? How did he wrestle it out of your hand, by technique or is he just that strong? Did he acquire this strength by working out, or is it purely genetic? If it was his technique did he happen to live in areas with good martial arts instruction? Why is he wrestling the gun out of your hand, is there a reason? Is his motivation stronger than yours due to a conflict that had arisen? If you had not insulted his mother would he still have tried as hard?
If the ones that survive are always the fittest then how to you explain that people who don't survive are often on higher levels naturally and conventionally don't always survive and how people who are levels some would consider sub human do.
Your theory would only work if we lived in a world where societal factors had no influence, i.e. the state of nature. Man without nuture. However you problematically bring in convention situations to try to illustrate this. There is a disconnect in your logic.
)....................SURVIVED THE BEST!
