quote:
Original post by MadKeithV
Well then you should definately learn to read more closely:
I meant that apes (they are not monkeys) do NOT fight because it''s not worth the hassle. The SilverBack ape is the one that through past evolution has been decided to have the best set of genes for species survival. The only way to assert that set is through physical dominance (because physical strength was an important factor in ape survival the past few million years). The other apes instinctively "know" this to be true (well they actually don''t know diddley, but they won''t challenge the view because they have hereditarily accepted the order).
This, is what "morality" is in the context of apes. A set of rules to live by that make life easier or easiest for species-survival. Unfortunately for apes, their morality is based on genetics, and they are therefore not quite quick enough to adapt to new circumstances (i.e. us).
I am at a disadvantage here, not knowing the exact difference betwen apes and monkeys and not knowing their exact habits. But I do know that no specie has ruled out competition. Their "moralities" are more like rules of engagement than peace treaties. From the information presented here I understand that for the SilverBack apes the monkeys dont challenge the position of the leader. I agree that this is their moral code, basicly, they dont fight all the time because fighting too much would weaken the whole group.
But that doesnt mean that they dont want to be the leader and they wouldnt try to be if they felt they stood a chance. Nor that they are perfectly content with their position in the group.
quote:
Your argument about antibiotics is completely off.
Thats what I keep telling myself
quote:
By claiming that you discard the last few thousand years of human growth: we''ve gone way beyond physical strength in the human race. Physical strength is no longer a measure of how "good" you are for the survival of the species. The one thing that sets us apart most widely from all other species is our brain. That particular brain is perfectly good even if the rest of your body is perfectly worthless (Stephen Hawking). That''s why human morals have adapted to include such things as "the right to live", "social security", a nice pension, etc etc. Many physically less-able people, including most scientists, would never be able to assert themselves in a mostly physical society, and therefore their genetic material would be lost.
The species does not want to lose this material at all (and humans are actually smart enough to realise it).
Although we may disagree a bit about how important physical strength is (not really brute muscle force, but resistance to diseases, to polutants, to fast food is still very usefull), I agree that the mind is very important too. In some cases, like you mentioned, it completely outweighs the physical part.
What I''ll argue is that human morals are not based on such simple logic as "everyone has a right to live, because he may turn out to be a genious and help society". It''s plain wrong to base moral belief on top of a logic foundation, when it should be the other way around. I can always come up with logic reasons for highly imoral decisions, especially when the rules of evolution come into play. It is simple obvious logic that killing retarded people and freeing the place for new, potentialy smart and healthy people will improve our chances of survival. The problem with logic is it can be flawed, even when it seems obviously true. I can rely on my morals to say "Yeah, this looks like the truth. So what ? I dont like it and thats the way it will stay !" and throw away such horrible ideas.
It is not a crime to be mistaken. It is a crime to not follow your moral code. Ie. believing in conspiracy theories is acceptable, blowing people up with bombs is not.
Well, actually, as history proved, there is a logic reason why eugenics do not improve chances of survival. If a system that is allowed to take life and death decisions would be created, that system will soon take decisions that will increase its own chances of survival (like wiping out other races, etc.), and these in turn may lead to war and devastation way beyond the so called benefits of the system.