Time to reject the Malthusian notion that our lives must be justified by drudgery.

[abandonconflict]

When the philosophy started affecting evolutionary biology, which indeed it did.

I'm not sure if he himself wished for his contributions to have this effect, but I do not doubt they did. Engels and Darwin and even Marx all embraced some degree of racism while explaining away classism. However, it is only a widely held opinion, that at the very core of Social Darwinism, is racism. Even without the racist aspect, it is cold and lacks compassion so I find that attributing racism is a forgiving approach, calling men ignorant instead of just evil.

 

[cannabineer]

When the philosophy started affecting evolutionary biology, which indeed it did.

I'm not sure if he himself wished for his contributions to have this effect, but I do not doubt they did. Engels and Darwin and even Marx all embraced some degree of racism while explaining away classism. However, it is only a widely held opinion, that at the very core of Social Darwinism, is racism. Even without the racist aspect, it is cold and lacks compassion so I find that attributing racism is a forgiving approach, calling men ignorant instead of just evil.

I find it a bit dizzying to try to contemplate racism as better than some shadowy alternative.

And how could the philosophy affect evolutionary biology? There is a basic firewall between the science and the scientists' personal beliefs. It's good to remember that the term "social Darwinism " was formulated by non-Darwinists for non-Darwinists. cn

 

[Doer]

TL;DR -- I quit reading at race baiting. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, maybe you aren't racist, but you embraced doctrines rooted in racism unknowingly. You revealed that you begrudge third world folks a meal because they will breed. Maybe you didn't realize it, maybe you thought it was ok because it is so wide spread. In any case, now you know about the underlying racism in our culture and since you have asked "what can you do about it preacher man?" I will answer, just know the truth, and do not begrudge a poor human a meal. Some charity would probably be nice, but only if you volunteer it, if you do not wish to ever give, don't.

You are so busy with the jingo slinging. And it is goofy, slippery thoughtless prose to mis-state me. Here is what I see. You are still twisting it all with hate. You brought up the subject. I think you are off base. Yet, you are dashing me with the hate filled broad brush. Charity is your only answer? This big insulting assumption, and all about me not charitable... I asked about you. You who rides Agenda.

Here is what I asked about you. ...how are you doing that?

So, OK, how are you doing that, Preacher Man?

 

[Doer]

I find it a bit dizzying to try to contemplate racism as better than some shadowy alternative.

And how could the philosophy affect evolutionary biology? There is a basic firewall between the science and the scientists' personal beliefs. It's good to remember that the term "social Darwinism " was formulated by non-Darwinists for non-Darwinists. cn

Poor Thomas was born into a rigid class society. I can't judge him harshly for that. And Darwin said nothing about the human condition. That was the very first religious pile one, I guess.

It is not even Darwinism, as if there was some alternative, in Science to "believe in." Oh, I'm not a Darwinist! Rubbish! It is not a philosophy one can reject with a label like Social Darwinism.

Darwin, observed this in nature, he didn't make it up. The anti-Darwin, religious forces linked up the words, Social Darwinism. They needed a goat, so poor Thomas' little essay became it.

 

[abandonconflict]

I find it a bit dizzying to try to contemplate racism as better than some shadowy alternative.

And how could the philosophy affect evolutionary biology? There is a basic firewall between the science and the scientists' personal beliefs. It's good to remember that the term "social Darwinism " was formulated by non-Darwinists for non-Darwinists. cn

Yet somehow Social Darwinism is not only alive and well (though veiled beneath the surface as a lesser premise) today in political philosophies and economic policies around the world, including the US, but has also been the guiding force of some of the darkest times in the last 2 and a half centuries. I also am fully aware Darwin himself disavowed the social views named for him, but "Social Darwinism" is the name of the Malthusian view borne into the social construct.

As for racism being better than anything, I did not use the word better, I said it was ignorant, which is more forgivable than plain evil not spawned of ignorance. Sure there are plenty who are racist and know better, but for the most part, racists are just ignorant.

 

[abandonconflict]

You are so busy with the jingo slinging. And it is goofy, slippery thoughtless prose to mis-state me. Here is what I see. You are still twisting it all with hate. You brought up the subject. I think you are off base. Yet, you are dashing me with the hate filled broad brush. Charity is your only answer? This big insulting assumption, and all about me not charitable... I asked about you. You who rides Agenda.

Here is what I asked about you. ...how are you doing that?

So, OK, how are you doing that, Preacher Man?

You accuse me of jingo and agenda, while you clearly do not understand the debate and distort the parts you do vaguely grasp. I think you are so far off base that you don't even know where base is and therefore have no waypoint from which to navigate. I exposed the inherent racism in your philosophy, you decried race baiting and claimed not to be racist, so I excused you of the accusation allowing you to claim ignorance. Now you are defending the philosophical inherent racism as anything other than racism. That epitomizes jingoistic chauvinism.

So do you claim that the view known as Social Darwinism is not a racist doctrine?

 

[cannabineer]

Yet somehow Social Darwinism is not only alive and well (though veiled beneath the surface as a lesser premise) today in political philosophies and economic policies around the world, including the US, but has also been the guiding force of some of the darkest times in the last 2 and a half centuries. I also am fully aware Darwin himself disavowed the social views named for him, but "Social Darwinism" is the name of the Malthusian view borne into the social construct.

And the guiding force for most of the other evils (and even a shared one with some of the ones you mean) came directly from Marx and Engels. I consider their intentions to have been good, but the results were not. And just as it can be argued that Marxism as actually implemented by Lenin and Mao had little to do with the original concept, so to would I counsel against overinterpreting Malthus through our retroactive history-goggles.

As for racism being better than anything, I did not use the word better, I said it was ignorant, which is more forgivable than plain evil not spawned of ignorance. Sure there are plenty who are racist and know better, but for the most part, racists are just ignorant.

There's more than just ignorance driving racism ... but a wilful, priggish sort of we-know-better mindset that goes beyond ignorance and into the sort of stubbornness that (imo better) deserves the label stupidity. So I don't see a charge of racism as being in any way more forgiving. cn

 

[abandonconflict]

And the guiding force for most of the other evils (and even a shared one with some of the ones you mean) came directly from Marx and Engels. I consider their intentions to have been good, but the results were not. And just as it can be argued that Marxism as actually implemented by Lenin and Mao had little to do with the original concept, so to would I counsel against overinterpreting Malthus through our retroactive history-goggles.

There's more than just ignorance driving racism ... but a wilful, priggish sort of we-know-better mindset that goes beyond ignorance and into the sort of stubbornness that (imo better) deserves the label stupidity. So I don't see a charge of racism as being in any way more forgiving. cn

This may seem unbelievable, after the McCarthyist charges labeled to anyone not finding the word Socialism repugnant, but I'm not pushing any Marxism. So while we have previously reached impasses, it would seem essentially that we agree on the notion that it is time to outgrow some old ideas. As for the apparent semantic divergence, I have to say I don't disagree at all, that retro-active history goggles have distorted views. In fact I have tried to be careful in my choice of words, not only to aid in the identification of the views I attempt to describe, but to avoid confusion when I direct an accusation.

As for racism, I am sure there is more than just ignorance, "but for the most part, racists are just ignorant." Of course that is my opinion and I'm not even sure how it could be quantified, aside from revisiting Machiavelli. There are racist leaders and racist followers, mostly followers. Hatred clearly leads by means of fear.

 

[cannabineer]

This may seem unbelievable, after the McCarthyist charges labeled to anyone not finding the word Socialism repugnant, but I'm not pushing any Marxism. So while we have previously reached impasses, it would seem essentially that we agree on the notion that it is time to outgrow some old ideas. As for the apparent semantic divergence, I have to say I don't disagree at all, that retro-active history goggles have distorted views. In fact I have tried to be careful in my choice of words, not only to aid in the identification of the views I attempt to describe, but to avoid confusion when I direct an accusation.

As for racism, I am sure there is more than just ignorance, "but for the most part, racists are just ignorant." Of course that is my opinion and I'm not even sure how it could be quantified, aside from revisiting Machiavelli. There are racist leaders and racist followers, mostly followers. Hatred clearly leads by means of fear.

Just to make my position more clear, I didn't mention Marx and Engels to hang a commie label on you. It was about "good intention, bad outcome". I cannot say something strictly analogous about Malthus. I appreciate your care in choosing your words ... and I also want to clear myself of raising a straw man. cn

 

[Canna Sylvan]

No, the point is, you don't have to justify your existence.

If you have no justification for your existance, what justification do others who are stronger, using force, to: take you sexually, your property or even life?

 

[abandonconflict]

If you have no justification for your existance, what justification do others who are stronger, using force, to: take you sexually, your property or even life?

Why would I not have justification for my existence? I am arguing that no such justification is necessary. I am arguing that human fuckin beings don't have to justify their existence. What I am saying to you, is that existence is intrinsically justified. Simply by virtue of the fact that one is born, they have the right to exist. Do you get it yet?

 

[cannabineer]

Why would I not have justification for my existence? I am arguing that no such justification is necessary. I am arguing that human fuckin beings don't have to justify their existence. What I am saying to you, is that existence is intrinsically justified. Simply by virtue of the fact that one is born, they have the right to exist. Do you get it yet?

For argument's sake, this can be inverted. What if our existence is not a right but merely a condition? Is an unenforcible right a meaningful right? Perhaps the only completely inalienable right we have is to ... die. All other rights, even that of simply living, are perhaps actually privileges dependent on someone stronger not simply taking them, as has been a recurrent theme in human history. This is one reason why I am an unbeliever in "natural rights". Nature red in tooth and claw does not confer rights but opportunities fraught with risk, incl. to life.

Any rights we can claim and enumerate are there by sufferance of society and its government. They are not absolute in the practical sense, and their presence depends on their recognition by our neighbors at the very least. My opinion. cn

 

[abandonconflict]

For argument's sake, this can be inverted. What if our existence is not a right but merely a condition? Is an unenforcible right a meaningful right? Perhaps the only completely inalienable right we have is to ... die. All other rights, even that of simply living, are perhaps actually privileges dependent on someone stronger not simply taking them, as has been a recurrent theme in human history. This is one reason why I am an unbeliever in "natural rights". Nature red in tooth and claw does not confer rights but opportunities fraught with risk, incl. to life.

Any rights we can claim and enumerate are there by sufferance of society and its government. They are not absolute in the practical sense, and their presence depends on their recognition by our neighbors at the very least. My opinion. cn

To the first bolded, inverted = Government by the sufferance of we. We ARE society. Government exists at our mercy.

To the second bolded, if the presence of natural rights depends on the recognition of ( I would say all, not only neighbors) then so too does the right of one to alienate said rights depend upon the same.

 

[cannabineer]

To the first bolded, inverted = Government by the sufferance of we. We ARE society. Government exists at our mercy.

I find this to be an excellent ideal but not a good mirror of reality. Witness our difficulties in getting Gov't to plainly state its understanding of the Constitution and its amendments. (Doesn't mean we should abandon our fight for a hot heartbeat, though.)

To the second bolded, if the presence of natural rights depends on the recognition of ( I would say all, not only neighbors) then so too does the right of one to alienate said rights depend upon the same.

Fait accompli tends to trump idea.
To imbue a right with meaning requires power. And power does not come as an automatic consequence of being right or having the right. Those who can take power are the ones to exercise it. It's never been fair, but it's always been thus. The traditional forum to contest the apportionment of power and privilege has been war. No effective, durable alternative has emerged yet ... but people are working on it. They do because they can, and I contend they can because we are currently in peaceful, prosperous, remarkably liberal times.

You are working to construct an internally-consistent social and philosophical philosophy. I applaud that. However I also recommend you make it as externally consistent as possible. This means admitting to human nature, warts and all. The alternative is to select the utopian premise, "people left to their own devices will be nice", and we've arrived at a previous impasse. cn

 

[abandonconflict]

I find this to be an excellent ideal but not a good mirror of reality. Witness our difficulties in getting Gov't to plainly state its understanding of the Constitution and its amendments. (Doesn't mean we should abandon our fight for a hot heartbeat, though.)
Fait accompli tends to trump idea.
To imbue a right with meaning requires power. And power does not come as an automatic consequence of being right or having the right. Those who can take power are the ones to exercise it. It's never been fair, but it's always been thus. The traditional forum to contest the apportionment of power and privilege has been war. No effective, durable alternative has emerged yet ... but people are working on it. They do because they can, and I contend they can because we are currently in peaceful, prosperous, remarkably liberal times.

You are working to construct an internally-consistent social and philosophical philosophy. I applaud that. However I also recommend you make it as externally consistent as possible. This means admitting to human nature, warts and all. The alternative is to select the utopian premise, "people left to their own devices will be nice", and we've arrived at a previous impasse. cn

Fait Accompli tends to trump natural rights? You mean that violation of natural rights has been done and is not reversible? Then you go on to say I am a utopian for believing it is within human capability to cast aside the system in which we live, which you consider peaceful, prosperous, remarkably liberal.

OK, you're now the utopian for thinking that the privilege of the first world is either sustainable or that it does not create an equal or greater measure of suffering elsewhere. Totally unrealistic even if the remarkably liberal aspect were not hard fought constantly. Adding insult to injury would be to premise the justification for this by stating that the earth is over populated.

It is time to reject the Malthusian notion that our lives require justification.

 

[abandonconflict]

The fact is, we consent to be governed, out of fear and stupidity. We consented to begin the drug war and we consent to it's continuation. We cannabis users are a huge minority, possibly even a majority. if we were to all openly defy this prohibition, by going out tomorrow and blazing in public, by the tens of thousands in every city, the day after tomorrow, it would be legal to do so. They can't fucking arrest us all. That is also the same concept that explains why the powers that be are so afraid of labor unions.

The government exists at the mercy and consent of the governed.

 

[cannabineer]

Fait Accompli tends to trump natural rights? You mean that violation of natural rights has been done and is not reversible? Then you go on to say I am a utopian for believing it is within human capability to cast aside the system in which we live, which you consider peaceful, prosperous, remarkably liberal.

OK, you're now the utopian for thinking that the privilege of the first world is either sustainable or that it does not create an equal or greater measure of suffering elsewhere. Totally unrealistic even if the remarkably liberal aspect were not hard fought constantly. Adding insult to injury would be to premise the justification for this by stating that the earth is over populated.

It is time to reject the Malthusian notion that our lives require justification.

I propose a simple test: Find a society that casts aside the system in which we live while still occupying territory under that system's jurisdiction. Since it is a recurring human desire, I would suggest that if it really is within human capability to cast it aside (and to keep it that way) there must be prosperous societies currently or in living memory that made it fly.

I hope you know I am not arguing justifiability/unjustifiability. I don't think that matters one whit. Once born (into a society other than China or Sparta) the right to a shot at survival isn't being questioned. On the strength of Web searches you have inspired me to undertake. my innocent/ignorant appraisal of malthus is no more, and I am distancing myself from his ideas.

But i don't believe that the current Western model is sustainable. My argument is less political (I am not thinking of colonialism or international oppression) than one of simple logistics. We are using key resources more quickly than we can find new ones or decent substitutes. The corporations operating international finance and commerce are so intertwined that when the West goes, the world follows it down the hole of collapse. All our eggs are now in one basket.

I admit curiosity: how am I a utopian? I find a key element of every utopian vision to be the premise that people, if left to their own devices, can make peace and prosperity work. In other words, that human nature balances toward the good. I do not hold that premise to be correct. By your standards (as I understand them), I am and own the opposite label label of dystopian. I hope to be wrong but daren't presume that I am. Jmo. cn

 

[Doer]

You accuse me of jingo and agenda, while you clearly do not understand the debate and distort the parts you do vaguely grasp. I think you are so far off base that you don't even know where base is and therefore have no waypoint from which to navigate. I exposed the inherent racism in your philosophy, you decried race baiting and claimed not to be racist, so I excused you of the accusation allowing you to claim ignorance. Now you are defending the philosophical inherent racism as anything other than racism. That epitomizes jingoistic chauvinism.

So do you claim that the view known as Social Darwinism is not a racist doctrine?

You said there was something that could be done. I said, no. I asked what do you do?

No answer.

You bandy epitomized jingoistic chauvinism like you knew what you are talking about, and like you think it is some hurtful weapon. The more your premise is questioned the more hateful you get.

Yet, you are so far afield of your point about justification of life for work, or some theory. Then you saddled poor Thomas with it. Now you swerve into Social Darwinism.

OK, that may be a doctrine of conquest, control, etc. But, racist? Have you seen much of the world? We are the least racist people on Earth. All Earth culture is based on racism, long before Darwin,. Long before we outlawed it as best we can. It is all racism today outside most of the USA.

You may think control Doctrines are something to be believed in. But, I assure you they are tools, only. And to label these conquest tools with such a meaninglessly, frustrated term...who are you kidding? This stuff is indoctrinated in you. It is Socialist Agenda Control Doctrine you spout. What a joke. You have to believe in a Agenda, that will never make sense. As I tried for many years, brother. I've been there. Been to the bottom and back to the top again. It is illogical. There is no profit in being a tool. It will waste your life.

philosophical inherent racism

For one, there is no genetic basis for race. And two, I don't subscribe to these theories whatever. It seem too passionate. Like religion.

Three, your ham fisted insults are meaningless, but a prime example of Agenda viciousness.

 

[Doer]

The fact is, we consent to be governed, out of fear and stupidity. We consented to begin the drug war and we consent to it's continuation. We cannabis users are a huge minority, possibly even a majority. if we were to all openly defy this prohibition, by going out tomorrow and blazing in public, by the tens of thousands in every city, the day after tomorrow, it would be legal to do so. They can't fucking arrest us all. That is also the same concept that explains why the powers that be are so afraid of labor unions.

The government exists at the mercy and consent of the governed.

Why would anyone follow this madness? Have you noticed they can open fire? Where were you when the shooting at Kent State occurred? That big sqaure in Bejing? Damascus, right now?

What are you dreaming? A flash mob insurrection? A blood bath?

 

[abandonconflict]

You said there was something that could be done. I said, no. I asked what do you do?

No answer.

You bandy epitomized jingoistic chauvinism like you knew what you are talking about, and like you think it is some hurtful weapon. The more your premise is questioned the more hateful you get.

Yet, you are so far afield of your point about justification of life for work, or some theory. Then you saddled poor Thomas with it. Now you swerve into Social Darwinism.

OK, that may be a doctrine of conquest, control, etc. But, racist? Have you seen much of the world? We are the least racist people on Earth. All Earth culture is based on racism, long before Darwin,. Long before we outlawed it as best we can. It is all racism today outside most of the USA.

You may think control Doctrines are something to be believed in. But, I assure you they are tools, only. And to label these conquest tools with such a meaninglessly, frustrated term...who are you kidding? This stuff is indoctrinated in you. It is Socialist Agenda Control Doctrine you spout. What a joke. You have to believe in a Agenda, that will never make sense. As I tried for many years, brother. I've been there. Been to the bottom and back to the top again. It is illogical. There is no profit in being a tool. It will waste your life.

philosophical inherent racism

For one, there is no genetic basis for race. And two, I don't subscribe to these theories whatever. It seem too passionate. Like religion.

Three, your ham fisted insults are meaningless, but a prime example of Agenda viciousness.

Social Darwinism is Malthusian, no swerve. Your talk of jingoism and agenda are your bread and butter, first and last resort in every debate I have seen you take part.

Furthermore, I did answer you what could be done, you're just too ignorant to understand it. You were right about insult though, I have no scruples about calling you ignorant. You can't even see how I exposed racism in your world view and now you "bandy" this exposition with agenda and jingoism. You are a classic fool. My agenda is precisely as the title of the thread states, as it has been all along, no swerve.

So to reiterate for you what that answer was, since you are ignorant in ways more than simply by not seeing the racism in the world view you espouse, my answer to your question, what can be done, is simply realise that it is time to grow out of old ideas and reject them. To continue to defend them would be hypocritical and ignorant. I explained why ignorant, hypocritical because you so enjoy the words 'Jingo' and 'Agenda'.