Sunday, February 8, 2009

While We're On The Subject... Let Us Turn The Argument On Its Head

If we are going to try to assert that r-- is due to evolution, then by this same reasoning we would have to conclude that <all> forms of physical conquering are motivated by evolution.  Might makes right, after all.

*Fistfights between males.  a
is fitter than a physically weaker
This is where the concept of war originated.  The team that wins the war has proven its fitness over the other team.  Thus, the winning team gets to preserve its genetic fitness by copulating.  females would be drawn to the

Many attempt to argue that the modern equivalent of physical fitness and dominance are a formal education and a paycheque that allows one to be able to afford to support a family --

No, no, we do not use modern equivalents.  In considering men, only in recent human progress has fitness for acquiring sustenance, provisions, and shelter been regarded as a separate entity from physical capability and physical appearance.

*Or, perhaps not so much.  In Malcolm Gladwell's "Blink," he makes the interesting observation that several of the CEOs in this country are all tall.

----
Let us dissemble their pseudo-logic argument and then pulverize it one piece at a time.

They think that evolution is due to physical prowess as stand-in for logic.

By that argument, there is no reason for anyone to care if a victim is murdered who is not related to them.

What about genocide?  If it is not your immediate family being murdered, i.e., no one that carries a fragment of your genes, then there is no reason to care.

Destruction of people outside your blood family.  This would increase the dominance of your family, and will preserve the fitness of your genes.  Your genes after all, would have access to the best resources if your genes are the ones in power.

Plain survival and preference of one's own genes.  Plus dominance and power of your genes over someone else's genes.

*Fear of the unknown-- genes other than your own genes.  Early hominids would take an instant distrust to strangers.  From one angle, this makes sense.  There is no reason to trust a stranger -- they might kill all your babies and take all your stuff and your wimmin.

*Keeping stuff for yourself, for your own genes.

By a very small extension, this would include your distant relatives as well.  Any method possible to preserve one's own genetic pool, however distantly separated, would be a motivator.  People that look more like you are most closely related to you.  If anyone tries to say that r-- is because of evolution, then you would have to concede that racism is also an innate social motivation that has origins in evolution.

Following this same line of reasoning, you would have to make this concession as well.  Racism is nothing more severe than the assertion that one's own gene pool is best.

I am certainly not the first person to assert this.

*All genocide in the history of the world is based on this very postulate.

It is only logical that they were all motivated by evolution.  Ethnic cleansing is driven by the motivation to preserve one's own genes in their purest, most complete form.

This is precisely why Islamicist militant groups feel that they are entitled to world domination.  They want to destroy anyone that does not look like them and does not think like them.  This is precisely why white supremacist groups hate, loathe, and fear intermarriage and intermixing with other ethnic groups.  They want to preserve their way of life.  They are evolutionarily motivated, after all.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment