Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 20:00:16 -0800
From: Jonathan Kratter <jonathan-AT-kratter.com>
Subject: re: baby food


See below...

At 07:43 PM 2/2/99 -0500, danceswithcarp wrote:
>On Mon, 1 Feb 1999, Jonathan Kratter wrote:

<SNIP>

>> No, actually, I don't see how survival of the fittest is less anarchistic
>> than mutual aid.
>
>Survival of the fittest +requires+ the elimination of those who are of
>lesser ability, ubermensch.

No, actually, the Darwinian theory of survival of the fittest says that
those who are NOT fit will not survive... it does not say that WE should
ELIMINATE those who we feel are unfit... there's a large difference there...

<SNIP>
 
>Oh, I don't know.  The tribe that follows the judeo-xtian path has a long
>and illustrious hystery of beating their children, and they seem quite
>well entrenched globally.

That's not a tribe, that's a totally different social unit...

<SNIP>

>The competitive nature of the "survival" you espouse establishes the most
>basic hierarchy of all--that of deciding who lives, and who doesn't.

I'm not establishing that hiearchy; nature established that hierarchy when
life first started to evolve on this planet.  If you have a problem with
this system, perhaps you should address it to nature.  Or do you think you
have a better way?  If so, go for it, but remember that people have been
thinking they have a better way than nature for 10,000 years now and all
they've succeeded in doing is royally fucking our planet and ourselves over.


>> Survival of the fittest kept our planet running
>> just fine for 4 billion years until a few humans thought they could do a
>> better job back around the start of the agricultural revolution.  Compare
>> the state of the planet then with the state of the planet now, and tell me
>> which system is more effective: survival of the fittest, or the
>> conflicting, unclear, ephemeral "moral" value systems that we feel must be
>> imposed on everyone around us.
>
>Heh-heh.  Peoples engaging in agriculture indeed did foster the rise of
>hierarchy.  But peoples who don't practice agriculture are destroyed when
>they come into contact with people that do by those organized societies.  
>Isn't that in itself "survival of the fittest?"

Yes, those who practice the unique brand of agriculture that most of the
world is now practicing (there are other types, you know) have succeeded in
eliminating most of the tribal societies.  However, they've also succeeded
in making their lives miserable and will succeed, fairly shortly, in
eliminating themselves... or do you think we're living sustainably on the
planet?


>> Before I'm accused of cruelty, though, I would ask you to find me evidence
>> of a true "primitive" tribe that actually beat its children on a daily
>> basis.  I don't think one exists, because the personality type that beats
>> children doesn't occur in a tribe where every member is concerned for the
>> welfare of every other member.  While certainly "cruel" practices exist in
>> "primitive" tribes, I think that one will find that our society is far
>> crueller to its members on a far more regular basis than any tribe ever
was.
>
>What's a "primitive" tribe?  If you're talking about unevolved crude
>social organizations that perpetuate such things as war, theft of the
>common resources for a few and imposes involuntary servitude on others,
>yes, I'd say that is "primitive."
>
>I'd also say that brings us right back to the judeo-xtian tribe that
>currently rules the wirld through capitalism; those are some mighty crude
>fuckers if you ask me.

Perhaps, mr. carp, that's why I put "primitive" in quotes, to acknowledge
that it's a generally accepted term for a group of people who do not fit
the definition of the word.


>And if I may be so erudite, basically I think what you are saying is
>stupid.

Well, this is by far the best argument you've presented so far, because
it's the only one I can't make a rebuttal to... you're certainly entitled
to your opinions.

	-- jonathan





--!-- jonathan --!--
jonathan-AT-kratter.com
http://www.kratter.com
B Lives!