From: Kalkor (kalkor@kalkor.com)
Date: Fri Mar 01 2002 - 10:44:20 MST
Oh, man... I can't resist, there's a couple things in here that I take
exception with, and that NNG has attempted to call ME on a couple times
already:
[NNG]
Arguments:
1) Sex exists for reproduction. Failure to use things for their intended
purpose is an abnormality.
2) Sexual activities that do not result in reproduction are a waste of
energy for the species, as they do not allow the population size to grow,
and
therefore do not enable the rate of evolution to be as fast, and therefore
hold the
species back in it's development.
3) While people have a right to do things as they wish privately, no one
has a right to encourage behavior that uses things for unintended purposes
with no
demonstratable advantage over the use of them for intended purposes, and
likewise no one has
a right to encourage behavior that holds the genetic evolution of the
species back from it's
full potential.
[Kalkor]
I'll only address a few points about the above, but I'm sure the rest of you
will not hesitate to dissect this unhealthy list of "arguments".
1)"intended purpose". Who intended sex to have a purpose? Granted, sexual
intercourse has a consequence, which is offspring. But why is it
pleasurable?
2)Og the caveman picks up a rock. The rock's "intended purpose" is to sit on
the ground and maybe erode into soil some milennium. Og, however, has other
plans. He uses it to bash in the skull of some furry little beastie and
consume the rewards thereof. How abnormal.
3)Methinks you misunderstand the mechanisms of evolution. The environment
levies consequences on imperfections of replication, to vastly oversimplify.
There is no goal, there is no epitome, there is no "holding back" or
"development".
4)People have rights? Sure. We have the right to think, act, and
enjoy/suffer the consequences of our thoughts and actions. No one has the
right to tell me that my actions "are detrimental to the species" because
I'm "holding it back from it's full potential". Oh, they're welcome to try.
And I'm welcome to look around for Og's rock and use it "abnormally" on
their skull.
[NNG]
The people smart enough to engage in contraception are the ones whose
genes we'd like to increase (which doesn't happen if there is
contraception).
The people stupid enough to be on the losing side of a war are the ones
whose genes we ought to get rid of (which doesn't happen if we don't use
war as a form of population control).
Granted there are some unfortunate times when other circumstances cause
the above generalization to be obviously shown to be a generalization -
but the loss to genetic benefit for the population is probably no more
than that of a natural disaster.
[Kalkor]
Provide for me empirical evidence to support your implied assertion that
intelligence is measurable and genetic.
As wars are fought mostly along geographical borders, you're telling me that
where a person "choses" to be born is a direct reflection on their
intelligence, or lack thereof.
The only generalization worth speaking, imho, is this: Generalizations are
often wrong, and almost always based on opinion, anecdote, and hearsay
rather than factual or experimental evidence.
Kalkor
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:44 MDT