F. Leon,

We, the humans on the planet earth, are experiencing a degree of real
affluence greater than any found in recorded history.   This affluence is
testing our collective character and wisdom as severely as does a million
dollar windfall test those of a lottery winner.  What do we do with it?
We are close to having the potential of keeping virtually every conceived
foetus alive to reproductive maturity and of  supporting entire
communities of terminally infirm, indolent, parasitic and  criminal
individuals.  We have come from nomadic communities living hand-to-mouth
wherein 'the rebellious son shall be stoned' (Deuteronomy 22) to a
thoroughly industrialized and automated society wherein  'all
contra-survival behavior shall be tolerated, '  (no source, just my
hyperbole).  'Human perfectability' is truly within our grasp when we can
surgically or chemically weed out of our gene pool all potential for
infirmity, indolence, parasitism and criminality ... a sort of preemptive
triage which is more palatable to us than taking a sassy boy to the town
square for his final moments.  But is it truly more ethical?  Who is to
decide what is acceptable behavior to be left in the gene pool?  What
else is to be lost from the gene pool?   The latter method does not allow
for the individual to moderate his own behavior after having been shown
what can happen if he continues to sass his mother.

I say, to blazes with human perfectability!  Individuals can strive to
perfect themselves, in fact, that is the basis of all that is noble.  If
only our leaders would say, 'follow me ...  here is my dream, here are
the principles I live by and here is the result.  If you want to pursue
my dream with me, hop on my wagon.'  Instead, we see a President who
dreams about a socialist utopia and lies and fornicates.  What is your
dream F. Leon, I may just hop on your wagon.

Forgive me. I am really trying to stay with your topic.  I believe that
classical Darwinism is only temporarily obscured by today's affluence.
If you take inner cities as microcosms of lesser affluence you will see
pure Survival of the Fittest at work today.  It is inate in any living
thing, inescapable anywhere on the food chain even for those who are so
affluent that they never perceive the moment of death for the entity
which is entering their mouths.   Veganism, anyone?   Within human
society, we have been best served by the invention of business structures
within which self-interest can be expressed and pursued to benefit the
group, vis-a-vis the business, without eliminating the lower rungs of the
ladder for the less able.  But alas, for the poor liberal, such an
organization is difficult to control and tax from some central authority.


> the individual pursuit of self-interest can be collectively
self-defeating.

This is an oxymoronic statement (self-defeating self-interest).  It can
be understood if you equate the estate of the collective to be the estate
of the elite ruling the collective.  Example, Castro is the 11th most
wealthy man in the world.  If he lost his control of his citizens such
that they could fully pursue their self interest, he would eventually
have to give it back.   From the looks of things, he and his enforcers
better start  '>Creating incentives for mutual cooperation'  (like obey
or die) so that doesn't happen.

So, I recommend approaching this issue on the basis of the broader
historical and social context.  Now I will go read the article in
'Prospect.'

Your favorite renegade lurker,

Don

-----------------------------------------
On Fri, 12 Jun 1998 10:11:28 -0400 "F. Leon Wilson"
<[log in to unmask]> writes:
>I find this article "interesting."
>
>Comments?
>
>F. Leon
>
>----------------------------------------
>
>A glance at the June issue of "Prospect":
>Darwinian ideas for the left
>
>The left -- urgently in need of new ideas -- should consider adopting
>Darwinian concepts to freshen its politics, writes Peter Singer,
>director
>of the Centre for Human Bioethics at Australia's Monash University.
>While
>evolution itself has nothing to do with left or right, the right in
>the
>past has drawn most from Darwinian thinking, particularly as a means
>to
>suggest that economic competition leads to the "survival of the
>fittest."
>
>The left rejected Darwin's ideas because they shattered utopian
>notions of
>human perfectibility, Mr. Singer says, since Darwin believed that the
>struggle for existence, or at least that of one's offspring, is
>unending.
>But Mr. Singer contends that modern Darwinian thought "embraces both
>competition and reciprocal altruism." The left, therefore, should seek
>to
>encourage a broader sense of self-interest by showing that he says.
>Creating incentives for mutual cooperation then could help the left
>achieve its traditional aims, such as avoiding economic conditions
>that
>create outcasts.
>
>The magazine's World-Wide Web address is:
><http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk>
>
>===========================================================================
>
>This posting is provided to the individual members of this  group
>without
>permission from the copyright owner for purposes  of criticism,
>comment,
>scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of the
>Federal
>copyright laws and it may not be distributed further without
>permission of
>the copyright owner.
>
>FLW
>===========================================================================
>

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]