Thread: Are Conservatives an Evolutionary Dead End?

I think Devo had it right.

Considering "Progressives" think reproduction is bad for the planet....

consistent and constant agitation pays dividends. The problem is how far, how fast AND who/whom drives it. Not all progressive-ism is bad, but it is when the 'intellectuals' never have to face their failures as objective empirical analysis is parsed so as to cast out the inconvenient evidence that not all of their ideas will work or has worked.

It like the fascination with moving objects, a boulder rolling down hill is infinitely more attractive and curious than is it sitting still.

Originally Posted by Commodore

Considering "Progressives" think reproduction is bad for the planet....

No we don't. We just believe in quality over quantity.

Originally Posted by Donkey_Left

No we don't. We just believe in quality over quantity.

Well said. I guess attempting to control overpopulation is a progressive stance (thinking new), and one that could greatly increase the length of our species' existence.

Originally Posted by Donkey_Left

No we don't. We just believe in quality over quantity.

you believe in sterilization?

Originally Posted by Imperator

you believe in sterilization?

In no way whatsoever did my post advocate sterilization. Where the fuck did you come up with that? Stop making stuff up. Are you drunk?

Originally Posted by Rude Boy

Evolution requires progress.

No it doesn't.

Evolution requires change, not progress. They're two VERY different things.

It is possible for a species to evolve traits that are beneficial in one immediate respect but ultimately harmful in other, unforseen, respects.

Look at the male Peacock's tail.

Big, bright, shiny.

Helps to attract females.

Also helps to attract predators.

In the end the mutation that led to big colorful tails was selected because it served to increase the rate of the species-wide reproduction. But it also served to reduce the lifespan of (many of) the individual organisms of that species.

That's the effect of things having gone the way they actually did.

The thing about this, though, is that we have no way of knowing what the benefit or end result would have been to some other trait being selected - male Peacocks having subdued tails for instance.

We can speculate that the males would get laid a lot less frequently, and consequently would have fewer offspring. That much seems pretty obvious and it's certainly a reasonable assumption.

But what we can't know is how Peacocks would have evolved had their genetics zigged instead of zagged.

Maybe if Peacocks had foregone colorful tails as a species they would have had to developed other survival mechanisims that would eventually have led to their being the dominant species on the planet.

You never really know.

Just because a trait is adopted it isn't a foregone conclusion that the trait was the BEST option. It was simply the most expedient option or it provided the greatest immediate benefit from among a finite pool of possibilities.

It's very possible, given the terms of this discussion, that conservatisim is really BEST for humanity as a species but progressivism was selected because it provided the greatest immediate benefit to the greatest number at the least cost to the majority.

Originally Posted by Donkey_Left

In no way whatsoever did my post advocate sterilization. Where the fuck did you come up with that? Stop making stuff up. Are you drunk?

reproduction was the topic you addressed, you said "we believe in quality over quantity", there fore you seek a quality product over a quantitative product. Abortion is bereft of any premeditated process to achieve that, so is plain old pregnancy.....the only way I can think of, to achieve quality reproduction over quantity is to shut down reproduction for those that may not be a qualitative advance for mankind as a whole.....unless, well, you are for laws disallowing reproduction across the board or quotas, but that doesn't speak to quality at all.

Please let me know if I am off track, thx.

oh, who is "we" exactly

Conservatives have more children. This makes them more successful biologically. Their traits have a better chance of surviving into the future. This, of course, assumes that conservative vs. liberal has anything to do with genetic makeup.

Stupidity isn't painful. If it was, the question would already have been answered.

Originally Posted by Imperator

reproduction was the topic you addressed, you said "we believe in quality over quantity", there fore you seek a quality product over a quantitative product. Abortion is bereft of any premeditated process to achieve that, so is plain old pregnancy.....the only way I can think of, to achieve quality reproduction over quantity is to shut down reproduction for those that may not be a qualitative advance for mankind as a whole.....unless, well, you are for laws disallowing reproduction across the board or quotas, but that doesn't speak to quality at all.

Please let me know if I am off track, thx.

oh, who is "we" exactly

Wow you're really off rez today.

Originally Posted by Porras

Conservatives have more children. This makes them more successful biologically. Their traits have a better chance of surviving into the future. This, of course, assumes that conservative vs. liberal has anything to do with genetic makeup.

Then apparently liberals are better at "conversion."

Still trying to figure out how a claimed Anarchist is for big government....oh well.