Subject: Re: 8c a week to cancel world's debts
Date: 20 Sep 1999 22:09:31 GMT
From: Chris Ho-Stuart <>
Organization: Queensland University of Technology, Australia
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian,aus.religion,nz.soc.religion
In aus.religion.christian Tigger <> wrote:
> George Politis wrote in message <37E5B0>...
> >> >> If you can't make the payments, don't take the loan.
> >> >
> >> >If you can't afford to eat, starve to death?
> >>
> >> It's called survival of the fittest and it ensures that only those that
> can,
> >> do.
> >
> >That's pretty calous and heartless!!
>
> Yep.
>
> >Who said that only the fittest should survive, anyway??
>
> How much is it crippling our country to be providing for those that can't or
> won't work, the elderly, the sick, the lazy dole-bludging buggers?
>
> We have enough worries in our own country to be bothered with others anyway.
> I, for one, would never give a penny to an organisation feeding starving
> children overseas while there's still one single family in poverty in New
> Zealand.
>
> Why should only the strong survive? To increase the strength of the group.
> IMHO, human beings have stopped evolving. Not because we haven't seen any
> change in thousands of years (I know that's only a blink in evolutionary
> time), but because we no longer have any natural selection weeding out the
> lame and the sick, and giving advantage to the strong. Hell, what are we
> going to get when all the school kids have worked out that they don't need
> to finish school to get on training schemes and maybe get a job, and the
> only workers anyone will employ are from those schemes and have failed or
> not bothered to sit school exams?

ARGH! The above is total nonsense with respect to natural selection
and evolution. The notion that humans are somehow not evolving due
to the advantages of modern technology is pernicious nonsense.

Sorry Tigger -- I am not trying to slam you, but to slam a
particular assertion you have brought up.

This is pernicious because thinking of evolution producing
better humans due to natural selection, until we somehow stopped
it happening, is the basis of all kinds of revolting eugenics
notions about restoring natural selection for the betterment of
the species. Linking the selfish refusal to consider the plight
of nations in debt to absurd social darwinist distortions of
evolutionary theory is perilously close this this obscentity.

First, let's be aware that the usual condition of a species at a
point in time is basically genetic stasis. This applies especially
for large populations, like humans. The primary effect of natural
selection in this case is preservation of the genetic status quo.

This has nothing to do with technology. Speciation usually
occurs in small groups, or else over very long periods of time.

On the other hand, it is true that as long as some people have more
children than others, and as long as their children are like, but
not exactly like, their parents, there will be evolution. As long as
there is any heritable characteristic which has any impact on the
likelihood of your having children, there will be selection. So
will technology have an effect on this process?

The notion of evolutionary fitness is not an absolute one, but
is dependent on the environment. Technology is a part of our
environment, and thus will have its own effects on the fitness
profile of heritable characteristics. The effects of having diabetes,
for example, are not as drastic as previously. On the other hand,
reduced effects of some diseases may increase the significance of
features relating to personality or ability. To say that there is
no selection, however, is absurd.

For various reasons, however, the effects of technology are not
likely to be all that drastic. The major effects apply across
the board for the entire population. Improved health care,
better education, better food distribution, and so on, tend to
apply without much regard for "bad" genes. There is no major
problem with lots of "sub-standard" humans who have been weeded
out in the past but who will now live to degrade the species
thanks to technology.

You'll be doing science and the world a major favour if you leave
concern for the evolutionary future of humanity completely OUT of
the equation when weighing up the pros and cons of sympathy for
the plight of nations in debt, or other similar ethical concerns.

On to consideration of the issue of thrid world debt...

With respect to debt, the situation is NOT a question of us
just ignoring the poorer nations until we make life perfect
for everyone at home.

As matters stand, the debt and loan arrangements are actively
TRANSFERING wealth from the poorer nations to the richer. The poorer
nations are paying much more to the rich than they have received
in aid. The situation is a vicious cycle, and it is up the the rich
nations to break it rather than to continue taking advantage of
others while REFUSING to even consider why and how they are doing it.

Cheers -- Chris Ho-Stuart