There are ALL manner of negative biases that people can fall prey to, and they come from all sides of the political spectrum. Human nature itself precludes impartiality, in my observation, not just one philosophy or the other.
Genetics, survival of the weak and the future of humanity
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
^If that's a reference to the post above you regarding conservatism, you're both right. Conservatism is the belief that you should err to side of what exists now, while what Amercan's call "progressivism" or "liberalism" is the tendency to think that your vision of the future is superior to the status quo. Neither belief is 100% logical, as their is generally no proof that future X is better than present X, nor that present X is even remotely desirable from your standpoint (though the general thought is that yo). It's all relative, really, being highly dependent on context and situation.
However, conservative philosophy has a tendency to get wrapped up with bigots that use the status quo (which is disadvantageous to the affected) to justify their own biases. "Progressive" ideas can be unhinged from reality and human nature (communism, for example, is a delightfully Utopian idea, which is utterly unworkable once you put humans in the equation). One needs to separate that out. Social Darwinism can also come in "progressive" flavors too.
However, conservative philosophy has a tendency to get wrapped up with bigots that use the status quo (which is disadvantageous to the affected) to justify their own biases. "Progressive" ideas can be unhinged from reality and human nature (communism, for example, is a delightfully Utopian idea, which is utterly unworkable once you put humans in the equation). One needs to separate that out. Social Darwinism can also come in "progressive" flavors too.
A couple of points.
First, near-sightedness (myopia) might not be a purely genetic trait in the vast majority of cases. Research is still ongoing, but it might come from environmental influences such as near-work and not spending enough time in bright sunlight.
Second, humans used to breed at an early age, before most debilitating diseases would've prevented it.
Third, the future genetic fitness of humans is largely irrelevant since their ability to reproduce (and indeed eat) will be determined simply by their skill in erecting statutues of me.
First, near-sightedness (myopia) might not be a purely genetic trait in the vast majority of cases. Research is still ongoing, but it might come from environmental influences such as near-work and not spending enough time in bright sunlight.
Second, humans used to breed at an early age, before most debilitating diseases would've prevented it.
Third, the future genetic fitness of humans is largely irrelevant since their ability to reproduce (and indeed eat) will be determined simply by their skill in erecting statutues of me.
You are missing the past. In the past, these "bad" genes were in exsistence. The "bad" genes were passed down for thousands of years, before medicne and technology. Down the line, it would mount up to nothing different.
I saw this article today and it made me think of this thread.
