ATTENTION: MR. KOLKER

Robert Kolker:

I think the terms like civilized and uncivilized are loaded to the brim
with value. How about the terms possible and impossible. A society,
regardless of the quality of its civilization is possible if it runs
within the bounds of physical laws.

Michael Ragland:

I think that would be dangerous Mr. Kolker to operate on the premise
a society, regardless of the quality of its civilization is possible if
it runs within the bounds of physical laws. That much is obvious but it
shouldn't be the "gold standard". It would have the effect of devaluing

ethical standards and open the doors to an egregious relativism where
anything and everything which occurred in that state would be
permissible.
We already see that today to a frightening degree.


Now I want to turn my attention again to a post you submitted:

From: Robert J. Kolker - view profile
Date: Thurs, Jan 26 2006 4:56 pm
Email: "Robert J. Kolker" <nowh...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Groups: sci.bio.evolution
Rating:
show options


Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author



whitesic...@xxxxxxx wrote:
I think both biological evolution and cultural evolution have been
accelerating but as you mention "At this point biological evolution was
surpassed by cultural evolution". Natural selection, even if it does
show evolutionary acceleration, occurs glacially much slower than
cultural evolution.


Cultural evolution is not evolution in the Darwinian sense.

It is well known that cultural change occurs several orders of
magnitude
faster than biological change. So what? What does this have to do with
biological evolution? Just about the only thing I can think of is that
technology will remove selection pressures from the human population
since weaklings are now supported by the medical-technical system.
People who would have died long before they went upstream to spawn now
not only live long enough to reproduce, but they do reproduce
maintaining their wretched genes in the gene pool. Medical technology
has promoted dysgenics, rather than eugenics.


Bob Kolker

Mr. Kolker:

[moderator's note: While I agree that many of Mr. Kolker's opinions
are loathesome, I worry when the word "eugenic" pops up in a thread
in s.b.e. I fear we are veering into pointless doldrums, and I do
not like to see two people squabbling in this forum (there are
precedents where I have simply shut down dialogs of that sort,
benevolent despotism in action). Perhaps the two of you could take
it to email if Bob would provide Michael with a legit email address
(FWIW, Michael's address is perfectly good.). - JAH]

Your a dangerous person. There is a label that fits you and its called
"fascist". You ask, "So what? What does this have to do with biological
evolution? It means as a species we are mismatched to our environment.
It means because cultural evolution has outpaced our biological
evolution we now have the means to destroy ourselves where in our
evolutionary past we didn't have to worry about that. The possible
saving grace is cultural evolution in the form of scientific and
technological advances will continue and will help to bridge this huge
gulf between our cultural evolution and biological evolution. You've
conceded cultural evolution occurs several magnitudes faster than
biological evolution. I submit this mismatch can't be continually
maintained or sustained.

You write, "Just about the only thing I can think of is that technology
will remove selection pressures from the human population since
weaklings are now supported by the medical-technical system. People who
would have died long before they went upstream to spawn now
not only live long enough to reproduce, but they do reproduce
maintaining their wretched genes in the gene pool. Medical technology
has promoted dysgenics, rather than eugenics."

It seems you are hostile to advances in cultural evolution. Tell me, if
you contracted severe pneumonia would you go to the hospital or stay
home? If you broke your arm would you
go to the hospital or fix it yourself? If you were in a wheelchair and
needed heart surgery would you go to the hospital or kill yourself? If
you were a veteran in a wheelchair would you support the authorities
killing you as a "useless mouth"? That is what the Third Reich did.
How about the mentally retarded and mentally ill Mr. Kolker? Should
they be put out of their misery too?

You fail to mention medical technology has the potential not only to
save lives but also be used in the future to pinpoint diseases and
hopefully in the future removing them i.e. not the breathing human
being Mr. Kolker.

I told a friend I compared you to a caveman and they said I was being
way too kind.

Michael Ragland


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is evolution accelerating?
    ... So I have organism parents, mum and dad, and gene parents, allele ... >> process that can occur in cultural evolution but not in biological. ... every intro biology students who comes ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is evolution accelerating?
    ... >>that such culture is separate and apart from their biological evolution. ... > cultural evolution must be treated separate from biological. ... This is, I think, the level Wilkins is describing. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is evolution accelerating?
    ... I don't think Wilkins' arguments are working. ... >that such culture is separate and apart from their biological evolution. ... cultural evolution must be treated separate from biological. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is evolution accelerating?
    ... This circularity, this self reference, is the basis of logical ... >>> process that can occur in cultural evolution but not in biological. ... attitude would have stopped genetics dead in its track in 1900. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is evolution accelerating?
    ... >>> that such culture is separate and apart from their biological evolution. ... >> cultural evolution must be treated separate from biological. ... > out to be irrelevant to the main dynamics of cultural evolution. ... you can't ask if culture evolves more rapidly than biology ...
    (talk.origins)