> Refute it please. Well, let's write the formal argument then.
>
> Premise1: Evolution is a tautology.
> Premise2: The current context of evolution on planet earth is one
> where you're strength is measured by
> your ability to cope(with school and work). (except if you are
> already wealthy enough to live off of passive income)
> Premise 3: People commit suicide when the perspective of dying is
> superior to the perspective of living.
> Premise 4: The weakest have a greater perspective of dying then the
> stronger.(in fact, they believe they will be stronger when they die).
> Premise 5: Drugs and alcohol are a way of committing a slow and light
> suicide.
>
> Inference For those who are weak and can't cope, dying is a better
> alternative then living.
> Conclusion: The weakest among us choose to kill themselves as an
> alternative to cope with their own
> weaknesses and they choose drugs and alcohol as a way of doing it.
>
> [veridicus] OK. I think Kalkor's argument was an adequate justification of
my opinion.
[veridicus]
But, with the current "Ripper" case aside, I will address your logic more
generally.
Your second premise alone is erroneous. You're "strength" in modern society
is not "measured by your ability to cope" (with school and work),
and I expect that you can provide no empirical evidence for that assertion.
From an evolutionary standpoint, having genes
that physiologically predispose you with resilience to biological pathogens
or psychological extremes seems a much more
accurate measure of evolutionary strength.
[Rafael]
Let me restate premise number 2: There is a pattern showing where those who
cope
with school and work are fitter then those who don't. Surely, the social
institutions we have on planet earth are
by no means a universal way to measure fitness(I did sound like Hitler lol.
Have to be careful of that
[veridicus]
In fact, general intelligence itself (if it could be determined
definitively) seems a much more accurate measure of evolutionary strength or
weakness.
[Rafael]
Determining intelligence as your ability to recognize patterns is a fair way
to put it. And I don't think recognizing patterns
is what putted Bush on the white house(although I think it is what placed
Lula at Granja do Torto, and yes I am Brazilian).
Recognizing patterns is not what makes most people people climb to the top
of their hierarchical institutions.
Well, we live in a world of flawed social and economic institutions and I
see fitness is your ability to raise to the top.
[veridicus]
This, by no means, coincides with an individual's propensity to "cope" with
inherently flawed social institutions such as "school" or "work." In fact,
if you investigated the history, many of the most prominent influences on
the dir!
ection of humanity did not necessarily excel in the particular institutions
you sited as criteria.
[Rafael]
Absolutely. But those people are outside the "general pattern of fitness in
the context of our flawed institutions".
I guess I failed to communicate this pattern prior to my argument. My fault.
[veridicus]
Furthermore, many people who use drugs or partake in life threatening
endeavors do not do so out of a weakness, or inability to cope with social
institutions, or a compulsion towards self-destruction, on the contrary,
often these are simply the people with an urge to venture beyond the safe
harbors of convention and explore the unknown despite the dangers it may
pose.
[Rafael]
Wrong. Sure, there are is the brilliant scientist/
artists/philosopher who use drugs to expand his senses. But most
are the weak who can't cope.
[veridicus]
Often these are the explorers of human boundaries that set the course for
future progression. But, yeah, I guess sometimes they're just weak people
who can't cope, too. Yet, the people that tend to "cope" best with the
mundane, mindnumbing jobs (as the great majority are) are more likely those
that are intelligent enough to do the work, while dumb enough not to be
aware of the insipidity of much of it. Ideally, much like low tech robots.
Your main problem with premise 2 is the assumption that wealth and care!> er
are measures of success (evolutionary or otherwise) while I must assert that
the true measure of success (individually and evolutionary) would be better
defined by ones level of happiness. And, as you must know, happiness and
wealth are very far from being synonymous.
[Rafael]
I agree. I surely have put much of my own unconscious assumptions into the
argument. My assumption is the you can only be happy
after you reach a point where you can life off of passive income. Therefore,
I see evolutionary success as a person's ability
to cope with the tough economic and social institutions we live for a while,
until he can live off of passive income and
simply spent his time enjoying life.
[veridicus]
Premise 3, also, seems to be based on a misunderstanding of suicide. The
phenomenon is much less a long thought out attempt at escaping careers or
school, than it is an impulsive manifestation of an extended neurological
dysfunction resulting in pathologically altered perception. It is not only
the poor, unsuccessful, uneducated people that commit suicide (or use drugs
for that matter), in many cases, it is often the wealthy, "successful" man
who seems to have the perfect life.
[Rafael]
SEEM to have the perfect life. SEEEEM.
In fact, I see no differences between the life of the poor and the life of
the "successful" to the extent that they have to cope
with our flawed social institutions as you putted it. I reiterate, winning
the game of evolution means for me being able
to live off of passive income and not having to go through our "flawed
social institutions".
[veridicus]
Your idea of natural selection seems to be deeply flawed, kinda like Hitler
's.well, maybe not that bad!
[Rafael]
My idea of natural selection is the some of Darwin. Now applying it to what
we have TODAY on planet earth, I recognize
the pattern that we all strive towards having a passive income, and those
who don't get there have failed. (the majority).
But I agree, I not only recognized the pattern, I have also putted much of
who am and what I have phaith in it.
[]'s
Rafael
--
Rafael Anschau <
anschau.ez@terra.com.br>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
Author
Logged
