> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of kelley
> Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2000 1:12 PM
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: RE: Cybersilliness
>
>
>
> >
> >Why is it wrong? In many areas they are going through a drought
> which has
> >caused their agricultural capabilities to be diminished. I'm
> not hoarding,
> >I just happened to be living in a country of more resources.
>
> if a bag of money falls off the brinks truck or one of the brinks
> truckdrivers/guards oooops drops it, is it right to keep it? is that
> *your* money? are you somehow superior and deserving because you
> happened
> upon it?
This is a poor question because if it has "BRINKS" written on the bag, it's obvious that it doesn't belong to me and would be stealing.
Lets rephrase it.
If I come-up with a new product, build it, sell it, and become rich off of it (using all legal means). Am I now somehow obligated to aid those who haven't? Or am I allowed to keep those riches earned and enjoy them with-out an obligation to help those who haven't? There are two forks in this question. Am I obligated to only those who did not have the same initial resources (education, capital) as I did? Am I obligated to those who also had the same initial resources as I did?
>
> >Because we as
> >a species are able to comprehend this makes it "wrong"?
>
> no, you are espousing social darwinism which is an attempt to
> justify your
> moral claims based on a scientific theory of evolution. however, the
> evidence doesn't support your claims, when subjected to scrutiny.
>
Social darwinism is still darwinsim. The fittest survive.
What evidence?
>
> >Nope we arn't. Since when are we all obliged to help even the
> playing field
> >for people who are born more superior or inferior to us? By the
> very nature
> >of genetics we all start out with differing chances of success.
> Again, this
> >is just life.
>
> the people in other countries aren't genetically inferior to us.
> where do
> you get this idea? do you have evidence that proves this?
>
No, what I said is "By the very nature of genetics we all start out with differing chances of success". How do you read this as "People in other countries are genetically inferior to us?" (shaking head).
In aggregate, people are the same. However individually we are unique and some have qualities that make them superior (that is, a better chance of surivival) than others. This happens everywhere, regardless of where they were born. Being "Superior" may even take hidden forms. Such as resistance to a disease that wipes out a significant portion of the population. The person could be short fat and dumb (typically not 'superior' traits) but that living individual has a fantastically better chance of reproducing than a dead tall, dark, and intelligent one.
>
>
> >Because we are able to understand this, it makes us obliged to fight it?
> >You don't see it is "fair". I see it as being the ultimate form
> of "fair".
>
> yes, there is a way in which you can view it all as fair, but only if you
> disregard the evidence and base your speculations on some incredibly
> unreliable data about IQ and genetics.
>
> maybe brad delong can set you straight on the IQ thing since i
> didn't have
> time when y'all were discussing it at dc-stuff.
Where did IQ come into this? Genetic superiority can come in other forms as well. A plague that suddenly spreads across the world, and only a fraction of the population is immune. People without a gene X die off. Simple as that.
I'm not even advocating genetic superiority, just stated that we all start off with differing chances of surival based on a number of factors, location, resources, and even genes. If one person or group is successfull are they some how obligated to everyone and anyone that isn't to make sure they can survive?