>
>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).
you have to define what "success" is here. what do you mean by that?
the good looking macho jock had all the dates and opportunities to get laid last night while you typed away to a listserv about the survival of the fittest. you said yourself that, despite geeks being hot, sexy, chic and all the rage, you *still* can't get laid. so, jockbuoy hogs all the resources--babes--and gets laid waaaaaaaaay more than you do. how exactly do you explain that one? are you just a loser? a moron? ugly? lacking social graces? chew w. your mouth open while farting at a hurricane? (hi rob!)
wouldn't it be nice if the opportunities for getting laid were equally distributed so that everyone who wanted could get laid could get laid where and when they wanted. (ken will tell you that, under such conditions, no one will want to get laid....<snort> the laws of motion of desire or somesuch rigamarole, the economy of desire perhaps???)
just having fun.
but serious, stop and think about why it is that you can't get laid. what is it about the world that makes it so that you have a hard time getting laid? moral codes? standards of hegemonic masculinity that you don't meet? lack of places in which to meet other people who are likeminded? etc? how are those things "natural"? fair? right? good? necessary? inevitable? etc.
anyway, on your view, (a dippy [©kelley/snit, infinity] unsophisticated version of 'selfish gene' theory), you are not doing an especially good job at passing on your gene pool are you? :)
>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.
you're right: how about, if you find something--a bag of money, a laptop computer, etc--that you got as only a small part of your effort, chance, luck, virtue of being in the right place at right time. should you keep it? let's say it was stolen a hundred years ago and hidden in the recesses of a cave somewhere. you found it, along with a note explaining how someone stole it. everyone it originally belonged to is dead. should you keep it?
the example, below, is not comparable to your original claim that you just happened to live in a winner country with all the resources and so you are not to blame for, nor responsible for, the plight of others since you didn't create the conditions under which they are starving..or whatever.
this is what you are getting at: you feel no moral culpability for addressing contemporary social problems that you feel you don't participate in creating or that you feel that you have no ability to address, as an individual.
>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?
>
>Social darwinism is still darwinsim. The fittest survive.
no it's not. look it up. you'll find a slew of evidence on the internet. look in the archives on this list through google.com and you'll find all the debates you need about how the survival of the fittest ethos you espouse does not translate from evolutionary theory to the ideas you're espousing here.
>What evidence?
you claimed that those who advance are genetically superior.
>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.
what you are talking about, however, are problems that arise from the social organization of production and consumption that limit people's access to food. we throw out food and all kinds of crap day in and day out, while other people starve.
>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?
you are equivocating...which is to be expected since you said at the outset that you were.
kelley