How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 Are You More Willing?   [ Page: 1  2  3  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Are You More Willing?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


25 posted 12-09-2008 01:12 PM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

I agree with you Balladeer that specific physical defects like obesity or stuttering can potentially lead to a loss of self-esteem.
rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


26 posted 12-09-2008 03:12 PM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

quote:
Men are not wild about the Victoria's Secret models because they know them.


Laugh. Great quote.

quote:
I agree with you Balladeer that specific physical defects like obesity or stuttering can potentially lead to a loss of self-esteem.


True, but so can the assumptions/expectations toward those who are attractive or who do excel above others. There will be a time when they are not as attractive anymore or maybe they've never thought as highly of themselves as others do think of them. And there will be a day when one doesn’t get the A on the paper or someone else breaks your sports record, etc. This can cause a crash and burn affect for the beautiful/over achievers. Eating disorders and body dysmorphic disorders, surgery obsessions, steroids and injury from pushing oneself way too far just to stay in competition.

Competition/pursuit is seen as game to many.
I heard a couple guys talking the other day and they were discussing dating techniques and one guy said he’d not had any luck in meeting a nice girl. His friend advised him what he should do: “When approaching a group of girls, approach the ugliest one first, because the hot chicks expect being approached and it will make them want you if you go after the least one in the bunch!”

So yeah, it’s amazing what some people will do to make butts outta themselves while hoping to land a pretty woman.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


27 posted 12-09-2008 03:40 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Tell me about it. I shoulda changed my name to anus years ago!
rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


28 posted 12-09-2008 04:33 PM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

Hahaha...don't tell me you fathered that idea, or has that been a long used strategy and I'm just too long outta the game??
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


29 posted 12-09-2008 04:46 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Human beauty, from a Darwinian perspective, can be better understood, I think, if we approach it as a potential measure of good health.

Cultural bias aside (Twiggy was an exception, not a rule), one doesn't entrust one's genes to the sickly. Generally, I think we are attracted not just to beautiful people, but to healthy people. It is only later we begin to define that state as something we consider beautiful.


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


30 posted 12-09-2008 05:35 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Ron, most often beauty is not a measure of good health, though the retention of beauty may be.  And many unalluring folk are born healthy and live a long long time.  

Stephen
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


31 posted 12-09-2008 05:53 PM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

Actually I think it's a combination of many "attractive" features that snare the wandering gene.  

But, having said that, I do wonder whether, now that humanity has moved from the wilderness to the metropolis, natural selection is becoming anything but natural - the "rules" are being distorted, just like everything else in nature is being distorted, by our behavioural interference.  Ironic isn't it, the thought that as well as deleting the planet we could actually be deleting the genes that enable our survival too.  
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


32 posted 12-09-2008 07:11 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Ok! Add those to the list. We are deleting the planet, deleting the genes, depleting the ozone layer, destroying the environment...and the list goes on.

I have it on good authority that Mother Nature laughs at the tiny human creatures with the big egos
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


33 posted 12-09-2008 10:30 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Moonbeam:
quote:
But, having said that, I do wonder whether, now that humanity has moved from the wilderness to the metropolis


There is a still a large mass of humanity that hasn't.

quote:
natural selection is becoming anything but natural - the "rules" are being distorted


I don't believe in Darwinism beyond the ability to produce small-scale change within species ... However, granting a full-blown-Darwinian perspective, how could anything be "unnatural"?  What rules?


Balladeer:
quote:
I have it on good authority that Mother Nature laughs at the tiny human creatures with the big egos


Mike, I tend to take a middle ground on this (though for me, God would stand in the place of the Mother Nature here).  Whenever the environmental left gets too paranoid and sure that we will obliterate the entire human race and nature along with it, I remember the kind of humility you imply.  Do we really think we creatures can do all that?  But when I consider the cornucopian industrialist rape-the-earth mindset, I remember that we are made in God's image ... and so can cause a lot of damage when we go awry.  We need to take care of the environment the best we can.    


But to get back to the subject of the thread, here are a couple of questions:  

How is beauty related to vanity?

Is it less-than-beautiful to favor the beautiful too much?  

many of our stories have this theme, from the Gospel right on down to the ugly duckling.

"He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.
Like one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not
" (Isaiah 53:2-3)


Stephen
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


34 posted 12-09-2008 10:45 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Not to mention that Jezebel wasn't admired for her cooking...
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


35 posted 12-09-2008 10:53 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Oddly enough I'm reading "The Idiot" right now, which seems to touch on these themes.

Stephen
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


36 posted 12-10-2008 05:12 AM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam


quote:
Ok! Add those to the list. We are deleting the planet, deleting the genes, depleting the ozone layer, destroying the environment...and the list goes on.

I have it on good authority that Mother Nature laughs at the tiny human creatures with the big egos

Deleting the genes was a joke Mike, in the sense that even if we are impairing the "survival" gene we are probably talking about another 100,000 years or so before we know it, by which time we'll all be glorified computer chips in any case.

Deleting the planet is not a joke, and depleting the ozone layer and destroying the environment are of course all part of the same concern.  Can "puny" humans make material impacts on the environment?

I think that chuckling about  "big egos" or "crazy green socialists" is great as an antidote to those very egos and left wing activists who would have us believe that Armageddon is just round the corner, but that's as far as it goes.  Certainty that we can have no effect on the planet (especially as an excuse for lazy and wasteful consumption of resources) is as arrogant as certainty that we do have.    
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


37 posted 12-10-2008 05:56 AM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

There is a still a large mass of humanity that hasn't.


I was speaking with a metaphorical slant, implying that only the last few years of human existence have been post agrarian and industrial revolutions.  Not many humans nowadays live in caves and hunt mammoths.  Not many humans even in darkest Africa have not heard of TV, or Britney.
quote:
quote:natural selection is becoming anything but natural - the "rules" are being distorted

I don't believe in Darwinism beyond the ability to produce small-scale change within species ... However, granting a full-blown-Darwinian perspective, how could anything be "unnatural"?  What rules?

That was why I put "rules" in inverted commas Stephen, implying that "decision making" by genes and memes is outwith the control of the organism.  One of the reasons I have reservations about full blown Darwinism is that the self awareness that comes with what we call civilisation substantially increases the chances of repeated host/gene conflict, and, as I understand it, natural selection assumes that an organism will be driven by the interests of its genes.  
rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


38 posted 12-10-2008 12:44 PM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

quote:
How is beauty related to vanity?


People do relate or equate beauty to vanity, and many times throughout history women have been subjects of great oppression due to virtues, means, and values surrounding beauty and the avoidance of vanity. Part of being a virtuous woman was keeping plain her appearance, covering her glory, causing not any man to look upon her with lust.

Modesty was and still is in some countries an insurance policy for men to keep their prized possessions virtuous only unto them and their heirs undoubtedly theirs.

Each time period produces new standards to follow in behavior, presentation, appearance, poise, and dress.

But the concept of vanity doesn’t only apply to females, by depiction. Vanity is seen as the worst sin of the “seven deadlies,” and it has many different names, Pride, hubris, vainglory, narcissism, superbia…et al of which Lucifer is the most noted “fallen one,” from pride and was supposedly the most beautiful of all angels. “The evil one’s” appearance is very interesting in art history and contemporary film. Usually, a more beautiful portrayal indicates Lucifer whereas the more beastly and horrific portrayal indicates Satan, after the fall…which can be symbolic of pride resulting in the worst kind of ugliness.

quote:
Is it less-than-beautiful to favor the beautiful too much?


As in obsessed? I think it’s fair to say that obsessions lead to all kinds of complications, but simple admiration or appreciation shouldn’t be seen as faulty or flawed.

The extreme opposite of “to favor”  would be “to abhor.” If the beautiful are seen as prideful, and the prideful are to be deemed the infidels because they are placing themselves above, before or without, any God, then yes, that type of mentality is not only less-than-beautiful, but it suggests that they have a God complex which entitles them to make such judgments upon others and, in essence, they are what they hate. I don’t think there’s anything beautiful about that, but some believe this type of hate entitles them a most high place in the afterlife. They are the most beautiful examples of warriors for their faith.

It’s also not beautiful to be envious of others to a mad degree or to despise beauty enough to want to eradicate someone for personal gain. Many pretty women suffered a “Hexa’s” fate during the witch hunts.  This was a great way to get rid of the competition. Plain girls could point the finger at innocent beauties and voila! Their chances for a husband went from very slim to high by default.

gotta do what you gotta do for survival, I guess, since being a spinster was nearly as shameful for a woman as being a harlot.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


39 posted 12-10-2008 04:45 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

There is a great difference between the beauty of what we are (human bodies) and the beauty of what we do (good and evil).   The first beauty is bodily, but the second is artistic and moral.  It seems most of you would agree that artistic and moral beauty is more beautiful and important.  But nevertheless the other always interferes to some extent and that is where we must needs try to measure a bit how much we allow our choices to be influenced by it.  Unfortunately when it is stronger, the judgement is in more danger of being weaker.  

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


40 posted 12-10-2008 10:48 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
Me:Is it less-than-beautiful to favor the beautiful too much?

Reg::As in obsessed? I think it's fair to say that obsessions lead to all kinds of complications, but simple admiration or appreciation shouldn't be seen as faulty or flawed.


By "favoring the beautiful", I meant to neglect those who aren't, not to despise beauty.  Sometimes we can artificially surround ourselves with who and what we perceive to be healthy and beautiful ... and miss the greater beauty of humility.

quote:
The extreme opposite of 'to favor'  would be 'to abhor.' If the beautiful are seen as prideful, and the prideful are to be deemed the infidels because they are placing themselves above, before or without, any God, then yes, that type of mentality is not only less-than-beautiful, but it suggests that they have a God complex which entitles them to make such judgments upon others


You seem to be referring to religious hatred (which is rightfully criticized where it is to be found).  But among the religious who deems beauty as equal to pride, or despises beauty?  I can't seem to grasp a real example of what you're alluding to.


Stephen

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (12-11-2008 01:42 AM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


41 posted 12-10-2008 10:52 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Ess,

I think the answer is to recognize that beauty is hierarchical in nature, and in some ways objective.  We get into trouble when we are enamored by lesser beauty at the expense of greater.  If looked at too closely, even a small object can block one's vision from seeing a much larger one.

Stephen    

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (12-10-2008 11:35 PM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


42 posted 12-10-2008 11:31 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Moonbeam:
quote:
That was why I put "rules" in inverted commas Stephen, implying that "decision making" by genes and memes is outwith the control of the organism.


The mysticism crept into Darwinian philosophy always makes me chuckle.  "decision making" by genes?  And what is in the definition of meme that isn't just foisting a Darwinian scheme onto an older phrase like "influential idea"?

quote:
One of the reasons I have reservations about full blown Darwinism is that the self awareness that comes with what we call civilisation substantially increases the chances of repeated host/gene conflict, and, as I understand it, natural selection assumes that an organism will be driven by the interests of its genes.


I think you are describing the newer forms of Darwinism (a' la Dawkins et al) which have more than a bit of mysticism thrown in.  Natural selction, in the purest Darwinian sense, assumes nothing.  It wouldn't matter if self-awareness was in conflict with human survival any more than it would matter if a third wing on a fly rendered its particular genes doomed to extinction.  Remember that Darwinism in its most basic form, states that the origin of species is nothing but a series of fortuitous flukes (random mutations that happened to work).  Even big dogs like Stephen Jay Gould say that genes aren't "trying" to get anywhere.  By saying such, people are only smuggling in a telos or design mentality from another worldview altogether (Judeo-Christian Theism most prominently).  So that trifle shouldn't give you reservations about Darwinism, since the irony or absurdity of it wouldn't bother Darwinism in the least.

But, having said that, I think there are other things that should give you pause in regard to Darwinism.  These 'other things' are the lack of scientific evidence for macroevolution, and the enormities of difficulty that increased knowledge of micro-biology have presented us with, in regard to the origin of species.  


Stephen  
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


43 posted 12-11-2008 05:21 AM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam


quote:
    quote:That was why I put "rules" in inverted commas Stephen, implying that "decision making" by genes and memes is outwith the control of the organism.
The mysticism crept into Darwinian philosophy always makes me chuckle.  "decision making" by genes?  And what is in the definition of meme that isn't just foisting a Darwinian scheme onto an older phrase like "influential idea"?

    quote:One of the reasons I have reservations about full blown Darwinism is that the self awareness that comes with what we call civilisation substantially increases the chances of repeated host/gene conflict, and, as I understand it, natural selection assumes that an organism will be driven by the interests of its genes.
I think you are describing the newer forms of Darwinism (a' la Dawkins et al) which have more than a bit of mysticism thrown in.  Natural selction, in the purest Darwinian sense, assumes nothing.  It wouldn't matter if self-awareness was in conflict with human survival any more than it would matter if a third wing on a fly rendered its particular genes doomed to extinction.  Remember that Darwinism in its most basic form, states that the origin of species is nothing but a series of fortuitous flukes (random mutations that happened to work).  Even big dogs like Stephen Jay Gould say that genes aren't "trying" to get anywhere.  By saying such, people are only smuggling in a telos or design mentality from another worldview altogether (Judeo-Christian Theism most prominently).  So that trifle shouldn't give you reservations about Darwinism, since the irony or absurdity of it wouldn't bother Darwinism in the least.

But, having said that, I think there are other things that should give you pause in regard to Darwinism.  These 'other things' are the lack of scientific evidence for macroevolution, and the enormities of difficulty that increased knowledge of micro-biology have presented us with, in regard to the origin of species.  



Stephen

I do think it's quite amusing that somebody who presumably subscribes to the theology expounded by the principal christian churches uses the word "mysticism" in relation to what Dawkins has tried to do to Darwinism.  

Still, I agree with much of what you say.  Perhaps I might not have used the same words, but it comes down to the same thing.  By "full blown" Darwinism I did indeed mean "modern" Darwinism - I suppose I use "pure", as in original, when I mean the Origin of Species.  And I have to admit that it is rare now that I think of "Darwinism" in that pure way, having, I suppose, been influenced (brainwashed even) by the contemporary usage of Darwin's ideas to try to found a kind of new philosophy.  

And it's interesting that you mention the importing of a design mentality from, more generally, Dawkins would probably claim, a monotheistic view of the world.  I visited Down House couple of years ago and got talking to one of the curators who had just read the newly published God Delusion.  He was saying much the same thing as you, except he went further, being somewhat partisan, to say that Darwin would have been astonished and amused by the irony of the way in which his ideas had, not so much been mysticised, as popularised and  "developed" to serve a cause.

All of which modifications, discussions and later refinements are the only things which really interest me about Darwinism, because the original theory, while no doubt revolutionary at the time of course, is altogether too broad brush and neatly explanatory of "everything" to appeal to my need to see conflict and complexity.  Which is why new  biological (as opposed to philosophical) challenges to Darwin's original theories don't surprise me in the least, I would expect them.  Yet I have a feeling, that modern day Darwinists will continue to have "no problem" accommodating new science into their theories by increasing their complexity, or, as you would say, their mysticism!  Pretty soon in fact, after they've shifted their ground a few more times to take account of new Truth, there will be little to choose between the scientific atheist and theists or deists for mysticism.     
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


44 posted 12-11-2008 11:17 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Moonbeam,

I have no problem with mysticism.  In fact I think, as human beings, we need it.  So much so, that when a theory threatens to reduce things to random motion, even its proponents end up smuggling the mystical (or religious if you like) back in. What I don't like however is mysticism under the guise of 'pure science'.  The atheism of Dawkins is a religion that requires something very much like faith.  I just wish he'd admit it.  Christianity, on the other hand, has always been forthcoming in saying that some degree of faith is required.


Stephen
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


45 posted 12-11-2008 01:05 PM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam



quote:

I have no problem with mysticism.  In fact I think, as human beings, we need it.  So much so, that when a theory threatens to reduce things to random motion, even its proponents end up smuggling the mystical (or religious if you like) back in.


Oh this is disappointing, no controversy, I seem to agree with that as well.  Although whether they do it simply because a theory is aimless, or whether they do it because of a genuine and honest belief that it needs contemporizing, or whether they do in order to make it more sexy and mould it to their own purposes, or whether it's a combination is debatable.
quote:
What I don't like however is mysticism under the guise of 'pure science'.  The atheism of Dawkins is a religion that requires something very much like faith.  I just wish he'd admit it.  Christianity, on the other hand, has always been forthcoming in saying that some degree of faith is required.

I agree again, and I think any form of masquerade in propounding something a important as theories of source and existence is pretty unforgivable.  Moreover you are absolutely correct that Dawkins has in effect "created" a religion to defeat religion, and that in itself is a bit of a turn off for me.  I always remember reading in one of Dawkins' earlier books (before he became completely fixated with God demolition) about Cairns-Smith's clay crystal theory for the origin of DNA, which he (Dawkins) seemed, if I remember correctly, to think quite feasible, and wondering to myself if in fact one required more faith to believe in it than was required to find parts of Genesis credible.

Yes Christianity has been open about the role of faith.  In fact Christians almost seem to revel in the fact that their religion is faith based as if that is a plus point (which seems to me rather extraordinary).  I really don't have any problem with that at all, and the honesty is nice.  But quite a few Christians do seem to move on from there and, without any bashfulness, make the statement, but (nevertheless)  "we are right and you are wrong".  I find that difficult to handle.
Susan Caldwell
Member Rara Avis
since 12-27-2002
Posts 8464
Florida


46 posted 12-11-2008 01:37 PM       View Profile for Susan Caldwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Susan Caldwell

"Are you more willing to do something if a beautiful woman is involved?"

"something" is vague, but I will go with it.

The answer, generally, is no.  If I see someone in need, I will probably help.

However it really depends on my mood.  Some days I simply hate all people.  Other days, not so much.

"beauty" is subjective (I feel like I am repeating myself).  

I don't have a womb anymore so I can't really be accused of choosing a mate based on reproduction value.  

I do enjoy a good looking man.  But that would be my perception of good looking.

"too bad ignorance isn't painful"
~Unknown~

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


47 posted 12-11-2008 02:42 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

...and your perception would be someone who looks like me?? (hope hope hope)
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


48 posted 12-11-2008 04:23 PM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam



quote:
I don't have a womb anymore so I can't really be accused of choosing a mate based on reproduction value.

Yes but your genes don't know that, so Balladeer still has a chance , even if a slim one.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


49 posted 12-11-2008 06:33 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


Moon,

I think the confusion regarding altruism and natural selection is one of definition - biological altruism as it pertains to natural selection isn’t the same thing as the tendency towards philanthropic or seemingly selfless acts.

For starters it can be easily argued that one of them doesn’t actually exist.


 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> Are You More Willing?   [ Page: 1  2  3  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors