Self-destruct? Destruction of the self? Or what?

[Guest]

[Pater]

I believe in evolution. It makes absolute sense. Darwin's theory was brilliant yet, and as these great leaps in human understanding ever do, needed the tweaking/change of the modern day. As by Dawkins, and Jones.

Dawkins posited in his book The Selfish Gene (taken literally by some, as a title only, as proof that Right-wing politics, unfettered individualism, is a vitalistic inevitability), that the gene of the title has evolved to ensure that humankind must be civilised; that our survival as a species is best-served by the creation of societies within which there is an important element of inter-dependence. Its "selfishness" only towards this end and no other.

Darwin, as far as I know, regarded humankind in his day as having departed the visceral nature of evolution below him, the scurrying around in the undergrowth, the savagery of the jungle etc, never to return to it, having evolved beyond it; this is much the same, in principle, as Dawkins eloquently explains in his book. Jones's contribution, brilliantly done too, places Creationism on the spot, being a balanced proof of the mastery of science in the search for any irrefutable truths.

The Right in politics have held sway for the past 30 years. Every justification for policy has the default position of it "furthering the rights of the individual", yet only it seems in economic terms whereby all freedoms, all degrees of them, are inherently proportional to an individual's spending power. In an almost throwback to the laissez-faire which culminated in left-of-centre movements being founded to bring about much-needed social change underpinned by the fight for social justice, these past 30 years have seen an acceptance, by a supposedly electorally all-powerful "middle class", that this must always be; laissez-faire forever.

Will this never again be challenged as it once was? Will the inevitable swelling in numbers of the also inevitable underclass laissez-faire produces, not challenge it? Is the hard-won right to vote for all around 100+ years ago now worthless? Do the supposedly powerful middle class know how they got the vote in the first place; do they not see the hypocrisy in embracing the very ideology intent on denying them that very vote not so long ago?

The Right have an agenda they may not even realize they do have. Humans have evolved such they can look down on the battle for survival going on below them. The policies of the past 30 years have thrown us back, in principle, into the battle; yet one we are having between ourselves, individually at home, and as nation states worldwide.

The Right unknowingly or not (probably the latter) have, via laissez-faire, climbed the first few rungs on the ladder at the top of which is an outright system of Social Darwinism. Do they have the right to assume they can engineer even a part-return to something we, as a species, have undeniably progressed from - as a deliberate consequence of evolution, by evolution as a natural process in itself, bigger than we are or will ever be, or not?

Is the Right bigger than evolution? Discuss.

[Alex]

This looks very interesting; I'll try and give it some thought and post something tomorrow. But now, sleep...

[Pater]

This looks very interesting; I'll try and give it some thought and post something tomorrow. But now, sleep...

Right, Alex, when you're ready, fire away. Cheers.

[Alex]

Perhaps the Right, by your definition, seek to take us to more animalistic phase in our development, one which we have evolved beyond.

To put it in a brief but perhaps simplistic manner, the dangers of pure self-interest are known to us now - we can look at tales in mythology right up to the present day with the banking crisis (on the back of the Right's political rule). Empathy and Altruism are traits which are naturally selected in the evolutionary process, which this dog-eat-dog economics and general policy appears to ignore.

The Golden Rule, from which most moral teachings can be derived, manifests itself withing our species when one lowly homo-sapien thinks, to the effect of, "I wouldn't like it if I was hit with a boulder for little reason, I won't launch a surprise attack on Grom." Our empathetic spirit and his family are then not slaughtered in retribution for Grom's murder, their genes pass to the next generation and more importantly that empathetic meme also survives. The Golden Rule was one of the main foundations which allowed larger, stable and safe societies to form, therefore allowing those that possessed this meme of empathy and therefore lived in a safer environment to pass on their genes more successfully than those who did not.

[Alex]

We continue to evolve. If the Right seeks to destroy the empathetic memeplex built up in both secular and religious societies alike, to an extent, there will be trouble. It is seeking to change the economic environment, and therefore our immediate environment, to encourage aggressive yuppie types to become the dominant and successful members of the species.

I'm not sure who will win, but I'd prefer a stable society over a rat race life.

[Pater]

We continue to evolve. If the Right seeks to destroy the empathetic memeplex built up in both secular and religious societies alike, to an extent, there will be trouble. It is seeking to change the economic environment, and therefore our immediate environment, to encourage aggressive yuppie types to become the dominant and successful members of the species.

I'm not sure who will win, but I'd prefer a stable society over a rat race life.

Interesting stuff with interesting references, Alex. I'll add a response to what you've said later.

As with yourself, right now I need to visit kipland. Thanks for your input/reply.

Peter...