Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

Formation of state based on Darwinism

labambah
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2016 10:03:11 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
Hello!

I wrote this little essay to review human history and formation of state threw Darwinism. So foremost I want my essay to be brutally challenged, criticized and opinions why I am wrong. You may also choose to agree with it as well, but with good argumentation as well. I look forward for having a fruitful conversation!

Darwinism " the short history

There is one word which revolutionized our egocentric view of nature and the way we see the history of the globe. But it also carries another message, from which human beings often times wants to close their eyes.

All social (and not so social) animals tend to have their own territory. They are very fond of it and the "fruits" on their territory usually determine the chances to survive in a long run. As humans, we aren"t much different from animals; we defended the chances of our genes to survive in the same way. When we got smarter, we didn"t just hunt anymore, we built stuff. That grew the lure of taking all what one has built, in order to have an easy go and better one"s own luck against nature. Many know that about that time, we learnt to see the power of group. We formed tribes to protect our gene heritage, and the opposite, steal fortune from others. Rest is history, which one can introduce himself to" what I want to point out lies on more recent history.

Our gene heritage has formed to a nation, and it has a by product, culture. We have huge masses of population in one culture, which can"t be called a tribe, like the one of our ancestors; it definitely isn"t just family and cousins anymore. As nation, humans have fought many wars against other cultures, just to protect their existence, and for the same motives as animals has territory wise. Nazis were recently the most extreme in saying that their soil was only for those who shares their heritage, even the stolen one. Although it was brutal and evil, it actually was pretty natural occurrence. And humans still are capable of repeating the same, as we are creatures whose instinct is to survive in open competition against nature.

One might say that the nation doesn"t mean much anymore, that we are individualists. But as individuals, our nature calling is to do the same than animals. We only follow the rules empowered by much larger group, if it benefits our chances to self-preserve. But the larger the group is, and lesser the power to oppose it as individuals, the greater chances it has to corrupt and hoard resources. Of course in abundance we don"t worry much about it" but what if shortages occurs, like the times pre WW2 in Germany, or more recently, water shortage in Syria? How long it would take before our instincts would kick over and we would decide to change the course of our "faith", in order to protect our cultural existence as a nation? How far will humans go then in the fight against nature, which favors the ones without conscience?
ViceRegent
Posts: 604
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2016 1:26:59 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Many states have been founded on Darwinism: Nazi Germany, Commie Russia and Commie China, just to name a few. All have led to the deaths of hundreds of millions and the negation of God-given rights. No thanks. I prefer a nation founded on the Kiingship of Jesus Christ.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2016 5:56:29 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/10/2016 10:03:11 AM, labambah wrote:
Hello!

I wrote this little essay to review human history and formation of state threw Darwinism. So foremost I want my essay to be brutally challenged, criticized and opinions why I am wrong. You may also choose to agree with it as well, but with good argumentation as well. I look forward for having a fruitful conversation!

Darwinism " the short history

There is one word which revolutionized our egocentric view of nature and the way we see the history of the globe. But it also carries another message, from which human beings often times wants to close their eyes.

All social (and not so social) animals tend to have their own territory. They are very fond of it and the "fruits" on their territory usually determine the chances to survive in a long run. As humans, we aren"t much different from animals; we defended the chances of our genes to survive in the same way. When we got smarter, we didn"t just hunt anymore, we built stuff. That grew the lure of taking all what one has built, in order to have an easy go and better one"s own luck against nature. Many know that about that time, we learnt to see the power of group. We formed tribes to protect our gene heritage, and the opposite, steal fortune from others. Rest is history, which one can introduce himself to" what I want to point out lies on more recent history.

Our gene heritage has formed to a nation, and it has a by product, culture. We have huge masses of population in one culture, which can"t be called a tribe, like the one of our ancestors; it definitely isn"t just family and cousins anymore. As nation, humans have fought many wars against other cultures, just to protect their existence, and for the same motives as animals has territory wise. Nazis were recently the most extreme in saying that their soil was only for those who shares their heritage, even the stolen one. Although it was brutal and evil, it actually was pretty natural occurrence. And humans still are capable of repeating the same, as we are creatures whose instinct is to survive in open competition against nature.

One might say that the nation doesn"t mean much anymore, that we are individualists. But as individuals, our nature calling is to do the same than animals. We only follow the rules empowered by much larger group, if it benefits our chances to self-preserve. But the larger the group is, and lesser the power to oppose it as individuals, the greater chances it has to corrupt and hoard resources. Of course in abundance we don"t worry much about it" but what if shortages occurs, like the times pre WW2 in Germany, or more recently, water shortage in Syria? How long it would take before our instincts would kick over and we would decide to change the course of our "faith", in order to protect our cultural existence as a nation? How far will humans go then in the fight against nature, which favors the ones without conscience?

From moderns" manic phobias about socialism and communism it is patent that this is a civilization of paralytic egologism, of psychotic proprietarism: the American aborigines who were genocidally extinguished by waves of whites saw most sharply the truth about modernity"s manias""The love of possessions is a disease with them." In moderns" culture of abstracted ego and intensified but destitute "consciousness," the aristic ethos not just of sharing and generosity but also of open communication, forthrightness, honesty, and candor has demonstrably perished. There are utterly not enough aristic personalities surviving to make a commonality of culture feasible any longer: "politics" has become a dark euphemism for organized deception, hi-tech manipulation, and Olympian Machiavellian intrigues, and "democracy" in that world-order is so moribund it can be little more than a pious verbalism, a rhetorical fraud.

Kenneth Smith
labambah
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 3:55:48 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
I think this got bit off-track. My main point was that we have territories, like animals, and we share territory with similar others who respects our rules and so on.

And then there are cases where it is fight to preserve the "right to exist", like in the case with indians. They got attacked and oppressed by cultures which got ahead of other cultures by doing so; meaning they improved their chances of survival by stealing resources and gaining land. Hence the refrence to the history of man and premodern society.

Laslty, I pointed to survival of genes, because when nation gets wiped out... gene heritage is getting wiped out as well, which is the very thing that even a cave man wanted to protect. THUS, I made a point that it is a game where we want our genes to pass on...
ViceRegent
Posts: 604
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 6:45:51 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/13/2016 3:55:48 PM, labambah wrote:
I think this got bit off-track. My main point was that we have territories, like animals, and we share territory with similar others who respects our rules and so on.

And then there are cases where it is fight to preserve the "right to exist", like in the case with indians. They got attacked and oppressed by cultures which got ahead of other cultures by doing so; meaning they improved their chances of survival by stealing resources and gaining land. Hence the refrence to the history of man and premodern society.

Laslty, I pointed to survival of genes, because when nation gets wiped out... gene heritage is getting wiped out as well, which is the very thing that even a cave man wanted to protect. THUS, I made a point that it is a game where we want our genes to pass on...

The awesome thing about being an evolutionist is that you can base your claims on imagination without regard to any fact.
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 8:17:03 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Every state is already "based on Darwinism". Every state is also "based on gravity". If a group can form a state and protect the "genetically inferior" from the "superior", then they're not actually superior to begin with!
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
keithprosser
Posts: 1,896
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 8:52:00 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Laslty, I pointed to survival of genes, because when nation gets wiped out... gene heritage is getting wiped out as well, which is the very thing that even a cave man wanted to protect. THUS, I made a point that it is a game where we want our genes to pass on...

Did cavement want to pass their genes on? It depends on what is meant by 'want'. Cavemen (and cavewomen) didn't know about genes, so their 'wanting' certainly wasn't a conscious thing. In fact, what cavemen (and modern men) want to do is copulate. We know now that copulation leads to babies, but I wonder how recently that was realised. Do non-human animals copulate because they know its how to reproduce? I'd guess they don't, and I doubt if even cavemen did at the beginning.
Hormones and hard-wired brain circuits make us have sex. If you raised a child with the idea that babies are brought by storks they are still going to want to do sex, not set traps for storks.
labambah
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2016 10:16:08 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/13/2016 8:52:00 PM, keithprosser wrote:
Laslty, I pointed to survival of genes, because when nation gets wiped out... gene heritage is getting wiped out as well, which is the very thing that even a cave man wanted to protect. THUS, I made a point that it is a game where we want our genes to pass on...

Did cavement want to pass their genes on? It depends on what is meant by 'want'. Cavemen (and cavewomen) didn't know about genes, so their 'wanting' certainly wasn't a conscious thing. In fact, what cavemen (and modern men) want to do is copulate. We know now that copulation leads to babies, but I wonder how recently that was realised. Do non-human animals copulate because they know its how to reproduce? I'd guess they don't, and I doubt if even cavemen did at the beginning.
Hormones and hard-wired brain circuits make us have sex. If you raised a child with the idea that babies are brought by storks they are still going to want to do sex, not set traps for storks.

Interesting point. It may be true that we don't want to pass genes, but all species certainly aim to survive and reproduce in general.
labambah
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2016 10:22:26 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/13/2016 8:17:03 PM, user13579 wrote:
Every state is already "based on Darwinism". Every state is also "based on gravity". If a group can form a state and protect the "genetically inferior" from the "superior", then they're not actually superior to begin with!

Bit like Jesus and his fellows ;)

Just joking... I'm not claiming to be true, but things got started from somewhere after Jesus. He didn't guide us, humans had the ball. Like it is said on the bible: "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea...".

And the bible doesn't say when man was created, so...
n7
Posts: 1,355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2016 11:02:34 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/10/2016 1:26:59 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
Many states have been founded on Darwinism: Nazi Germany, Commie Russia and Commie China, just to name a few. All have led to the deaths of hundreds of millions and the negation of God-given rights. No thanks. I prefer a nation founded on the Kiingship of Jesus Christ.

LOL Stalin executed biologists who were in favor of a Darwinian theory of evolution. The soviets favored a Lamarckan view, not a Darwinian one.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
Axonly
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2016 12:54:33 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/10/2016 1:26:59 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
Many states have been founded on Darwinism: Nazi Germany, Commie Russia and Commie China, just to name a few. All have led to the deaths of hundreds of millions and the negation of God-given rights. No thanks. I prefer a nation founded on the Kiingship of Jesus Christ.

Would god approve of you maliciously insulting other people?

Hello again, btw
Meh!
Axonly
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 8:00:14 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/10/2016 10:03:11 AM, labambah wrote:
Hello!

I wrote this little essay to review human history and formation of state threw Darwinism. So foremost I want my essay to be brutally challenged, criticized and opinions why I am wrong. You may also choose to agree with it as well, but with good argumentation as well. I look forward for having a fruitful conversation!

Darwinism " the short history

There is one word which revolutionized our egocentric view of nature and the way we see the history of the globe. But it also carries another message, from which human beings often times wants to close their eyes.

All social (and not so social) animals tend to have their own territory. They are very fond of it and the "fruits" on their territory usually determine the chances to survive in a long run. As humans, we aren"t much different from animals; we defended the chances of our genes to survive in the same way. When we got smarter, we didn"t just hunt anymore, we built stuff. That grew the lure of taking all what one has built, in order to have an easy go and better one"s own luck against nature. Many know that about that time, we learnt to see the power of group. We formed tribes to protect our gene heritage, and the opposite, steal fortune from others. Rest is history, which one can introduce himself to" what I want to point out lies on more recent history.

Our gene heritage has formed to a nation, and it has a by product, culture. We have huge masses of population in one culture, which can"t be called a tribe, like the one of our ancestors; it definitely isn"t just family and cousins anymore. As nation, humans have fought many wars against other cultures, just to protect their existence, and for the same motives as animals has territory wise. Nazis were recently the most extreme in saying that their soil was only for those who shares their heritage, even the stolen one. Although it was brutal and evil, it actually was pretty natural occurrence. And humans still are capable of repeating the same, as we are creatures whose instinct is to survive in open competition against nature.

One might say that the nation doesn"t mean much anymore, that we are individualists. But as individuals, our nature calling is to do the same than animals. We only follow the rules empowered by much larger group, if it benefits our chances to self-preserve. But the larger the group is, and lesser the power to oppose it as individuals, the greater chances it has to corrupt and hoard resources. Of course in abundance we don"t worry much about it" but what if shortages occurs, like the times pre WW2 in Germany, or more recently, water shortage in Syria? How long it would take before our instincts would kick over and we would decide to change the course of our "faith", in order to protect our cultural existence as a nation? How far will humans go then in the fight against nature, which favors the ones without conscience?

Humans are smart enough that we can disobey evolutionary theory.
Meh!
Axonly
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2016 12:51:45 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 5/10/2016 10:03:11 AM, labambah wrote:
Hello!

I wrote this little essay to review human history and formation of state threw Darwinism. So foremost I want my essay to be brutally challenged, criticized and opinions why I am wrong. You may also choose to agree with it as well, but with good argumentation as well. I look forward for having a fruitful conversation!

Darwinism " the short history

There is one word which revolutionized our egocentric view of nature and the way we see the history of the globe. But it also carries another message, from which human beings often times wants to close their eyes.

All social (and not so social) animals tend to have their own territory. They are very fond of it and the "fruits" on their territory usually determine the chances to survive in a long run. As humans, we aren"t much different from animals; we defended the chances of our genes to survive in the same way. When we got smarter, we didn"t just hunt anymore, we built stuff. That grew the lure of taking all what one has built, in order to have an easy go and better one"s own luck against nature. Many know that about that time, we learnt to see the power of group. We formed tribes to protect our gene heritage, and the opposite, steal fortune from others. Rest is history, which one can introduce himself to" what I want to point out lies on more recent history.

Our gene heritage has formed to a nation, and it has a by product, culture. We have huge masses of population in one culture, which can"t be called a tribe, like the one of our ancestors; it definitely isn"t just family and cousins anymore. As nation, humans have fought many wars against other cultures, just to protect their existence, and for the same motives as animals has territory wise. Nazis were recently the most extreme in saying that their soil was only for those who shares their heritage, even the stolen one. Although it was brutal and evil, it actually was pretty natural occurrence. And humans still are capable of repeating the same, as we are creatures whose instinct is to survive in open competition against nature.

One might say that the nation doesn"t mean much anymore, that we are individualists. But as individuals, our nature calling is to do the same than animals. We only follow the rules empowered by much larger group, if it benefits our chances to self-preserve. But the larger the group is, and lesser the power to oppose it as individuals, the greater chances it has to corrupt and hoard resources. Of course in abundance we don"t worry much about it" but what if shortages occurs, like the times pre WW2 in Germany, or more recently, water shortage in Syria? How long it would take before our instincts would kick over and we would decide to change the course of our "faith", in order to protect our cultural existence as a nation? How far will humans go then in the fight against nature, which favors the ones without conscience?

"I want to have my essay brutally challenged"

Lol, putting it on the internet is a good way for it to get roasted.
Meh!