Darwin Prostitutes

Published on November 28, 2005 By stevendedalus In Politics

Though we’re not all created equal — not all are beautiful, healthy people, of high intelligence, and gifted — does it mean that inequality is acceptable? It may not be acceptable but it sure as hell is relentless reality. As our heart goes out for those who legitimately are shortchanged by nature, we somehow let the heart freeze when it is suggested that it is the responsibility of the state to do something about closing the gap as much as is possible because of our cynicism — not to mention so many are unworthy of hand outs — that the state lacks sincerity and competence. Despite the fact that Darwin was apolitical and never suggested “survival of the fittest,” the political domain saw “natural selection” as a device to justify the misfortunes of those without wherewithal to survive effectively — let them eat day old bread.

Even though we take pride in the slogan that America is the most generous nation on earth, we know per capita it isn’t, yet because of our prominence the gestures made are dramatic such as US helicopters sent into to Kashmir to rescue so many suffering from the recent earthquake. Much praise has been to justify the war in Iraq as humanitarian intervention without criticism, yet we are skeptical of our motives in cleaning up the mess in New Orleans. We all inherently feel that everyone in this country should be free of financial worry in times of medical catastrophe, but we do little about turning to universal healthcare to prevent the horrors that the ill and their families experience everyday. We cry that it is socialism to have a single payer even though that is exactly what Medicare is and doing rather well. When the auto industry pulls up lock, stock and barrel to build plants and hire Canadians to free corporate responsibility from healthcare, the obvious tint of socialized medicine is ignored. We object to liberal fantasies concerning “living” wage and point to golden arch where the teenager is working simply to pay his car insurance and still have money for partying. It never occurs to us that “living” is a scale for a family of four that cannot possibly survive on minimum wage without government assistance, and as a result we wind up being coerced into accepting “living” wage one way or the other.

There will always be those who have and those who have not; the latter sadly are unable to be otherwise, and generically linked to those who have no gumption to pull themselves up. Those who have are proud role models of fiery ambition and are fit to dominate, while the rest are shit. Thank the prostitution of Darwin’s theory for that.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com

Comments

Dr Guy

on Nov 28, 2005

Even though we take pride in the slogan that America is the most generous nation on earth, we know per capita it isn’t

Do we? Do we have documentation to that effect?

I am reminded of the Archie Comic. Where Veronica's dad was trying to impress Jughead. Jughead said he gave the church $1, and the Dad responded he would give $1000. Jughead said "that was half of all I own".

Game set and match to Jughead (we wont go into his clothes and stuff). If what you say is true, I would be interested in seeing the statistics.

And before we opened our hearts and wallets, many people died. Darwin. Now they live. Even the stupids do due to nanny laws.

bakerstreet

on Nov 28, 2005

What social darwinists also don't consider is all these poor third world folk continue to have 5 or 10 kids, while people in first world nations have less and less. Given those circumstances, our ability to thrive more than those in other cultures can be overturned by sheer numbers.

Without the Internet, network TV, etc., the Romans brought their birthrate to a standstill, so much so that efforts were taken to spur things along. With or without our charity, eventually we'll probably just entertain ourselves out of existence while the people who do our lawns slide into our role in society. They continue to adapt while we just insist on a system that removes us further and further from reality and the forces that improve us.

In that light, and if you look at our social charity in the US, our help seems to be more about turning people into leeches, not increase their fitness. I think, frankly, that they would fare a lot better WITHOUT it. If our own nation is any indication, those who recieve the most help are benefitted the least...

stevendedalus

on Nov 29, 2005

Excellent, illustrative anecdotes, Li'l Whip, but I am not referring to have nots who choose to be so. There are many legitimate cases out there that do not have the ability-- whether by circumstances or rotten luck -- to get anywhere, unlike Elliot's long lost ability

decided he wanted something more out of life.

particularly with the wherewithal

in 12 more years he will retire with a small but decent pension to supplement his SS check

and indeed pulled himself up by the bootstraps. Not all possess such fortitude. "What a load." Try being a little civil.

stevendedalus

on Nov 29, 2005

Jughead said "that was half of all I own".

Kind of supports what I'm saying, doesn't it?

Do we have documentation to that effect?

Off hand I don't but I did read thus at one time but that was in conjunction with foreign aid and self interest charities, like contributions to Israel and to self serving evangelism.

stevendedalus

on Nov 29, 2005

if a person is born poor, poor they shall always be, because mean old society keeps a foot planted firmly on their backs.

No, there are many opportunities if one has the drive and is not set back by circumstances beyond his control. I trust you are not saying that all who are helpless are out of choice.

stevendedalus

on Nov 29, 2005

If our own nation is any indication, those who recieve the most help are benefitted the least...

Tell that to the countless veterans who received a great lift from the GI Bill and the blacks from affirmative action. Yet I agree with you that if we all sit back and let all the service industries take care of us we are no better than those who exploit welfare.

bakerstreet

on Nov 29, 2005

The benefits from the GI Bill are earned, and blacks were just given the rights that were due them all along. I don't see, though, things like universal healthcare and deeper, thicker safety nets as being so cut-and-dried. There's a fine line between charity that lifts people up, and charity that just makes them dependant serfs.

I'm not saying that akin to "survival of the fittest" we should let hardship weed people out, but I'm not sure how much the species would thrive knowing they never had to struggle, in a world giving them more and more things to do instead. One man's giver and givee is another man's Morlocks and Eloi.

stevendedalus

on Nov 29, 2005

There's a fine line between charity that lifts people up, and charity that just makes them dependant serfs.

Agreed but you can't throw out the baby with the bath water.

MasonM

on Nov 29, 2005

Agreed but you can't throw out the baby with the bath water.

We can if the baby stinks bad enough. Make a new baby that smells better.

stevendedalus

on Dec 01, 2005

We can if the baby stinks bad enough

Is this called partial or full anger abortion?

bakerstreet

on Dec 01, 2005

" Is this called partial or full anger abortion?"

I think the greeks called that "Expositus", though in the modern world it is usually done in a dumpster or in a motel room after the prom. Oedipus's dad didn't get the job done well enough.

stevendedalus

on Dec 02, 2005

If he had psychology would be lost without the complex.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!