Three Societal Objections to Evolution

In a previous blog, I listed 3 objections to the theory of evolution in its rawest form. In this current blog I turn my focus to some of the consequences of considering humanity as just a bunch of intelligent naked apes. I present 3 social or societal (sorry I'm not a sociologist, just a general observer of life) consequences of holding to this flawed theory of origins...

1. Ultimately we answer to no-one, so anything goes. The Bible talks about the Fear of the Lord being linked to knowledge and wisdom. This isn't just a poetic phrase or a means to control the masses; it's a basic and logical truth. If you know that some day you must answer for your actions and choices in life then that influences your decisions in society and how you interact with others. Without that, who's to say you shouldn't do something? Not sure that's a wise choice for society as a whole.
2. There is no right or wrong, just whatever works. This seems to be where the western world sits right now. There is a legacy of morality from previous generations (arguably from Christian ethics but that's another discussion!) but let's just keep what helps us to get along and throw aside the other stuff... as long as no-one gets hurt... or it's between consenting adults. Freedom for individuals to do whatever the heck they want seems to be the only moral guidance. I'm all for freedom to choose, but self-centredness and self-indulgence as a moral compass for a society doesn't bode well for civilization. Selfishness in all aspects of society can't be good for anyone in the long run.
3. The strong should prevail and the weak be discarded. One word. Eugenics. That's the consequence of holding to evolution as an explanation for humanity. The idea fell out of favor as a social movement after World War II (the Nazi's were big fans), but expect to see genetic engineering and bio-enhancements becoming the norm as well as the potential mis-use of DNA testing to enhance human capabilities. These latter ideas are not bad in themselves but in the context of seeing ourselves as evolved apes and wanting to give evolution a boost, then anything goes.

 

Posted with Blogsy

Can't vote... Thankfully

I'm a foreigner (a legal alien to borrow from Sting), so I don't get to vote for your president or anyone else. I still pay taxes though, and still get to enjoy the freedoms and opportunities of this great nation. Now, for some, not being able to vote in the country in which they've lived for 10 years or so, would be a negative thing, but I have to say I'm glad I don't have to vote. American politics suck the life out of me when I think about them. The unruly mess of house, senate and judiciary at State and Federal level, the grotesque spectacle of lobbyists legally bribing politicians and the pork-barelling of bills to sneak through your own special interests without anyone noticing, all make me shake my head.

But none of these are the things that really make me glad that I don't get to vote. It's the negative ads. This campaign seems to be about what will you vote against, rather than what you will vote for. Vote against Obamacare, or vote against capitalist greed. Sad. But maybe that's what democracy is all about. For the most part the politicians try to do what's best for their country (though I suspect most do what's best for themselves or their lobbyists), so as long as they don't do anything crazy - have at it. But if they do something that does seem crazy to the masses, then they get to vote them out! Hopefully the next guy or gal will do a better job.

Still, I recall from my college education that negative ads aren't as effective as positive ads. Or maybe that was only in the UK and here in the US you're a more blood-thirsty lot! "Without vision the people perish" so it would seem that a vision means you need to be for something in politics and not just bashing the opposition, otherwise there is no way to govern or inspire people? But what do I know about politics? I'll close with this interesting note on Coke versus Pepsi. Surely the same applies to the politicians. For sure their negativity has turned me off...

Unlike politicians, companies hardly ever run negative ads. Pepsi ads don't tear down Coke; they build the brand image of Pepsi. Why? Because a tit-for-tat war of words would turn off consumers of both brands. And sales growth, not just market share, is what puts money in shareholders' pockets.

As the market leader, Coke would never give the underdog Pepsi the benefit of a mention in its ads. For its part, Pepsi would worry that negative ads against Coke would say more to consumers about the character of Pepsi than Coke. And when Pepsi did famously "challenge" Coke twenty years ago, it was with blindfolded consumers choosing between two unlabeled samples, as close as you could get to a scientific test. http://blogs.hbr.org/quelch/2008/05/how_negative_advertising_works.html

 

 

Posted with Blogsy