That is very close to the argument made by the Eugenicists. I think our helplessness would be more from our dependence on technology (cultural) than on any decay from passing along bad genes. I think the genome is too complex and “chaotic” to be so simply divined. While certain traits (eyesight, hearing loss, etc) may well be unfortunate by-products of increased breeding opportunities, other traits passed along by just these groups may have long-term positive impacts. (I won’t speculate which.)

In this sense, the genetic advantage we make for ourselves through our technology would seem to be just as “natural” as one tribe of cro-magnons stealing the water of a spring by virtue of a crude dam from another group, perhaps even a group of Neandertals. Nature doesn’t care how the advantage is gained, only that it is.

Mark, one of the things I’ve thought about a lot is that we, as a species, are actually >lowering< our fitness in many ways. Defects that used to prevent reproduction are now anywhere from common in the population (blindness, deafness, for example) to temporary obstacles (infertility, treatable genetic defects). People who used to die from diseases or stillbirth or other medical conditions are now being saved by medical science long enough to pass on the genes that made them susceptible. People who might have had trouble finding a partner over the course of history (like the blind and deaf I mentioned, and even those with mental issues who are still high-functioning in society) have no trouble meeting and mating. Were we, as a population, suddenly put into a survival situation without the benefit of our protections, our numbers would drop dramatically in very little time. No climate controlled buildings, no manufacturing, no medical devices or treatments. . .it would certainly bring about a realization of how much like the rest of Earth’s animals we really are.

By the way. I do not like football or beer. What do you mean by games?

But he’s not what this post is about.

Those who choose willful ignorance are no better than livestock. They want to be free of responsibility, with all the good things coming to them in the end, as if they deserve it. They ruin it for the rest of us, who happen to want the world to advance, so we all don’t suffer.

Ahh, but as long as they have their god/games/football/beer they’re content.

You know what I meant regarding obedience/disobedience but if it helps you feel better you can make fun, my skin is thick.

I’m right with you on that. Politics, while in some ways “the art of the possible” is also the art of reassurance. Upsetting applecarts leads to a displeased constituency which leads to threat to the power structure.

Which was kinda the point of my post. A very influential group wants Global Warming to not be true, regardless of the cause, because it threatens their sinecure. They prey on the desire of the general populace for it to not be true, and the debate gets confused to the point where nothing can be said or done that is in any way constructive.

By the light of your concept of original sin, there’s no such thing as an innocent baby.

“You already have your mind made up about things without looking at the facts.”

Look in a mirror, man.

“God calls them a stiff-necked people over and over again because of their lack of disobedience.”

Lack of DISobedience? In a bit of hurry there, Erik? Getting worked up, are we? You don’t even proof read your own posts.

This is my last response to you. You can’t seem to step outside your own obsessions long enough to consider that another point of view might—MIGHT—have something of merit. Have a nice life.