Civil. Respectful. Intelligent. Thoughtful. Challenging.

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Reply to topic
William
First Post
PostPosted: Sat Feb 22, 2020 1:26 pm  Random Chance or Natural Selection Reply with quote

[Quote from another thread]

bluegreenearth: Evolution is not guided by random chance but by natural selection

William: Q:. What is the difference?

I think the key word is "by" which - with the word "Guided" - implies some type of intelligent designer.
However, when I change the sentence with something along the lines of;

"Evolution is not the result of random chance but of natural selection" the implication of a Creator (some type of intelligent designer) is still to be seen in the words "natural selection".

Given Natural Selection is shown through science to be guiding evolution, it would appear that it is a substitute phrase which seeks to move our thinking away from there being a Creator, into that which is The Creation.

It bestows upon Creation the same necessity which theists bestow upon their Creators...the necessity of being able to guide a process intelligently and with purpose. Not just assigning The Creation with being nothing more than a mindless mishmash which accidentally came about purely by "random chance".

Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 81: Fri Mar 20, 2020 11:09 am
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 78]

DrNoGods: You're missing a very important part of this story, and describing it as if the development of chlorofluorocarbons for industrial applications (air conditioning, the manufacture of foam for car seats and furniture which was actually one or the larger offenders, and others), was all done intentionally by scientists so the next generation (!) of them could come in and save the day.

William: I am not saying that scientists purposefully go out of their way to damage the environment, with in mind that other scientists will come along behind them and be the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff.

I am saying that scientists stupidly and selfishly do not consider the consequences of their meddling.

The context of my post was saying a whole lot more than the bit you chose to focus on.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 82: Fri Mar 20, 2020 11:45 am
Reply

Like this post (1): William
William wrote:

[Replying to post 69 ]


Since you appear unaware of your uncivil tone and off-topic personal comments ………………………………...


Moderator Comment



If you think someone has been uncivil it's best to let moderators decide when you report it. Keep to the topic.


Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 83: Fri Mar 20, 2020 12:40 pm
Reply
Resetting The Track

Like this post
William: To get back on track...which changed at least from post #52 and perhaps even prior to that at post #28...it is difficult to know when to report an off-topic insert where the track points have been changed so that the arguments are enabled to shift to the off topic...



William: As the Thread Creator, I should have alerted the Moderating Team about the off-topic sooner instead of trying to allow for the change and point it back on Track, so my apologizes in that regard.

I will make sure as to report off-topic posts in Thread-Tracks I create, to the Moderators asap in future.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 84: Sun Mar 22, 2020 8:17 pm
Reply

Like this post
William wrote:
I am not saying that scientists purposefully go out of their way to damage the environment, with in mind that other scientists will come along behind them and be the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff.

I am saying that scientists stupidly and selfishly do not consider the consequences of their meddling.


To the extent that this is true, it's because they have to. I'm not sure what you would have people do who invent things, other than stay poor for their entire lifetimes while the matter of whether the light bulb could hurt the environment is looked into. (And at the point of the poor fellow's death, the EPA would suddenly realise that light bulbs were actually benign and some crony of theirs would get rich.)

Again, capitalism is to blame. The resources needed to generate inventions aren't free, and if they don't pay off, you won't get any inventions.

Not only that, but the influence of money being the only impelling drive in a society extends to any organisation you might charge with protecting us. You'd have to be mad to give the EPA that kind of power because they are, in fact, very corrupt.

You can't stop this happening in a capitalistic society because everyone is forced to maximise money, and minimise other concerns. Those that don't, fail. The last bit is the only important bit. You're perfectly free to eschew profit and "do the right thing" in a freedom-loving, capitalist society, but the general trend is that you'll stay poor and have no children.

Case in point: The Chemical Industry now owns the EPA, who can be trusted absolutely to descend upon a farmer who wants to dig a hole, but never to bring actual polluters to bear.

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/08/11/toxic-corruption-chemical-industry...

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 85: Mon Mar 23, 2020 10:05 am
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 84 by Purple Knight]

Quote:
Again, capitalism is to blame. The resources needed to generate inventions aren't free, and if they don't pay off, you won't get any inventions.


Is there any country where "pure" capitalism is practiced? In the U.S. (as an example since that is where I live), people are free to pursue inventions either as their sole endeavor (in which case if they don't succeed they may struggle to feed and shelter themselves), or via a company they work for who pursues inventions (in which case if the company does not succeed people may lose their jobs and also struggle), or they may choose to not get involved in the invention business at all and work a normal job, start a small business, serve the government, etc. There is no rule that a capitalist economy must have all of its citizens pursue inventions and either succeed and get rich, or fail. Only a very tiny fraction of citizens in the U.S. fall into that category, and if they do it is entirely by choice.

Quote:
You can't stop this happening in a capitalistic society because everyone is forced to maximise money, and minimise other concerns. Those that don't, fail. The last bit is the only important bit. You're perfectly free to eschew profit and "do the right thing" in a freedom-loving, capitalist society, but the general trend is that you'll stay poor and have no children.



Again, not everyone is forced to maximize money or fail, at least in the U.S. Most people work for companies who may provide new products, or may not (eg. they provide services, or manufacture needed products like toothpaste which isn't a new invention). A capitalist society works if there is balance between social support programs for those who are sick, old, injured, mentally challenged, or unable to work for some other reason, and those who are able bodied and can work. In the U.S. we spend large amounts of money on entitlement programs (some $2.8 trillion in 2019):

https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/entitlement_spending

You could argue that this should be more, but it is 14% of a $20 trillion economy. And you could also make an argument for taxation programs more like the nordic countries where tax rates are much higher on the very wealthy. But if the basic rules of a capitalistic economy are balanced with social programs where signficant economic output is directed to the less fortunate, it can work. I would argue that the debate should be about this balance, rather than whether or not capitalism is good or bad in general.

If you look at the economies of today's world, the free market systems produce the highest standard of living but the "good" results of capitalism have to be balanced with an appropriate level of social programs to achieve the best results for everyone. If there is no reward or incentive for creating new products and services, fewer people will pursue those activities and we won't end up with light bulbs. Having governments run invention enterprises is likely to fare far worse than if a population is free to have at it, and those who are smart enough to come up with solutions are rewarded for their efforts and risk taking.

This will always result in a few outrageously rich people like Bezos, Gates, Zuckerberg and the like, but these three (as examples) all started out with no fortunes and their net worth is entirely from share ownership in their (very successful) companies. If Zuckerberg had been born 50 years earlier he would probably be working a normal job like most other people as his social networking idea would have had no platform. He was at the right place at the right time with the right idea, and was able to take advantage of the opportunity. Thousands of people start small businesses every day and I'd assume they all hope to succeed and better their lot in life. But most do fail, or result in only "making a living." If a few people become stupidly rich as a result, that is just a byproduct of the process. But don't take away the opportunity for people to profit from their ideas and take risks, and to be rewarded if they are successful. Between the outright failures, and the Zuckerberg's, there is everything in between. Modern capitalism (ie. capitalism with significant social programs funded by economic output) is not a get rich or die system with only those binary outcomes.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 86: Mon Mar 23, 2020 5:50 pm
Reply

Like this post
DrNoGods wrote:
Is there any country where "pure" capitalism is practiced? In the U.S. (as an example since that is where I live), people are free to pursue inventions either as their sole endeavor (in which case if they don't succeed they may struggle to feed and shelter themselves), or via a company they work for who pursues inventions (in which case if the company does not succeed people may lose their jobs and also struggle), or they may choose to not get involved in the invention business at all and work a normal job, start a small business, serve the government, etc. There is no rule that a capitalist economy must have all of its citizens pursue inventions and either succeed and get rich, or fail. Only a very tiny fraction of citizens in the U.S. fall into that category, and if they do it is entirely by choice.


No, that's not the rule, but of those who pursue inventions (those who put most of their effort into inventions) in a capitalist economy, they have to succeed, and if they don't pay off in general, in general you will not get more inventions.

It's true that a capitalist economy can work when there are safety nets, but only to the extent that there are those safety nets. Most of the people I know aren't poised to be caught by any, or they think those safety nets are wrong. One person called Trump a socialist because he's planning to give $1200 to every American because of coronavirus.

DrNoGods wrote:
You could argue that this should be more, but it is 14% of a $20 trillion economy.


I argue that it should be less. Let it be nothing. Let capitalism actually be tested. As long as there is any entitlement spending, the libertarian capitalists will lay any problem of society upon it, and they're master debaters - no one can rebut those claims.

DrNoGods wrote:
But don't take away the opportunity for people to profit from their ideas and take risks, and to be rewarded if they are successful.


The problem is that the risk-takers potentially gain huge and people who don't take those risks both have to support the practice and are punished for their own strategy. The safety nets don't work if everyone takes the highest and most profitable risks.

I'm not advocating socialism. Socialism is just a free market with forced sharing, and I think it's worse than capitalism in the same way that square wheels with hammers beating them into splinters are worse than square wheels.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 87: Tue Mar 24, 2020 4:49 am
Reply

Like this post (1): William
Moderator Intervention

Take the economy talk to another topic please.


______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 88: Fri Mar 27, 2020 11:47 am
Reply

Like this post
Bust Nak wrote:

Moderator Intervention

Take the economy talk to another topic please.


______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.


I actually started this. William was responding.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Hymn Lyrics Apps
Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version