I had a good rapport with Harvie over at Searching for Liberty but when I saw this I couldn't help but comment. But my comment got a little long so I gave it its own post.
Original Post can be found here
Isn't it ironic, don't you think?
Mention the theory of "intelligent design", and every liberal worth their salt will come flying out of their dark little caves in coffee shops and book stores and suddenly begin espousing Charles Darwin, and asserting themselves as experts on the "settled science" of Evolution.
And from my own perspective, so they should.
While evolution may have been a random occurrence of nature, or a creation of an intelligent God, there is no rational denial of the reality that, to simplify, things that work tend to survive and things that don't, tend to, well, not survive.
Intelligent design doesn't postulate that evolution was a creation of god. That's a reasonable reconciliation between religion and science. Also there's a bunch of evolutionary traits that have nothing to do with survival, but sexual selection. There are even cases where sexual traits are chosen above survivable traits. (See rock crabs).
Funny thing is, however, after finishing their strident defence of the theory of evolution, when they go back to their coffee shops and book stores, they do everything they can do to assure that the theory comes to a full stop for modern man.
In other words.. natural selection be damned. Regardless of how foolish we are, the state should step up and kiss our boo boos and assure that no negative consequence are suffered as a result of our own stupidity.
Current scientific theory posits that Neanderthals and Cro Magnon man existed at the same time, and that it is quite possible that the Neanderthals died off as a result of their inability to compete with the more intelligent and socially adept Cro Magnon, or "Modern" man.
Yeah, "more socially adept," which means that we're social creatures... Hey isn't government a social creation?
Oh noes! We're using an evolutionary advantage to help us survive!
Imagine Liberals,however, 35 thousand years ago. While Cro Magnon man learned to use advanced tools, to organize in cohesive social groups and to hunt with more efficiency when times became lean - the Liberals would have, no doubt, said, "No, this is no good. Take your food and feed the Neanderthals.
Maybe, if they were living in our society. But this argument is the equivalent of saying, "Hey! That orangutan is hungry! I better feed with the limited food I need to eat to survive!"
I think liberals would have been more like: "Hey! if we work together we can get more food and then everyone can eat!"
While conservatives would pout and say: "No! I'm going to get my own food, and if you can't get your own food then you don't deserve to eat!"
If man had survived the natural cycle of serious global cooling (yes, you heard right "cooling"), there's a good chance we would still be nomadic early humans, with pesky things that intelligent motivated and driven people helped create like, oh, penicillin and electricity, having no part in our development.
WHAT?!?!? Ice ages involve cooling!?! That's news to me.
Also, the news that all scientists and inventors in history were actually conservative. Too bad Ben Franklin was a progressive in his day. And that penicillin was discovered by accident (not hard work).
Take a look at the world around us today.
There was a reason that North America and Northern Europe in particular were not heavily populated until modern times. Living there was hard. The price of being stupid or lazy was death.
There is a reason that equatorial countries have been more heavily populated. Life there was easier. The price of being stupid or lazy was much less likely to be death.
So - as man becomes more able to function in a hostile environment and as hard work and initiative are shown to allow for expansion of modern man to areas earlier considered unattractive and beyond significant habitation, well, no surprise - not only did man survive and expand in those areas, but they in fact prospered.
Yeah all those countries in the rest of the world that had greater access to resources, just sat there and stared at them. They didn't go and build huge civilizations that made up the ancient world, because they were lazy and didn't believe in hard work. They didn't face hardship either! There weren't plagues, droughts, floods, wars, etc. Nope, life was a breeze and they rested on their proverbial and literal laurels.
What about China, the Middle East, Southern Europe, India, Northern Africa, and South America? All of those places prospered for thousands of years. Just because Western civilization has become the most prosperous place to live during the last 300 years, doesn't make us the Fucking Greatest People in History!!!!
What makes him think that living in more temperate climates is more difficult? Certainly it's easier to farm in England, than a desert. So why aren't Berbers (a nomadic desert people), who presumably have to work way harder than people in Northern Europe to survive, the supermen of the world?
To such extent that now, the most stable political and economic systems exist in areas only sparsely inhabited 35,000 years ago.
And now, the response of our liberal friends, is that the failures of societies in the Sudan, and Niger and Indonesia and elsewhere.. are the fault of the west.
Yeah, it's called colonialism and the neo-colonialism of the IMF which have both fucked up countries like these that were doing perfectly fine before Europeans got there.
And now, the response of our liberal friends, is that the failures of segments of our society to thrive and prosper.. are the fault of those who succeeded in overcoming their own hardships.
Sure.. there were some who emigrated to Canada from families of wealth...
Yeah, Ignatieff is a jerk.
...- but the great majority of the families that I know had grandparents and great-grandparents who came here will little or nothing.
My own grandfather emigrated to Canada from Hungary with nothing - and worked in mines until scraping some money together to buy a small farm in the Okanagan. My other grandfather's family were simple farmers, eventually settling in the Sweet Grass Hills, on the southern border of Alberta, living 5 people to a tiny two-room home in the middle of nowhere.
Their hard work, and sacrifice and initiative I am grateful to say was passed on to my parents who passed on some of that (perhaps not enough) to me.. such that our family "evolved" to relative material comfort.
REALLY!?!?! There's a gene for hard work?? And your family "evolved" to become wealthier? So poorer people are now lower beings? And can people deevolve if they become poor? I'd like to meet the geneticist who can explain that!!!
Also, people from Eastern Europe, like your family, were actively recruited to come to Canada settle the west. Unlike my Chinese grandfather who had to pay a $500 head tax (about $12 000 today) to immigrate to Canada. And unlike my great grandfather and great great grandfather, who came to work on the railroad and then were shipped back to China. As I see it, his family got discounted passage overseas and land from the government... Which some might call a subsidy or "handout". And 5 people in a tiny two room home doesn't compare to the immigrant families living in Toronto today where several families (with parents, children, and sometime grandparents) will share a two bedroom condo. Not an exaggeration.
Liberals would penalize my family for that. They would suggest my grandparents and parents were fools for not simply putting their hand out and demanding government tend to their needs. That their decision in moving to a harsh and difficult lifestyle was fool-hardy when they could have simply immigrated to one of the larger cities and waited until the government gave them jobs that were easy and without toil.
Uhh see previous paragraph. And really? Which liberals? The ones who advocate for immigration or the ones who think its foolish that immigrant families have to share a two bedroom condo with several other families? The only fools that liberals see are the ones who would deny people a basic standard of living.
Liberals would have all of society return to [a] state of the lowest common denominator - would have us all living as modern-day Neanderthals.
No, liberals are all about ensuring that even the "lowest" amongst us has the opportunity to be prosperous and contribute to society. It's called empathy. Think how many great minds have been passed over because they lacked the opportunity to better the world. As you may expect modern liberal or progressives are more apt to accept change, or an evolution in our society, than conservatives.
Furthermore, aren't conservatives the ones trying to 'have all of society return' to a previous state? You know the good old days of 'back when I was a kid?'
Thank-goodness their time on this earth is passing.
We will all be well-served when, like their predecessors, the only place we see a "liberal" will be on display at a museum.
Wow this fits so nicely into my last post. Isn't it cool how: hard work = wealth = moral or in this case genetically superior. I like how his family evolved to become wealthier.
Mr Harvie's family weren't stupid or lazy when they were poor or immigrants. But for some reason similar people today are. Because it's a total sign of weakness to accept help when you need it. I know that when my leg has been mangled by a combine I tell people to go away and let me die for the good of the species.
Also, the total lack of empathy for immigrants or the poor today, by comparing them to condition that existed over 100 years ago. Your right, everyone should live in sod dugouts until they have the motivation and initiative to invent everything they need. When you buy that toaster at Canadian Tire, you're a socialist sucking on the teat of society.
In the first part of the article social organization is considered a good thing: it helped us survive where the Neanderthals didn't. But today social organization is a weakness... because it helps us to survive? Really Harvie is arguing that we ought to be more like the Neanderthals, independent or dead.
No thanks. Evolution put me into a species that is social and chance into a country that is socially conscious. I consider myself lucky for those things and I'm glad that if, despite my hard work, I should fall on hard times that my government isn't going to leave me in the ditch to die.