The meek or the ruthless: who prevails in the end?

And you're all that and a bag of chips?

I ate all the chips before CI got to me.

But, I gotcha! That what counts.

Yeah, but man! you should'a tasted those chips.

If it's low sodium, I'm in. Speaking of which, while in Santos in South America, I learned there was a Japanese area that I wanted to visit, but while waiting at the ship's terminal, I didn't see anybody else booking tours. I saw one guy with a group, so I asked them if they were going into town. He said, yes, and was waiting for his Jewish group. I asked if I can join them to visit the Japanese district, so he asked me if I was Jewish? I put my hands up to my face, and said, can't you tell? He said, "you're in!" I got to visit both the Jewish and Japanese sections. Was that ruthless?

Marvelous CI! Good show!

Doesn't look like CI is the one in need of education.

CI missed the chips but he got the bacon...

Fil has an affinity for CI that is interesting. (He like Japanese culture)

Sighhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Clearly the ruthless are better in battle, but once at the top, their ruthlessness betrays them, as it only incites further rebellion. The meek eventually decide to go to war in the name of peace, and, driven by a higher purpose, win, and continue to rule, beloved.

First off, don't listen to Darwin.

Second, Nazi regime was incredibly ruthless. It was also short-lived, because nobody wanted to put up with it. But even forms of communism that tried to creep in eventually failed. Dictatorships have a track record of about 50 years, even if nobody stops them.
https://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2010/08/why-dictatorships-fail.html

Communism fails because nobody wants to work if their best efforts are given to other people. Ppl like to censor me or downvote me for saying that, but it's true. If I work 40 hours, and tax is 40% percent, I'm gonna try working 100 hours. If tax then spikes to 75%, I'm gonna conclude that I'm on a hamster wheel, give up and let other ppl take care of me. The entire country can't do this, or it shurts down.

Dictatorships fail, as the article above pointd out. They can exercise all the authority they want but ultimately, they gotta pay off the crooked people who rigged the elections.

The meek will inherit the Earth, because as brutal as some regimes were, they can kill you and then you're dead. If there is an afterlife, they aren't in the one you are, so no problem. If there isn't, you're free of them anyway, so no problem. Meanwhile, they self-destruct.

It's fine to listen to Darwin. But the question isn't about cellular biology, it's about the functioning of human societies. It has nothing to do with natural selection or epigenetics. The failure of dictatorships hardly means that the "meek" prevail — it's more likely that the failed dictatorship will simply be replaced by a new governing philosophy which will evolve over time into a new dictatorship with the enthusiastic support of the "meek". The "meek" love the rule of the strongman.

It's NOT fine to listen to Darwin.

Hitler is often accused of being Christian. Did he love his enemies? Did he forgive sins? Did he practice any form of Christianity? Or did he just say he was Christian to appeal to a shallow populace that was majority Christian? Meanwhile, his ethnic cleansing principles were based on Nietzsche's master race theory, and the idea that the fittest should survive and the non-fittest should... not. What? You haven't thought about this? Darwin's underlying mindset is an idea that certain animals are more fit than others, and by extension, certain people have more of a right to things than others. That certain people are "nonessential" to quote a phrase thrown around during COVID as to why businesses cannot operate normally.

Btw, this is a recipe for poverty and strife. When people fight and blame one another, typically one or two people steal all the money. Meanwhile, in Hong Kong, street vendors actually own their own shops (paid off the bank) and the wealthy are fabulously wealthy. One of these system thrives on greed and envy of the outside world, declaring "life is rough if you're not one of the chosen ones." Another does away with red tape, and everyone is essential .

The Jews and Christians didn't think in terms of people being fittest and nonessential. I was taught by one of the better priests, that the difference between Christianity and the secular world is that the secular world asks " what do you do? " and judges you poorly if you're a lowly waitress, while the Christians (when operating properly) believe in intrinsic worth. Just ask food stands in Hong Kong how proud they are of their restaurants, they aren't "servers" they're business owners. Intrisic worth means you, as a human, no matter how geeky you look, how many chilidogs you eat a day, no matter how weird your theories about the history of the world (I legit believe that there were ancient nukes and a lost history about 4000 years onward), you are valuable and have potential to make something of yourself. Jews believed that human beings are made in God's image. This is at odds with the rest of the world that thought that humans were mere animals to be branded and bought and sold as slaves. This is why Jews tried and failed to make slavery more humane, and Christians succeeded in abolishing slavery and got blamed for it. It is patently obvious that a philosophy that sees you as another animal did nothing to secure your freedom, while one that says, to release a slave from Philemon because he is "no longer (as) a slave but (as) more than a slave, (as) a dear brother. And that he is, especially to me. But how much dearer he must be to you, both humanly and in union with the Lord!" probably was responsible for abolishing slavery.

Darwin's mindset of elitism is behind most of secular society. Why businesses strive to be leaner and meaner. It's behind why governments have high taxes and more regulations, to weed out the fittest businesses, and throw small businesses in the garbage where they belong. But we all have intrinsic worth, we all deserve to be able to survive. Darwin's model doesn't just extend to cellular biology, it has been adopted as so-called "social Darwinism."

What "mindset of elitism"? More like a mindset of anthropomorphism if you're describing successful naturally ocurring mutations as "elite".

You're describing late stage capitalism, not the Darwinian theory of biological evolution.

What we "deserve" is a cultural construct and, as with our "worth", is something we incur through meritorious activity. To say we all "deserve to be able to survive" is meaningless. Many people are born unable to survive, whether they deserve it or not.

Then tell people not to listen to "social Darwinism". It's not a concept that was developed by Darwin, nor is it a field of social science. It's just a popular ideology based on half-baked ideas ripped off from Darwin's theory of natural selection, which is a pretty common phenomenon when scientific ideas are introduced to popular culture and mined for any possible relevance. Black holes, Schroedinger's cat, and Einsteinian relativity are other scientific theories and concepts which are often misused in popular culture. And remember, Darwin never said that the mechanism of evolution was good, he only tried to describe how it worked.

Darwin was a snob. And his ideal that some people are better than others pervades with most work cultures. It's a divisive and anti-human mentality.

Since everyone here seems to hate Trump, let's use The Apprentice as an example. If I correctly remember the point of the show, many people compete for a job, but only one actually gets it. This theme recurs through most "reality" TV whether wilderness survival or cooking show, as though the real world.

But if we were to follow this model, the fact is, things would fall apart. A kitchen where only the only the strong survive, means the best chef is hired... but all the extra chefs are dismissed. Tell me how this works on a busy night.
And let's be real about survivor. If you were stranded on an island with like twenty people with different skills, they could work together to build huts, find water, hunt or forage for food, start fires, and take care of medical treatment. None of these things are skills that one single person has, so the idea of voting people off the island (or worse, killing them off) means you wind up cold, naked, alone, and probably die of starvation.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-power-prime/201101/popular-culture-reality-tv-is-not-reality

Reality TV isn't realistic. It only shows the world that the competitive and the greedy see. But that world has its days numbered.

This world can learn to become positive. People can live together, and work together. Or we can blow each other up.

Darwin was wrong. Struggle to be the fittest means we all die.

I'm not describing late stage capitalism. If you bothered to read Adam Smith, you'd understand that communism holds all of us just as good as any other (so people don't bother to have unique skills), while capitalism charges a premium for the trade of goods and services. In other words, society works because we work together and help each other. Doing so also gets us what we need. Communism (and Nazism) on the other hand encouraged people to snitch and spy on each other. Same deal with Islam, you have family members report on you if you defect to Christianity.

https://educate-yourself.org/cn/kirwansnitchculture15dec10.shtml

https://thefederalist.com/2017/11/08/final-3-phases-slide-freedom-communism/

I'll say it again, human beings have intrinsic worth. But the so-called progressive institutions would rather people believe everyone is equal. What they really mean though is that whoever is in charge is essential, while the rest of us proles are "equally" consigned to waiting in line for out food stamps. Those in charge get to ride their lambourginis and have their expensive heated houses, while they guilt-trip the rest of us into giving up our cars and our houses "to save the environment from climate change."

For noting that mutations can confer physical attributes which enhance an individual's chance of survival?

I never saw the show but that description is not an illustration of natural selection nor is it a realistic depiction of corporate hiring and firing. It's simply a variation on the old "who's king of the hill" game, a TV show concocted to raise money through the size of its weekly audience..

That's not a successful business model. A good chef attracts competent sous chefs and the owner knows that teamwork is as important as star quality.

That happens sometimes. It's called "society".

Except that Darwin never said that. And we all die in any case.

What you're missing is that culture effectively liberates humans from the process of natural selection. Humans can thrive in society despite physical shortcomings which would doom them in a natural state. Where would we be without eyeglasses, for example? Where would we be were there no such thing as inherited wealth? How about medicine? The strongest human can be felled by a weakling — whether armed with a gun or armed with a lawsuit.

No, only that they be treated equally before the law.

No that's not what "they" mean. Management is no more "essential" than labor. The complexity of modern society means that inequalities are bound to occur. Providing food for those who can't afford it is a stop gap measure which recognize that inequality exists.

What are you talking about? I haven't seen anyone saying we should give up our houses and since transportation is a key factor in our economy, no one is suggesting we "give up our cars" only that we develop alternatives to an older technology which is known to generate costly pollution. The "guilt trip" is commonly directed at the "one per cent", not the working poor.

Snob is a term of abuse used by Mr Goldman. These religious extremists look like they’re all being told what to think by the same party.

You don't understand.

Darwin wasn't the only game in town. There were other theories of evolution:
https://listverse.com/2013/03/08/10-alternatives-to-evolution/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_evolution_by_natural_selection
* Progressive Creationism - Basically a combo of creation and evolution. Humans never evolved from monkeys (the idea of progressive creationism is that there is same track evolution, that is humans are specific branch of primate), but they got here over millions of years of evolution.
* Punctuated Equilibrium - We basically evolve due to crises, usually all at once. (Seems to also be called Catastrophism)
* Theistic Evolution - God basically made up in his lab, and we evolved from there.
* Vitalism - Living things differ from nonliving in that they have a sort of vital force.
* Orthogenesis - Living beings have a tendency to change (teleological or goal-directed)
* Lamarckism- This has actually borne out in epigenetics, but when I was a kid, they scoffed at this guy as a lunatic. They simplified his theory as a giraffe that kept extending its neck for high branches, so his children or grandchildren got long-necked. But he actually did study stuff, and found that when there wasn't a need (bats and sight, for example), certain traits atrophied.
* Saltationism - Animals evolve due to mutations.
* Genetic drift - Evolution due not to natural selection but from foreign alleles (Where do these alleles come from? Well, viruses carry DNA, among other things (sex)). For example, a mutant blackbird that has white feathers mates with a blackbird, whose children in turn mate with alot of birds, spreading the change.

For reference, I'm a Lamarckian and a Catastrophist.

But only Darwin demanded that people, plants, animals, etc compete with each other for survival. In other words, he was a dick who saw people as two classes: those who are fittest ("essential") and get to drive nice cars and have nice houses and have twelve children, and those who are not fittest and are told that population is out of control (bye bye children, according to the state), that we need to care for the climate (bye bye car), and that immigrants need housing (sorry guy, you'll have to share or move out). By the way those who are not fittest work themselves into an early grave and die without issue in Darwin's ideal universe. He's a prick.

Yes, ostensibly he is speaking only about bacteria. But you haven't been paying attention of you think that.

https://www.discovery.org/a/9681/





Darwin is NOT a researcher of biology here. We can see his true colors. He's a snob who wants to put down the sick, the poor, and the handicapped.

Or maybe we understand atheists better than they understand themselves.

They talk a good game about how atheism created civil rights for LGBT or blacks or whatever, but the ugly truth is that many of them had slaver ancestors in their direct line.

Someone like your typical Hollywood liberal (atheists tend to be liberal, because liberalism supports causes they care about, while the left tends to support things religious types hate, like abortion) owns a nice house that you can never afford, but tells you to put aside your hard-earned money because you don't want to be racist.

Paul Watson called out J K Rowling once. She had two houses, both capable of housing several immigrants, and she was demanding others welcome immigrants. So he started a funding drive to get her to import immigrants. She kinda shut up about it after that.

https://youtu.be/RQzQQCtGDFg

Here's another one. Secular liberals were happy to relocate illegal immigrants to America, but when someone asked them to house immigrant minors, they passed. I would also pass, but I'd do it without any hypocrisy. We don't need immigrants, we need to serve our country first, then we can worry about others second.