The End of Wall Street's Boom

[Zoomie1980]

God? You'll have to find the source of that law for me. Ken Lay fittest? Cheney fittest? that's some odd fitness or do you mean GREED of the fittest.

It is basically how life had evolved for billions of years on this planet....and CONTINUES to evolve. The weak and those unable to adapt DIE, go EXTINCT, etc..., and that is how it SHOULD be...

 

[Paulie]

Eugenics.

 

[Hum Dinger]

Survival of the fittest, baby. It's the fundamental axiom of nature, the law of God.

Aren't you confusing Charles Darwin and God?

Darwin may have been right about some evolutionary process taking place, but that doesn't mean everything he said was the bible truth.

In fact, the theory of 'survival of the fittest' really doesn't hold water. If it did wolves would be more abundant than dogs. Sabre tooth tigers would rule the world. Mutts are out surviving pure breds.

Darwin lacked the knowledge of biology that we have today. Evolution seems to be based more of random genetic mutations with the most diverse gene pool evolving fastest.

Historically, the 'common' people of the world continue to proliferate, despite their apparent inability to 'compete'. While the most competitive people's genetic lines not only fail to dominate, but often cease to exist. Have you met a descendant of Julius Ceaser's lately? How about the decendants of the Kings of France or Czars of Russia?

It seems that the quality of human beings that have caused the human race to thrive are the qualities of compassion and altruism. The most competitive and aggressive people, who seem quite often to lack in genetic diversity, often end in somewhat less than 'winning' circumstances.

The meek are inheriting the earth, slowly but surely.

I believe that it will not be very long before those that have espoused 'social Darwinism' find themselves in for a big downfall.

 

[Paulie]

Aren't you confusing Charles Darwin and God?

Darwin may have been right about some evolutionary process taking place, but that doesn't mean everything he said was the bible truth.

In fact, the theory of 'survival of the fittest' really doesn't hold water. If it did wolves would be more abundant than dogs. Sabre tooth tigers would rule the world. Mutts are out surviving pure breds.

Darwin lacked the knowledge of biology that we have today. Evolution seems to be based more of random genetic mutations with the most diverse gene pool evolving fastest.

Historically, the 'common' people of the world continue to proliferate, despite their apparent inability to 'compete'. While the most competitive people's genetic lines not only fail to dominate, but often cease to exist. Have you met a descendant of Julius Ceaser's lately? How about the decendants of the Kings of France or Czars of Russia?

It seems that the quality of human beings that have caused the human race to thrive are the qualities of compassion and altruism. The most competitive and aggressive people, who seem quite often to lack in genetic diversity, often end in somewhat less than 'winning' circumstances.

The meek are inheriting the earth, slowly but surely.

I believe that it will not be very long before those that have espoused 'social Darwinism' find themselves in for a big downfall.

The reason the meek are surviving in the human race is because there are governing bodies in place providing protection. In a certain way, government is a barrier to true Darwinism. Even I'LL advocate government for SOME things. I'm not an extreme Darwinian, personally. Some kind of order does need to be kept.

When wolves start selecting a ruling body, however, to drag their weak through life's muck, you let me know.

 

[Zoomie1980]

Aren't you confusing Charles Darwin and God?

Darwin may have been right about some evolutionary process taking place, but that doesn't mean everything he said was the bible truth.

In fact, the theory of 'survival of the fittest' really doesn't hold water. If it did wolves would be more abundant than dogs. Sabre tooth tigers would rule the world. Mutts are out surviving pure breds.

Darwin lacked the knowledge of biology that we have today. Evolution seems to be based more of random genetic mutations with the most diverse gene pool evolving fastest.

Historically, the 'common' people of the world continue to proliferate, despite their apparent inability to 'compete'. While the most competitive people's genetic lines not only fail to dominate, but often cease to exist. Have you met a descendant of Julius Ceaser's lately? How about the decendants of the Kings of France or Czars of Russia?

It seems that the quality of human beings that have caused the human race to thrive are the qualities of compassion and altruism. The most competitive and aggressive people, who seem quite often to lack in genetic diversity, often end in somewhat less than 'winning' circumstances.

The meek are inheriting the earth, slowly but surely.

I believe that it will not be very long before those that have espoused 'social Darwinism' find themselves in for a big downfall.

Big difference between meek and weak. The weak will be eliminated, in the end. They ALWAYS are....

 

[midcan5]

The strong huh! seems the strong are often, next day the weak, or maybe the stupid. Humans aren't governed any longer by laws of natural selection, they are often governed by ideologies, call them capitalism or communism or voodoo economics, they all need laws and regulation to survive and power that can enforce both.

More humor or should we cry over the so called strong?

2008 Investment Guides Are HILARIOUS -- Daily Intel -- New York News Blog -- New York Magazine

 

[Zoomie1980]

The strong huh! seems the strong are often, next day the weak, or maybe the stupid. Humans aren't governed any longer by laws of natural selection...

Really? Read a newspaper sometime. Wait until the next big global drought and crop failure, see what happens when we finally reach global capacity for human life. We will be counting the dead and starving in the 100's of millions or even billions, and that will be entirely NORMAL and NATURAL and AS IT SHOULD BE. And I won't be one of them.

 

[midcan5]

Really? Read a newspaper sometime. Wait until the next big global drought and crop failure, see what happens when we finally reach global capacity for human life. We will be counting the dead and starving in the 100's of millions or even billions, and that will be entirely NORMAL and NATURAL and AS IT SHOULD BE. And I won't be one of them.

That reply is so silly it is hard to comment. Doomsayers have predicted the end since the beginning and guess what. As far as natural disasters, that has nothing to do with natural selection and while life on earth may eventually die out, actually it is inevitable it will die out, that time frame is beyond human comprehension. You and I will be dust long before that happens.

 

[indago]

Doomsayers have predicted the end since the beginning

I wonder what happens AFTER the end?

 

[Paulie]

That reply is so silly it is hard to comment. Doomsayers have predicted the end since the beginning and guess what. As far as natural disasters, that has nothing to do with natural selection and while life on earth may eventually die out, actually it is inevitable it will die out, that time frame is beyond human comprehension. You and I will be dust long before that happens.

Natural Selection has everything to do with natural disasters.

The strong may be able to survive through them, but the weak will most likely perish.

It is highly unlikely that all human life will ever become extinct.

 

[editec]

An additional article for those interested in the whys.

http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/rogoff/files/Banking_Crises.pdf

Okay I read it.

I don't understand how that paper describes the WHYS, though.

Seemed to me that mostly what it did was measure the international GDP statistical metrics leading up to crises and the typical outcomes post the events.

About as close an explanation as I get out of that paper is that we allow banks to run up debt levels like damned fools, and then it all falls apart.

Or am I merely projecting my viseral disgust with the industry/(class) banking into this paper?

Seems to me that the outcome of these events is nothing more than greater debt to the nations with the surviving banks ending up owning a greater and greater claim to all wealth that will be generated during the recovery periods.

What have I missed?

 

[editec]

Social darwinists are an amusing bunch.

They seem to understand darwinism well enough, but they like to pretend that the world "social" is merely there to differentiate mankind from animal-kind.

What IS society?

Is it the jungle? Or is it the antithesis of the jungle?

The Germanic tribes were very fit but very extremely uncooperative, too.

They got their asses handed to them by short little Mediteranian fellows who understood the value of cooperating to slaughter those less cooperative Germans tribes.

Hmmmm...one supposes that the ability not to compete but to cooperate might ALSO play a part in who survives and who does not.

Odd that these people (most of whom claim to be doing very well) have overlooked the fact that people who do not work well with others seldom do very well in society.

You don't suppose the myth of the individual might be clouding their judgement about this subject, do you?

 

[Old Rocks]

There really seems to be a foolish idea that individuals evolve. They do not. Populations evolve. Within those populations individuals have characteristics that allow them to pass on their genetic inheritance. Zoomie, you could find yourself in a survival situation where some 90 IQ fellow survives and you do not simply because that individual has a greater tolerance for cold. Environment determines who is the fittest to survive, not some false myth of 'weak' and 'strong'. The characteristic that allows particular individuals to survive better in some situation may have absolutely nothing to do with intelligiance or strength. It may something as simple as the ability to digest lactose after puberty. So your assumption of your survival over that of someone you at present deem 'weak' is rather foolish.

 

[Zoomie1980]

There really seems to be a foolish idea that individuals evolve. They do not. Populations evolve. Within those populations individuals have characteristics that allow them to pass on their genetic inheritance. Zoomie, you could find yourself in a survival situation where some 90 IQ fellow survives and you do not simply because that individual has a greater tolerance for cold. Environment determines who is the fittest to survive, not some false myth of 'weak' and 'strong'. The characteristic that allows particular individuals to survive better in some situation may have absolutely nothing to do with intelligiance or strength. It may something as simple as the ability to digest lactose after puberty. So your assumption of your survival over that of someone you at present deem 'weak' is rather foolish.

My environment is life in the United States. And I am very well equipped to survive and thrive in it, because this is still a country that rewards hard work, dedication, and personal betterment and largely casts aside to poverty or a struggling existence for those that do not have those attributes or ambitions.

Business is even more stark, especially on the global level. Weak businesses that are poorly run, poorly capitalize will FAIL, unless some government entity props them up.

Life has not changed that much from 100,000,000 years ago. When natural crises hit, who dies? Who suffers the most? The weak, the poor, those incapable of fending for themselves, and unable to adapt. See New Orleans, a city that got what it had coming to it.