2012 Messenger – What will happen?

Posts Tagged ‘equality’

If in the interest of fairness and equality we could take food, habitat, hunting skills, speed, intelligence, survival instinct ect.. from more successful animals and species and redistribute them to natures less successful adaptations what do think would be the outcome?
Do you think nature would thrive or stagnate and die?
From the tenor of many of the responses, this question seems to have hit a nerve. Perhaps “Survival of the fittest” was not the most accurate term. Evolution seems to stir so much emotion that I thought I might receive more coherent answers avoiding it. You obviously took my meaning without it. Obviously there are more criteria than those I listed just as there are more ways to limit success in a society than progressive taxes, quotas and excessive regulation. As you know I was not referring to Social Darwinism but to the failed philosophy at the root of the Progressive movement and responsible for misery and atrocity throughout history. I understand your defensiveness and why you choose to avoid a direct answer.
Thanks Jack. I never mentioned Darwin in my question. You brought up the subject of Eugenics. What concerns me are people like the Emanuel Brothers. Rham Emanuel is Obama’s Chief of Staff and Chief Arm Twister. Rham’s first brother is Ari Emanuel. Ari just happens to be Michael “Sicko” Moore’s Hollywood Agent. Rham’s other brother is Ezekiel Emanuel M.D. PhD. Dr. Emanuel is a leading Oncologist, Bioethicist (EUGENICS) and proponent of Euthanasia. Dr. Emanuel is also on President Obama’s Medical Advisory Board. Then we have Dr. John Holdren, the President’s National Science Advisor. Dr. Holdren is a leading expert on global population control ( EUGENICS) and well known Euthanasia proponent. The last charmer we have is Cass Sunstein, U. Chiciago/Harvard Law Professor and another “Eugenics and Rationing of Care” Proponet and sometime advisor to President Obama
Our nation’s “Science Czar” John Holdrens book Ecoscience:
“In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man now firmly in control of science policy in this country wrote that: Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not; The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or in food; Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise; People who ‘contribute to social deterioration’ (i.e. undesirables) ‘can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility’ — in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized. A transnational ‘Planetary Regime’ should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans’ lives — using an armed international police force.”
You read all of that correctly. If you don’t believe me, do the research for yoursel

Equality is the assertion that ‘all men are created equal’ and that consequently, we are entitled to the same ‘unalienable rights’. I contest the former point, as we are constituted of attributes such as, but not limited to, intelligence and physical prowess. In a competitive environment, as in nature, how well we fulfill these criterion will determine whether or not we survive; natural selection will take its pick based on the inherent inequality within us. Thus, when a persons is quantified based on the ‘net survival skill’ he/she has, and compared to that of an ‘inferior’ being, the relation would be p1>p2 instead of p1=p2. It would thus not be logical for the relatively inferior human to be deemed the equal of a being superior in all aspects of life (this will not be subjective if they are assessed by a rubric).

This inequality does not connote any thing in the field of politics. Whether morality and ethics are intrinsic or empirical, we have learned to embrace ‘inequality’, as the alternative would be mass genocide and forced sterilization, as witnessed by the Third Reich’s Holocaust. We have learned to empathize with and accept the flaws of one another, and have established laws because of this capability. Equality is thus nonexistent, but we must not discriminate because of this. //

What are the weak points? Any logical fallacies? Anything you agree/disagree with? Which points could I expand upon? Thanks in advance!
What do you mean?