On 12/17/2012 3:05 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Now that I know that Conservatism is based on preserving the value of fear, it makes sense that the arguments tend to jump unexplainably from "hey, why is that one guy hogging all of the money?" to "The only alternative is 'everyone will die'. If we weren't afraid of dying in mass graves, what would be a more sensible way of governing a prosperous state?
Dear Craig,

At some point I hope that you will understand that I am not promoting a brand of politics. I am promoting REASON, that with makes us Sapient, not that which makes us D. or R. or L. or G. or whatever other brand of politic one might happen to like.

Preserving the value of fear. Well, umm, yes. Being able to track what is truly scary (will kill you if given a chance) and being able to ignore the not-so-scary (might kill you if you bother it), seems to give a evolutionary advantage. Consider an evolutionary toy ecosystem. If we introduce a mutation that makes all stimuli "scary" or makes stimuli scary by some random amount, what happens to average survival? Predictability of actions would be degraded, this implies a detrimental effect on survival. How will you find food in a randomly or super scary world?



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to