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