Thanks Arlo, So you're saying, if I may summarise.
Social Darwinists who think Darwinism can be played out entirely within social circles have it wrong - survival and prosperity of the socialy powerful. Neo-Darwinists who recognise the value of interactions across the bio-social-intellectual levels are OK. Human life happens to be the (current) zenith of value spanning those three levels, and long may we keep it that way. Ian On 5/16/07, ARLO J BENSINGER JR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [Ian] > Could you elaborate on the kind of "Social Darwinists" you seem to have it in > for. > > Personally, I'm pretty confortable with neo-Darwinian evolutionary > explanations > of processes throughout the MoQ levels. > > [Arlo] > My contention is not with evolutionary processes. I think these underscore the > MOQ, and are not only unavoidable but Good. > > "Biological" Darwinism (just to set up my response) is simply saying that > survival depends on the "strength" of biological patterns. Moths with certain > markings survive because of a camouflaging effect. Lions fight to see whose > seed impregnates the lionness, with the outcome determined by biological > patterns (muscle size, agility, weight, etc.). > > Social Darwinism, at its simplest, says that who lives and who dies should be > decided by social power. In days of yore, social darwinism favored the > aristocracy. Who lived and who died was determined by social birthright, > family > status, etc. Kings received medical attention, peasants were left in the > streets to die. > > The underlying belief was that survival should be hinged to certain social > patterns. Those with these patterns were deemed "more valuable", those without > were seen as "expendable". > > Today we retain that mindset, and have latched onto "wealth", replacing the > idea of an aristocracy with a capistocracy. The idea that "who lives and who > dies" should be decided by "who has money" underlies the modern discourse on > healthcare. The "poor" are lazy and stupid and if they die off then it is of > no > loss at all. > > Pirsig, in my read of him, says that the value of a human life is not > determined by his/her ability to generate social wealth, but by the ideas and > possibilities for change that each person brings to the equation. > > Social patterns are in the service of the intellectual level, and should > therefore support this notion of that the evolutionary value of human life > should NOT be determined by social level economic prowness, but that social > patterns should support human life for its idea-rich and dynamic-potential > nature. > > > moq_discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
