I see a lot of these Austrolibertarian capitalists out here praising how wonderful it is that we have modern medicine and life extension.
Why? To me, it's absolutely disgusting. The whole reason people want government handing out healthcare is that these technologies allow the weak and frail to continue their pathetic existences.
The concept that life is inherently valuable is hilarious (not to mention socialist) - everyone is going to die someday. Why should they drag down functional life with them? "Oh, but we have to care for them!" Why? Because it's just "natural"?
"Under natural conditions, there is no haven for the wretched, no hope for the weaklings, no resting place for the weary, no quarter for the beaten. Nature loathes Infirm Ones."
So, what you're saying is that in the last 1500-2000 years, humans have evolved new traits for, say, blindness, deafness, paraplegia, epilepsy, etc. etc.? These traits evolved de novo in the last 1500 years or so?? Forget history at this point, where is the science that shows this is even possible?? It's like claiming we could evolve wings sometime in the next 1500 years.
No, I'm saying that in the last 1500-2000 years we've adopted values completely contrary to how we've lived on Earth for most of our history. We didn't have chemo in our hunter gatherer days. Hell, look in the Old Testament - it commanded people to kill their disrespectful sons and stone adulterers for Christ's sake.
Maladapted to survive? So you're admitting that subsidizing the weak and frail will lead to civilization's death?
Nope. I'm saying that evolution has bugger all to do with how 'strong' or 'weak' you are. Natural selection works on the basis of adaptibility, not some arbitrary interpretation of what Buzz Killington percieves to be 'frail'. If some of us have worked out how to convince society into giving us free healthcare, well that seems a pretty successful adaptation. Not that I really believe any of this pseudo-darwinist claptrap, I'm just applying your own logic in a more informed manner.
People weren't commanded to kill disrespectful sons or stone adulterers for Christ's sake. Christ had not yet existed. :)
The only one worth following is the one who leads... not the one who pulls; for it is not the direction that condemns the puller, it is the rope that he holds.
As soon as someone promotes something purely because it is "natural" is when you know that their a crank. Think about what you are doing right at this very instant. Is that natural? Really?
I've only seen one real naturalist on this website, and it's not you Buzz, it's that guy who wanted to go and live out in the woods.
I like the fact that people can live to an old age. Life, cooperation, and achievements are my most central values. This is just as unnatural as the fact that my mother didn't die in childbirth thanks to modern medical technology and most likely that I haven't died of a disease by now.
If you don't think that life itself is a central value to ALL living things then you are a fool.
I define "weak" as someone who's useless to society. The chronically ill are useless.
Conflict and knowledge seeking is certainly instinctual. Anyways, I never promoted Darwinism because it's natural, good point, the "empathy is natural" argument is fallacious.
You don't get to define anything. That's the point.
Some might get the wrong idea about you quoting a passage which seems to state that because something is natural that it is positive.