John,
If you refer to pure capitalism as being stifled by egalitarianism then
you may be right as it would most likely lessen the drive towards economic,
thus technological, gain. Also if you remove the necessity for war, say
again on the grounds of economy and politics, by achieving a state of
egalitarianism, then once again you will most likely "stifle" technological
growth. However technology is not what necessarily need to measure the
condition of our being. I would think that being able to achieve a more
peaceful evenness in politics, economics, and social structure should in
the long run benefit our species more than damage it. Thus where is it that
egalitarianism is, overall, not a benefit?
As to elitism I personally feel that it is one of the worst behaviors our
species has and, yes, it is virtually always a negative use. I intended it
as such, yet I did not direct it at Mr. Kummel (and, if taken that way,
then my sincere and humble apologies go out to him). I see Human elitism
all the time, in many venues, and the separation of our species from the
rest of Animalia is merely one of them. "To forget our Biology is one of
the largest travesties, right along with forgetting our Histories, that
Humanity faces." Yet I would never argue that, while we need to remember
who and what we are, we have the ability to have our Human nature grow as
well. The point of view that humans are apart of nature still is one of
Human ethology, and does not mean to denigrate our species. I very much
like who we are, and have great hopes of what we may become. I wonder,
then, why everyone is always so quick to look upon every animal an beneath
us?
So what is the sign of intelligence? The ability to create a masterpiece
such as in the magnificent beauty of Sistine Chapel or the mathematical
beauty of the Pyramids? These are grand indeed and has yet to be directly
shown by any species but ours on this planet. Yet this argument of
semantics is not overtly beneficial as I have never seen creative and
artistic ability as the definition on intelligence. It has been argued that
what a species can create is necessitated by its environment. One must,
therefore, take in account the conditions under which a species lives and
"works" to see if it is acting more instictually or with rationalization.
Therefore one of the main criterion of intelligence is problem solving
ability, not being capable of putting up a Great Wall to keep out Hun
invaders.
Is Humanity a wonderful and exquisite creature? Yes! Are we alone are
dominators of our planet, thus above the affairs of all other organisms? I
personally do not think so, and see such thought as one that drives a
painful and damaging wedge into the ecology of this planet (and beyond,
soon enough).
I am well aware that my egalitarian views of our species is generally not
well received and that is fine. I have no trouble seeing and accepting your
position, but all of what I am in training and contemplation does not lend
me to its view. No matter really as who is right, on any subject, among us?
Certainly not I.
Always,
Sam
-- This is the Newtontalk mailinglist - http://www.newtontalk.net To unsubscribe or manage: visit the above link or mailto:newtontalk-request_at_newtontalk.net?Subject=unsubscribe
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Sun Sep 09 2001 - 19:47:38 EDT