Debate with Vox Day: Evolution by natural selection

We have been discussing on what the various kinds of reactionary agree.  We agree on reality and agree that reality is important.  I also agree with Vox Day about Scalzi, who exemplifies the progressive tendency to cut the balls off male progressives.   John Scalzi is exhibit A for Heartiste’s position that any man who is a man should reject the entire progressive political movement, including and especially the early nineteenth century emancipation of women, which led to the English 1857 Matrimonial Causes act legally privileging wives above their husbands.

So let us see if we can discuss what we disagree on and remain courteous and continue to respect each other.

OK:

Evolution by natural selection

Well, it is obvious: Darwin 101. Creatures of the same species nonetheless vary, even though of the same species. Variation is substantially inherited. Some variants will survive better than others, thus, creatures evolve. We can in fact measure small changes over the period of human history, and for small very fast breeding creatures, such as microbes, large changes.

Over ages vast and long, vastly longer than the human mind can comprehend, small changes will necessarily become large changes, just as mountains rise and fall in movements almost imperceptibly small.

To say that natural selection cannot turn one kind into an entirely different kind, is like saying that the rain and wind cannot turn a mountain into a valley.

This has important implications for humans: We are risen killer apes. Thus, naturally fierce. We evolved to cooperate better than the competition, but the major purpose of that cooperation was to put a hatchet in heads of the competition. We are naturally inclined to friendship, loyalty, courage, kindness, and reciprocity, the better to destroy outsiders.

Among the implications of Evolution by Natural Selection:

Utilitarianism, caring for distant strangers, is absolutely not in our nature. There are no utilitarians. Show me the man who would experiment on children to end malaria, and I will show you the man who will experiment on children and entirely forget he was planning to end malaria.

We have an obligation not to harm distant strangers, because our moral sense evolved to keep us out of trouble, to avoid unnecessary war, but we don’t care for them, we have evolved to be efficient in destroying them should they seriously get in our way, and anyone who says he does care, is lying, and, if lying, probably intends to harm those close to him. Whosoever claims to be utilitarian is lying, if lying, up to no good, if up to no good, evil.

Thus, from natural selection, we may conclude that so called heterosexual aids in Africa is actually progressive aids, spread by medical clinics funded by foreign aid – since “heterosexual” aids in Africa suits the agenda of those funding it. They did not consciously intend to spread aids, but when they found that they were, that they quite conveniently were, were in no hurry to address the problem of needle re-use by internationally funded clinics in Africa. We can predict that, and on examination, we observe, what natural selection predicts. “Heterosexual” aids in Africa occurs predominantly and overwhelmingly amongst those Africans who attend clinics funded by far away do-gooding strangers.

This outcome, progressive aids, is an outcome predictable from a moral sense that evolved, rather than was given to us by God in an Apple. If we got our moral sense from God via a tree in the Garden, one would see a bit more concern among progressives about progressive aids. If, on the other hand, we are risen killer apes, we are unlikely to have risen very far in our treatment of distant strangers.

Tags:

5 Responses to “Debate with Vox Day: Evolution by natural selection”

  1. Red says:

    Jim, are Africans inclined towards reciprocity? I’ve read a bunch of stories of people helping out an African and that African instead of being grateful demands some of the wealth of the person who saved and he would steal from the person who saved him if wealth is not forth coming.

    • jim says:

      If a white helps a black, the black reasonably and realistically believes this is tribute extorted by fear and violent supremacy, hence grounds for further attacks on that white. Similarly, if a non Muslim helps a Muslim.

      Thus this behavior is not necessarily indicative. To determine whether blacks lacked reciprocity, have to check old books from period of white supremacy, which do seem to report reciprocity.

  2. Robert in Arabia says:

    This does not explain why I am a frequent recipient of help from Muslims.
    If I stand by the road looking for a taxi in a relatively isolated area, A Muslim will pick me up and drive me quite long distance. If I trip, Muslims gather to help pick me up. If I forget my tablet PC in a coffee shoop, it will be safeguarded for me for three days. If small children decide to play with me in a food court, their parents are pleased.
    Although I never hit on Muslim women, they are always pleased when I show them some small courtesy. Western women are incapable of courtesy in public here.

    • Zach says:

      “Although I never hit on Muslim women, they are always pleased when I show them some small courtesy. Western women are incapable of courtesy in public here.”

      My experience has been similar. But that doesn’t speak to how genuine that courtesy is.

    • jim says:

      I stand corrected: I had in mind more the collective response to foreign aid, which is not indicative.

Leave a Reply