Poor people shouldn't vote

[Slim]

Wow. The writer of that article is an ass. Not allowing a citizen to vote simply because of economic status? It's a good thing the founding fathers didn't have their heads as far up their backsides as this guy does.

Is this supposed to be funny?

I'm not sure he thought this one through.

[Jacob]

I think that many on the right have a fundamental misunderstanding about human nature. They assume that, if given the chance, people will be as lazy as their environment allows. It is as if without the fear of starvation, no one is going to do anything. While this may describe some people, I think that most people are just the opposite. Evolution will select for productivity, not laziness. Our species finds joy in work, creative expression, physical activity, and thriving in our environment.

I think many on the left have a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of most on the right. It's not that the people on the right assume that people will be lazy, it is merely that they recognize that many people are.

Evolution, as I understand it (which is very little) has a preference for survival and doesn't care one whit about productivity (in the business sense) and creative expression.

[Babs]

I'm not sure he thought this one through.

I can only assume he meant that the founding fathers had their heads even farther up their backsides.

[SeattleUte]

I'm not sure he thought this one through.

I should have just replied "lol". That's what 3D would have done.

[woot]

[evolution cop]

Selection doesn't necessarily favor productivity any more than it favors faster running or bigger brains. It simply favors whatever will allow an individual to produce successful offspring. If lying around all day is advantageous in that it saves energy and keeps one out of trouble, as is often the case, then it will be favored. Case in point: cats.

[/evolution cop]

[Babs]

[evolution cop]

Selection doesn't necessarily favor productivity any more than it favors faster running or bigger brains. It simply favors whatever will allow an individual to produce successful offspring. If lying around all day is advantageous in that it saves energy and keeps one out of trouble, as is often the case, then it will be favored. Case in point: cats.

[/evolution cop]

<tag_cop>

Note that markup language tags traditionally reside within left and right brokets, rather than within a set of square brackets.

</tag_cop>

[SeattleUte]

[evolution cop]

Selection doesn't necessarily favor productivity any more than it favors faster running or bigger brains. It simply favors whatever will allow an individual to produce successful offspring. If lying around all day is advantageous in that it saves energy and keeps one out of trouble, as is often the case, then it will be favored. Case in point: cats.

[/evolution cop]

Did you make up that example? House cats have not evolved as such but have been domesticated and bred by humans to be easy for humans to live with. Doubtless house cats' forebears couldn't just have just laid around and thereby maximized their odds of procreating, just as poodles' ancestors were wolves.

[woot]

Did you make up that example? House cats have not evolved as such but have been domesticated and bred by humans to be easy for humans to live with. Doubtless house cats' forebears couldn't just have just laid around and thereby maximized their odds of procreating, just as poodles' ancestors were wolves.

Aww it's cute when you pretend to know anything about evolution. Lions lie around just as much as house cats do. They have very high energy diets that come in large packages, and they live in Africa. So unless they're actively pursuing prey, which again they don't need to do very often, they tend to do very little.

[SeattleUte]

Aww it's cute when you pretend to know anything about evolution. Lions lie around just as much as house cats do. They have very high energy diets that come in large packages, and they live in Africa. So unless they're actively pursuing prey, which again they don't need to do very often, they tend to do very little.

Clearly you meant house cats or your example makes no sense.

Selection doesn't necessarily favor productivity any more than it favors faster running or bigger brains. It simply favors whatever will allow an individual to produce successful offspring. If lying around all day is advantageous in that it saves energy and keeps one out of trouble, as is often the case, then it will be favored. Case in point: cats.

Your point was that natural selection may result in small, weak lazy animals if that will help them procreat. But of course your point was nonsense for the reasons I've stated. Lions are the archetype of beasts that are fast, effective and strong hunters. They can run up to 50 miles an hour.

http://www.bestourism.com/items/di/7...rge-cats&b=329

Anyway you said "cats", not "lions", and the cheetah is a "cat" and the fastest land animal in the world, at up to 112 mph.

Clearly you meant house cats. Are you sure this is your field?

[RobinFinderson]

I'll accept woot's point about evolution, but it seems irrelevant in this thread because cats are not people. I made the point that that human evolution seems to have favored strength, productivity, hard work, creativity, and all of the other stuff that keeps our species involved in all kinds of lucrative and interesting projects. We don't have claws and speed that provide an easy supply of food. We have big brains and endurance. A couple thousand years of human history supports my hypothesis about human evolution and who, typically, gets to pass on their genes to the greatest number of offspring. It isn't the lazy, though sometimes it is the opportunistic.

[creekster]

Did you make up that example? House cats have not evolved as such but have been domesticated and bred by humans to be easy for humans to live with. Doubtless house cats' forebears couldn't just have just laid around and thereby maximized their odds of procreating, just as poodles' ancestors were wolves.

You are missing the point. The point isn't whether lions run fast and can catch food (gee, there's a revelation!), the point is that sometimes less activity is advantageous. Thus, Lions DO spend most of their day laying in the grass. Moreover, think of an animal like a sloth; for several reasons they move very slowly and apart from munching on a few leaves are not what one might consider active. It works for them.

Humans are no different. The question isn't whether humans try to find something to eat. The question is whether 'evolution' has made us want to be productive. Personally, I think it is a silly point because of the complexity and variety of human responses to stimuli, yet anyone who has had teenagers will probably agree (and I am not kidding here) that perhaps our natural state is to do exactly as little as we can to get what we need.

Moreover, and this is the real point here, Robin's premise was that evolution will select for productivity over laziness (read his post if you don't believe me). That premise is simply inaccurate. Evolution, in the first instance, isn't something that acts at all. It is merely the word to describe what happens as organisms change as a result of different environmental conditions and genetic features. If laziness works (e.g. a sloth) then that trait is selected.

[RobinFinderson]

You are missing the point. The point isn't whether lions run fast and can catch food (gee, there's a revelation!), the point is that sometimes less activity is advantageous. Thus, Lions DO spend most of their day laying in the grass. Moreover, think of an animal like a sloth; for several reasons they move very slowly and apart from munching on a few leaves are not what one might consider active. It works for them.

Humans are no different. The question isn't whether humans try to find something to eat. The question is whether 'evolution' has made us want to be productive. Personally, I think it is a silly point because of the complexity and variety of human responses to stimuli, yet anyone who has had teenagers will probably agree (and I am not kidding here) that perhaps our natural state is to do exactly as little as we can to get what we need.

Moreover, and this is the real point here, Robin's premise was that evolution will select for productivity over laziness (read his post if you don't believe me). That premise is simply inaccurate. Evolution, in the first instance, isn't something that acts at all. It is merely the word to describe what happens as organisms change as a result of different environmental conditions and genetic features. If laziness works (e.g. a sloth) then that trait is selected.

Laziness doesn't work for humans... at least not from a reproductive standpoint. And a few decades of teenagers and their levi-loving in your basement doesn't even dent the evolutionary forces at play. Historically, human survival has been difficult, and the challenges have increased the survivability (ergo the ability to reproduce) of people who meet those challenges. Like I wrote before, we have big brains and decent endurance. For those advantages to improve survivability and reproduction takes hard work and creativity.

[creekster]

Laziness doesn't work for humans... at least not from a reproductive standpoint. And a few decades of teenagers and their levi-loving in your basement doesn't even dent the evolutionary forces at play. Historically, human survival has been difficult, and the challenges have increased the survivability (ergo the ability to reproduce) of people who meet those challenges. Like I wrote before, we have big brains and decent endurance. For those advantages to improve survivability and reproduction takes hard work and creativity.

SUre, if you define laziness to be exactly what you mean, then you will be correct.

The point is your original statement that

Evolution will select for productivity, not laziness.

is simply not true. Evolution slects for whatever passes on genes most effectively. That's all. Youtr statements imply a normative aspect to lazniess or a prefernce by 'evolution' for one characterisitic over another. Thinking about it that way is, IMO, silly. Evolution doesnt care. Evolution doesnt think. Evolution isnt anything at all. It merely means genes getting passed on.

[woot]

SU did indeed completely miss the point. Creekster has done a good job of setting him straight. I probably should have said "felids" rather than "cats", but even when I'm dealing with 5-million year old felids I generally just refer to them as cats. That doesn't mean I think they were wearing collars and shitting in litter boxes.

I should add that I don't necessarily believe that primates, or humans specifically, are good examples of creatures in which laziness has been favored by selection. I only meant to point out that in general, there isn't a trend in evolution toward any given attribute, whether it be big brains, fast running, hard work, or anything else currently deemed positive by humans.

When it comes to humans, it is clear that we are well-evolved for long distance running and for higher cognitive function, perhaps more so than anything else. Whether we take that to mean that humans in general evolved to "work hard" is a different matter. Clearly, many humans derive great satisfaction from doing things that involve a lot of effort, and Robin's original point that it's silly to assume that people will work as little as possible is one that deserves consideration in a discussion of welfare.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Laziness doesn't work for humans... at least not from a reproductive standpoint... [/I].

The following clip is simultaneously hilarious and terrifying. Probably NSFW for language. The smartest, strongest, and most successful are not necessarily the most effective reproducers in humans.

[YOUTUBE]BXRjmyJFzrU[/YOUTUBE]