io9 | Huxley's
genteel progressivism seems at odds with the popular image of eugenics.
While many eugenics enthusiasts were racists on the the far right of the
political spectrum, Huxley was part of a "reform eugenics" movement
which was popular among British socialists like H.G. Wells and George
Bernard Shaw.
For
these reform eugenicists, social equality was a necessary prerequisite
for identifying genetic inequality. And that's where Huxley's notion of
evolutionary humanism came in. He wrote that evolutionary humanism
elevated this mission to a religious quest:
The lineaments of the new religion ... will arise to serve the needs of the coming era... Instead of worshipping supernatural rulers, it will sanctify the higher manifestations of human nature, in art and love, in intellectual comprehension and aspiring adoration, and will emphasize the fuller realization of life's possibilities as a sacred trust.
The
key to achieving these aims was to educate the public, enabling them to
think in evolutionary terms. In Huxley's mind, a widespread acceptance
of an evolutionary worldview represented the process of evolution
"reaching self-consciousness [and] becoming aware of itself."
In order to
make sense of evolutionary humanism as a religion, however, you also
have to understand Huxley's somewhat idiosyncratic approach to evolution
itself. Biologists generally define evolution in terms of allele
frequencies, mutations, selection, and drift. For Huxley, this was just a
small part of a much broader picture. He radically expanded the concept
so that all directional change was evolution. In Huxley's view, "the
whole sum of reality is, in a perfectly legitimate sense, evolution." It
was also, for Huxley, inherently progressive. Evolution necessarily
moved towards "higher," or more complex, states of being.
Huxley
broke this universal process of evolution down into three stages:
cosmic, biological, and psychosocial. Cosmic evolution was the slow
development of complex structures through physical and chemical
processes; the formation of stars and production of heavier elements,
the gradual formation of planets, and the emergence of simple organic
chemistry. Biological evolution was more or less what we think of by the
word "evolution" today, although Huxley believed that most biological
progress ended roughly five million years ago, and that only minor
improvements, especially among early hominids, had occurred since.
Progress was the whole point of evolution, but had only just gotten
started in the last, psychosocial stage.
29 comments:
Here is Canadian article discussing their tax situation and then on page 17 they show the effective tax rate of the industrialized countries.
http://www.policyschool.ucalgary.ca/sites/default/files/research/mintz-2013-globtax.pdf
Nervously concerned after BD's comments earlier today on the fundamental importance of genes, CNu posted, "and there are no environmental factors that function independently of the genome..."
Total BS. Say you have this fetus with Einsteinian potential, and you abort it (environment can't get any worse than that) and the outcome for that person becomes zero. It, and an infinite number of other bad environments having a simmilar effect, are totally independent of the Genome.... e.g., head injuries, drugs, South Side Chicago gunfire, all gorkify previously productive folks every day. Crack mother while pregnant. All *independent* bad environments.....
Convesely, all the good nurture in the world won't produce a useful outcome if the as-cast basic neural wiring is defective. Again, let BD know when you can epigenicate a Down Syndrome into an Einstein, or even an IQ-100 for that matter. Won't ever happen....(just using extreme case to make the point which applies throughout the IQ spectrum....)
Number 2 ain't gonna happen. The media won't bite the hand. Those companies stand to lose a lot if the American people chose to develop themselves. It's more profitable to do what they're doing now.
How does one defend decades of conservative fuckery? We're seeing it in real time right now. How can a Florida Senator be against doing something about climate change? Why would someone tell people that their bigotry is alright? Those people are vile. I don't care if someone wants to speak their piece. Conservatives just happen to be on the wrong side. They are wrong about everything; it's just the things they're wrong about is killing us.
Social Dominance Orientation And Conservative Iden...
Rightwing Authoritarianism and Conservative Identi...
Conservatism As Identity Politics--Pt2: Hard Core ...
Conservatism as identity politics—Some Introductor...
Introduction
I'm not trying to excuse anything.
I'm only saying that the leaders of both sides want us divided and unable to work together.
Is this bicameral "leadership" in collusion, or, does each wing have it's own irreconcilable agenda which is in existential conflict with the other wing's agenda?
If the former, what do you call this transcendent elite leadership?
If the latter, then why waste any more time, laissez le bon temps roulez..., somebody's authorized across the board preparedness for the restive peasant rabble no matter what http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/us/war-gear-flows-to-police-departments.html?_r=0
When was the last time you tried to buy some bullets? Serious question.
I don't think they are at either of those extremes. The party leaderships collaborate, for example nobody finds it easy to register third-party candidates. They oppose each other on lots of issues.
They like us to pick their side and root for it, that's all. Democracy is only useful to us if we use it to vote for what we want. If we spend our time shaking our fists at each other, we're out of the game.
I've never bought bullets. Bullets aren't relevant to the problem at hand.
lol, democracy is only useful to us if we use it to vote for what we want..., What gets on the ballot at any given level bears not even the faintest or remotest resemblance to anything I've ever wanted - and I suspect that's true for most folks. So, no, this isn't a democracy and doesn't bear any resemblance to one.
Since getting democratic, electoral satisfaction is outside the pale,the consequence is that fist shaking becomes a far more satisfying gesture. But fist shaking is only an emotional outlet rather than an existential solution to the problem of political tyranny close at hand.
For those of us unwilling to endlessly and impotently fist shake, even less to submit to the increasingly undemocratic polices, procedures, methods and means that have been erected by our political elites over the past decade to douse and discourage healthy political dissent, what in the world could be more relevant?
finger-pointing and fist shaking http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-mississippi-senate-hopeful-mcdaniel-embodies-what-gop-fears-about-tea-party/2014/06/09/548d22ba-efe4-11e3-914c-1fbd0614e2d4_story.html yet more fingerpointing and fist shaking www.nytimes.com/2014/06/10/us/colleges-and-evangelicals-collide-on-bias-policy.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtHshBWFRyg
If the American body politic cannot break the monopoly which the corrupt two-party system has on their mind, their liberation from the tyranny of the oligarchic psychopathocracy is not only unachievable, it's unthinkable.
Consider it unachievable then Bro. Makheru. With a purple middle like Tom, getting quiet as a church mouse at the barest suggestion of push getting to shove, and Ken invoking the Who to proclaim his willingness to assume the "ass-up/face-down" position....,"bet not tax massa not one mo penny, no suh!"
"massa'll take his good cotton and fine plantation to India, where they respeck, and no how to treat makers, yassuh!"
The problem with taking up arms is I don't agree with your side...and by the way you have to have a side when you take up arms, a side is going to take up arms because they are going to force a better system. You aren't going to have an armed revolution of individuals who can't agree on anything, so "your side" is the correct description here.
I don't believe the republicans are seeking to "starve the beast" had they been, they have been failing with the tax cuts as illustrated here:
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/chart_gallery
It appears, the from these charts the main drain on government revenue is recession and lack of growth. Growth policies and growth incentives towards business brought in more government revenue and more employment, which meant less demand for government services and of course then government cost. Your charts have always been looking at the deficit and the conclusions are the deficit grew because of the tax cut, when clearly government revenue has continued to, except for dips in recessions, continued to grow.
I don't believe there is any secret business sabotage to stunt growth in favor of somehow having more power. The business will expand if the expansion can happen with minimal risk and more revenue. If they see too much risk, and no more revenue from expansion they won't take on the challenge of expansion, it's really that simple.
I don't believe increasing taxes on corporations and will increase our government revenue for more than the time it takes for business to make adjustments to the increase business cost. It won't cause more employment, it won't reduce the demand of government services. The government will not be able to sustain enough debt to hire all the people it causes to be laid off with its tax policies so the we would see larger unemployment. Also, if the corporations have the power (monopoly) to sell the product at a higher rate to the consumer to cover the cost of the taxes, they will; which will have the increased taxes just cost more to consumer.
The increased cost of the taxing of corporations will cause smaller less financially corporations to fail, which will leave more power and monopolies with bigger corporations. This will of course raise the cost of products again.
As I look at this latest push for revolution, the main driver is the envy of what someone else has. Very little time is used to wonder how we can help the poor, but instead how do we take from those who have more than we do. I am not about to join a cause that doesn't know how the economy works, and is mainly motivated by envy. What am I to expect the next leader will be from a group like that? I think the Who's last phrase of the song..."meet the new boss, same as the old boss" is at the very least going to be correct, if not "meet the new boss, worse than the old boss". Why in the world would I want to fight with my kids at my feet for a group I don't believe has any idea what they are going to do, except make sure they have looted somebody who is richer than they are?
Don't know Tom and the Rev the same Rev from 2007. If this monopoly is broken will be done by the youth, or not at all.
[While young voters overwhelmingly (60%) supported President Obama in the 2012 election, support for the president among 18- to 29-year-olds dropped 11 percentage points from 2008. According to Generation Opportunity, the youth defection from the president stems from their differing views on issues - "like unemployment, job creation, taxes and regulation" - and their "disillusionment over the economy and big government." The data analysis of the youth vote by the Pew Foundation is very revealing. Support for the president declined nine points among all young men and 11 percentage points among young white men. Among all young black voters, the decline was four points, but among young black men it was "a whopping 14 points." The decline among young GOP voters and independent young voters was eight percentage points. It seems pretty clear that these young people were affected by the unemployment of their peers and the burden that the fiscal crisis will put on their shoulders. The unemployment rate for people 18-29 is at 9.3% (underemployment is at 19.1%), and students are accumulating massive amounts of debt. Close to 50% of recent college graduates have been unable to find a job requiring a college degree, and it is even harder for youth who don't go to college to find work. TheSacramento Bee reports that the number of young college grads working as waiters in California almost doubled between 2006 and 2011. So did the number of retail sales clerks. Historically, low-level jobs in those sectors have gone to workers without a degree. That means those high school graduates who typically hold those jobs lose them to applicants with a college degree.]
http://bit.ly/1l6Y1AN
For some of these young people, material conditions trumped the seductive powers of spiritual wickedness in high places, and those conditions are only going to get worse. Neither corrupt party has anything on the horizon comparable to the Hollywood production the Obama candidacy was. If more of these young people can free themselves from the mental incarceration of the lesser of two evils syndrome there is hope, however I admit that fear is an enormous obstacle.
During the March on Wall Street South at the 2012 DNC I was constantly engaging participants, asking them, are you really going to vote for Obama? Most of the people (the march was about 80% white) I talked to said yes. It was crystal clear that they were deathly afraid of Romney. They just could not see that the sophisticated fascist was the more effective evil.
The problem with taking up arms is I don't agree with your side
rotflmbao..., Ken - your position was never in question or doubt. You are now - and have always been - the most painfully naive apologist for the very worst elements of elite rule - whether at home or abroad.
lol, Bro. Makheru - the Rev is the Rev, is the Rev...., different day - same old story. If you're holding out for the youth, then you can go ahead and exhale - cause they're not gonna anything more than protest until they get pepper sprayed just like they did the last time around. Meanwhile, how many decades have passed since Kent State and still no investigation?
No, what you saw gather up quick, fast, and in a hurry in Nevada - is the corps of meaningful dissent and meaningful resistance in the U.S. http://subrealism.blogspot.com/search?q=cliven+bundy and then of course there's always the smart boys http://subrealism.blogspot.com/search?q=anonymous - everything else is merely conversation.
I agree.
Unthinkable being the key word in this discussion.
Anything is possible.
[The darling of big Wall Street donors, the K Street business types and the Republican establishment went down in flames Tuesday, all the while crushing his no-name opponent with a 26-to-1 cash advantage in the money race. Cantor, the House majority leader, raised nearly $5.5 million during the cycle, bolstered by investments from the American Chemistry Council, the American College of Radiology, the National Rifle Association, and the National Association of Realtors. He lost to Dave Brat, a college professor with a $200,000 shoestring budget.
Cantor’s top five campaign contributors were Blackstone Group, Scoggin Capital Management, Goldman Sachs, Altria Group and Charmer Sunbelt Group, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which takes into account both political action committee donations and employee contributions. The Brat campaign had just two paid staffers, according to its last campaign finance report. Cantor, meanwhile, had 23 paid staff in the same time period, as well as several consulting firms. Brat spent $75,000 in April and May. Cantor spent just over $1 million. Brat, never got a single PAC donation over the course of the race, according to FEC records]
[Brat is an incisive critic of the Surveillance State. On his campaign web site, he went after Cantor for voting for the NDAA and against Rep. Justin Amash’s legislation that would have reined in the NSA.]
They had a lot of organizational issues, but they didn't totally give up.
http://bit.ly/1hOFoHd
Cliven Bundy still free and still running his mouth after standing down a BIG federal posse. Global system of white supremacy? lol, nah brah...,
Global system of Gun Supremacy! Accept no substitutes...,
So "unthinkable" doesn't mean "impossible." Folks have to think it before they can do it, is all.
I don't feel comfy watching a virtual-reality red-vs-blue video game. Or fantasizing about Cliven Bundy having more firepower than Saddam Hussein did. Those things are distractions.
Cliven Bundy doesn't have 1/10,000th the firepower that Saddam Hussein did. What Cliven Bundy has, is, just enough firepower to ensure that the Feds have to deal with him with overwhelming, military-style force. When that happens, when a freedom-loving American, standing up for his personal, individual sovereignty gets niggerized the way that Sadaam Hussein, Muammar Khadafi, et. al. got niggerized, well, then, laissez le bon temps roulez mon frere - shits about to be on like donkey kong - all across and throughout these red states.
Joan Walsh fatuously clutching pearls and catching vapors at Salon
Cord Jefferson has a wonderful piece about how hard it is to keep writing about the latest outbreak of virulent racism — he calls it “the racism beat” — whether it’s the Wolfeboro, New Hampshire, police official who called President Obama a “fucking n****r,” or Donald Sterling, or Cliven Bundy, or Justin Bieber, or Janelle Ambrosia, the stripper who’s apparently as comfortable with the N-word as with a G-string. Instead of taking on another assignment to explain that the latest outrage is outrageous, Jefferson longs to submit a simple line of text: “Black people are normal people deserving of the same respect afforded to anyone else, but they often aren’t given that respect due to the machinations of white supremacy.”I sympathize with Jefferson. Today, I’m feeling similarly about the latest gun violence by right-wing maniacs, white supremacists and Cliven Bundy supporters Jerad and Amber Miller, who shot two police officers and an armed civilian and wrapped the officers in the Gadsden flag, which has become the ugly yellow emblem of the anti-Obama resistance, flown at countless Tea Party rallies.I’m coming to believe we need another bit of boilerplate language to react to these kinds of killings: “Not all Republicans are racist or violent, but increasingly eliminationist rhetoric against President Obama and Democrats is fomenting extremism – and Fox News is making things worse.”Oh my stars and garters..., Words Matter http://www.salon.com/2014/06/10/fox_news_foments_another_violent_outbreak_from_cliven_bundy_to_jerad_miller_words_matter/
Says here, MOVE's first shooting confrontation with police was 1978. It wasn't until 1985 that anybody got around to setting them on fire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE#1978_shoot-out
Bundy's boys haven't even gotten to the shooting point yet. Their survival until now is in line with the historical data on nuts who eventually get themselves killed.
Do I really have to point out that there's no future in that kind of behavior?
People who want to be engaged, need to understand the concerns of people in the mainstream. What about mainstream politics induces teh Willing Suspension of Disbelief that we're all so familiar with? Are there times when the Disbelief comes unsuspended for a while? Even more vital, to what extent are we ourselves blinded to the real issues?
Bundy has no gun supremacy vs the United States military. His whiteness is his best defense, along with the fact that he and his supporters are not a fringe cult like the Branch Davidians; they are not challenging the military-industrial complex, or Wall Street oligarchs; this is an election year, and the president is African American.
Had Obama unleashed his forces, his opposition would have had a field day with the propaganda. “Black president attacks white protesters.” White supremacy was definitely a factor in his decision to back down. Obama is obviously comfortable with the blood of Muslim women and children on his hands. The blood of white Americans is a whole different ballgame, not to mention the potential turmoil. I say potential because Bundy’s ilk has not shown any willingness to actually engage the government beyond isolated protests. That’s left to fringe nuts like Jerad and Amanda Miller.
http://bit.ly/1mIJ4Gz
So isn't this Suspension/Unsuspension exactly what Chomsky tried to explain to his british interlocutor in the video included with the medialens article on notseeism? http://youtu.be/SnjYVmHbB-4 - only when a "mainstream" line is crossed, and powerful mainstream partisans get some of that governance sausage-making muck splashed on their seersucker and penny loafers, does any of the ugly authoritarian sausage-making rise to the level of actionable provocation in the courts, in the media, and in the temporarily unsuspended sphere of disbelief.
There is a specific and measurable self-defense threshold which gives the thin blue line pause as against any pre-emptive or unilateral use of force. I suspect that any dissenting polity - if capable of mounting that defense-level threshold - is capable of backing the government down from abusing its violent force monopoly. I suspect the very same would be true of an occupy protest, though you'd have to compensate somehow for high-density of urban settings.
It would be a permanent game-changer for the federally sponsored thin-blue-line to unleash actual war on a large enough mass of dissenters to actually and meaningfully fight back. Think about it...,
Post a Comment