Who Was the Best US President in History?

[SeVeR]

Greased, you said "On a Darwinian system FDR shouldn't have been allowed to p!@#$%^&* on inferior genes in the susceptibility to polio". I realise you don't support that and was joking in that respect, but you are still making a point about Darwinian systems, and it's a point i disagree with. In my opinion physical disability, whether genetic or not, is irrelevent in a darwinian system for presidents and many other positions in our society.

 

I'm not calling you a Nazi or even a supporter of Darwinist survivalism, i'm merely saying that what you said had a meaning about Darwinian systems other than (or in addition to) the jocular. If you think i'm calling you a Nazi then you're completely misunderstanding me.

 

You say that in a Darwinian system the resources needed to keep alive a person like Stephen Hawking would be detrimental to the survival of the others. So once again i have to tell you that we're not living in the Dark Ages. We are living in a society where people like Stephen Hawking are not presented with threats to their survival, and where those who help Mr Hawking do not jeopardise their own survival in the process.

 

Another example would be someone like myself. I was born with eyes that steadily got more short-sighted as i got older. I would have been an imperfect hunter and warrior during times when that mattered. My genes would have eventually been wiped out. In this day and age there is no barrier to me achieving all that someone with perfect eye-sight can achieve. In fact i just got my eyes lasered, giving me 20/20 vision. My short-sighted genes may still propagate but survival is not threatened at all.

 

Again you're dealing with the physical, but consider the idea that Stephen Hawking's bad genes are more than balanced out by the beneficial genes that give him such a great intelligence. It's true that a society that keeps bad genes will get weak and die out, but surely genes are never perfect and it's all in relative balance as to how beneficial certain genes are to our societies survival at that time in our development.

 

Its a flawed analogy because the threats to wolves and the threats to humans are not identical. Wolves are not in need of calculus to survive. Consider the possibility that a massive asteroid is about to hit the Earth, causing m!@#$%^&*-extinction. With our intellects we may be able to fashion a rocket carrying a nuclear warhead to destroy or deflect the asteroid. Whether or not the inventors had polio or muscular scleroris is irrelevent as they have saved the entire spieces. Thus it is in the best interests of all darwinists and survalists to see that no-one is ever killed at birth on the grounds of physical disability alone. In fact, in our era, if we were to kill at birth, it would be to stop the possibility of having mentally disabled babies who may be perfectly fit physically. The fact is, technology has subs!@#$%^&*uted for genes that cause physical inadequecy.

 

Cir!@#$%^&*stances change, and so must our methods of survival. If society collapses we may well end up valuing people like Stephen Hawking alot less... we would be more like the wolves in your analogy.

Edited August 12, 2007 by SeVeR

[Greased_Lightning]

I absolutely agree that physical weakness can and in most cases is either easily corrected or overshadowed by the positives that person has to offer. I agree with pretty much everything you said and I wasn't implying that you thought I was a Nazi. I just think I didn't make myself clear that under the cir!@#$%^&*stances I indicated (being no moral code, survival is paramount, !@#$%^&*uming constant natural environment, limited resources), in a natural state those deleterious traits would be 'weeded out' in the best interest of the genepool.

 

I'm not talking about our society today, I'm illustrating how humankind is the only species that purposely allows and encourages these kinds of traits to continue, and rightfully so. Of course disability isn't a factor in our leaders, because mankind does not really live in a survival of the fittest way. I think I misspoke earlier when I used the term Darwinian and that's probably where the main disagreement comes from, as I meant a system where it is survival of the fittest individual on a purely physical basis (which would be chaotic, bloody, and cruel).

 

I think you're more talking about preserving the species as a whole, whereas I was talking about individual survival as a part of the species. As a whole, variations of strengths and weaknesses enhance survival through cooperation, whereas an individual's survival is enhanced by having more strengths than weaknesses making it more self-sufficient in difficult times. When times are good, everybody wins and does well, in harsh times those with more strengths who are more self-sufficient have the advantage.

 

A big part of this is that if man weren't such a social creature and not prone to cooperation rather than compe!@#$%^&*ion, survival of the fittest would apply. Luckily this isn't the case and it's more like survival of the most cooperative (cooperativeest ).

 

Edit: In regard to the 3rd paragraph, it's also interesting to note that genetic variation can also be a positive in survival as it reduces the risk of a disease that wipes out the species. Also, you get into a whole mess if the gene pool is too small, where you get inbreeding coefficients closer to 1 and less heterosis resulting in reduced reproductive rates and increased rate of congenital defects. So in a way, even in nature, the existence of weaknesses can be a strength.

Edited August 12, 2007 by Greased_Lightning

[SeVeR]

You say that man-kind does not really live in a survival of the fittest way, and although i agree with you when we consider the conventional meaning, I could just as easily describe the "fittest" as those who excel in academia. Indeed those who do well at school typically end up in well-paid jobs, which provides wealth, leading to security, happiness and even sexual attractiveness or at least an improvement in the prospects of finding a mate. This is all paramount to survival and reproduction. On the other hand, a physically fit and healthy janitor will certainly be less able to preserve his own existence above that of anyone who isn't genetically death-prone, and would have a hard time finding a mate.

 

That is not to say physical prowess is not important. I don't pride myself simply on learning science, mathematics, philosophy, psychology and history.... fitness and muscle m!@#$%^&* is important too. "Life is nothing more than the instinct of growth, permanence and power" - Nietzsche. In my opinion, it's all about self-improvement.

 

However i do not feel we are living in a society where the unintelligent are being weeded out by natural selection. In the developing world they reproduce at a rate we cannot match in the west. In America, religion has tightened its grip. Religion is a disease of the mind that is counter-productive to our natural unceasing desire for self-preservation, and it does this through fooling the mind through a number of psychologically based benefits, the most profound and relevent of which is heaven: eternal survival. Others are love (from God and for God), security, happiness, moral satisfaction (believing you're a good person), easily achieved perfection (growth), a oneness with the ultimate power, an answer for the unknowns (knowledge), and of course a purpose. In fact it is the fulfilment of everything a Darwinian survivalist seeks to achieve, except its an illusion for the mind. It's a quick fix, a drug, a disease. It spreads by infecting the young, the weak, and the desperate... and it spreads through those who already carry it.

 

Co-operation is a survival trait though. It is why we have conquered the planet for humanity. So again i must say that we ARE living in a survival of the fittest society, it's just we know how to survive better than any other spieces.

 

I suppose the existence of weakness can be a strength. How can we define strength without a knowledge of what is weak. In the end, will we end up eliminating so much genetic material through natural selection that we wipe ourselves out in one foul inability to protect against a disease?

 

-EDIT- If i could say one thing about religion, it would be: Only by understanding the human mind do we understand the power that religion holds over it.

Edited August 13, 2007 by SeVeR

[AstroProdigy]

Haven't we gotten a tad bit off topic?

[SeVeR]

It would be un-Darwinian to impede the process of evolution for a forum topic.

[wub]

The best presidents appear to be the ones who did little or nothing. As by doing little or nothing they screwed up little or nothing. Ha

[UpC]

CLINTON FTW his penis nose owns all /gg

[jacob hunter!]

Geroge washignton, the frist president $$$

[candygirl]

9/11-- who had the cam and how did they know the planes would hit the towers.

The cam was on the planes before they hit them.

[Samapico]

9/11-- who had the cam and how did they know the planes would hit the towers.

The cam was on the planes before they hit them.

1- wrong topic? edit: nevermind, that was posted before the 9/11 topic

2- what cam?

3- anyone could have a cam aboard a plane?

 

"Hey are you bringing your cam on that flight?"

"Nah, it won't hit a tower, I don't need it."

[NBVegita]

she was talking about on the ground, and with all of the tourists, its not surprising that one of them with a camera noticed how low flying the plane was over NYC and managed to get it on tape.