Maybe it’s just me, but I’m all about consistencey. Not texture–that’s not what I mean. Consistencey as in being consistent. My goal is to develop a life philosophy that is completely internaly consistent. It’s—really hard.
And I guess that’s why the American left has such a hard time with being consistent on science. On Darwin in particular.
“Survival of the fittest” is a fine observation on the workings of our planet. Until it comes to human beings, for some reason. Natural selection, it seems, is only for the “lower orders,” and not for us. The idea that promoting the weakest, least adaptable, and most incapable of survival outside a Nany State coccoon is a mark, somehow, of compassion and judgement? It will not lead to the weakening of the species or prevent the adaptations that will get us past the next hurdle Nature throws at us?
Despite being a Conservative American variety of the human species (Homo Sapiens Jingoae), I believe that Darwin pretty well nailed it on his observations aboard the HMS Beagle. The Liberal American variation (Homo Sapiens Hippii) don’t have a corner on that market, no matter how loudly that they proclaim that they do. As such, I keep tryojng to figure out how it is that they embrace that truth with regard to moths, dinosaurs, lemurs, orangutans, stink bugs, and every preceeding subspecies of man up to the arrival of Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
What makes us the exception?