Quote:
Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND
Darwinian economics shares a name and 'survival of the fittest' mentality as Darwinian evolution, I wasn't disputing that. Comparing the debate between ID and evolution with the do nothing vs stimulus debate seemed like a very odd connection to make, to me. Thats why I felt it was apples and oranges.
|
I see what you mean. But I'm still perplexed by the fear of the very process that brought us to this point (avoided the phrase "created us"). It seems we keep trying to rein that proccess in. And all our efforts seem more like bombardments on the tissue of what we are at any given evolutionary moment, from which point evolution just busts out in new and unexpected directions, often worse than where it was going before we tried to fix it. As we keep tinkering at its edges, trying to make it nicer, more equitably habitable for everybody and everything (e. g. saving all species and cultures from extinction, keeping the temperature at the same minute range forever) are we trying to stop the process? That's what seems contradictory to me. Is the Stimulus Package an attempt to stimulate Capitalism or an attempt to check it? Or is it an attempt to further evolve into Socialism? Doing nothing is a misnomer. Doing nothing is more evolutionary than "stimulating" the economy. The market evolves and corrects. "Stimulating," especially with several permanent wealth transfer programs, at the least, interferes with market evolution, at most, it transforms it into something else, perhaps better, usually worse. And, to me, the worse would be an attempt to keep creeping toward Utopia--that grand, intelligent design.
Hybrid Mode
