That British Amateur Naturalist had it all Wrong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

Because for example some woman can have children yes. But they cannot birth them living because they have some sort of deficiency. so in nature they would be unable to reproduce, but thanks to mans science they can reproduce. Or how about a male who cannot get his partner pregant on his own. But with the help of invitiro (sp?) fertilization he manages to do so. was he supposed to reproduce.

Not that im saying that they shouldn't be allowed to do so its just a point.

---

You're treating nature as if it doesn't include human beings. 'Man's science' is now a part of nature. It is a part of our environment. In nature, they are able to reproduce, and since they do so, they are 'the fittest.'

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Oh, where's your sense of fun?

---

I'm german, did you forget already?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

No, fun is to chop away at one of the corner stones of our own secular-philosophical thought. ~D

---

Except that you aren't really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

As for German history - I really do think you've come under the spell of internet variants of it that take ancient propaganda and several fundamentally erroneous views, condense them, and then spread this pointless substract ad nauseum on the internet. It's boring, patently incorrect and ultimately unproductive. If you believe all of that, then obviously I'm a Germanophobe who is trying to whitewash the many crimes of the French and the Jews and the Bolshevists.
As for me promoting all things French: as Strike once said, he's not here to promote Kansas or Nebraska.

---

And I do think you're a victim of French propaganda and revisionism, it's aggravating, patently incorrect and will only lead to WW3. At that point, survival of the fittest will decide the debate.
As for me promoting all things German: as Husar once said, he's not here to promote the Kaiser.

Quote:

---

You're treating nature as if it doesn't include human beings. 'Man's science' is now a part of nature. It is a part of our environment. In nature, they are able to reproduce, and since they do so, they are 'the fittest.'

Ajax

---

no science tampers with the way we are supposed to interact with nature and almost allows us to twist it. Why is a man who is supposed to be unable to reproduce but because of science is saved natural.

not that that is a bad thing of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

no science tampers with the way we are supposed to interact with nature and almost allows us to twist it. Why is a man who is supposed to be unable to reproduce but because of science is saved natural.

not that that is a bad thing of course.

---

Should we also claim the genetic material in farming cultures is weak? After all, it's 'man's science' that allowed those cultures to achieve genetic success.

Treating science as something unnatural is as ridiculous as treating beaver dams and termite colonies as unnatural. Humans are a part of this world. We are part of its ecological makeup. We developed along natural processes. We share most of our genome with other creatures. The ways we interact with this world are no more natural or unnatural than those of any other creature. Part of how we interact with nature is informed by science. How is that unnatural? And what do you mean by 'supposed to be unable to reproduce'? Supposed by who? He's either able to reproduce or he isn't. In your example, it seems he is able to reproduce. So there's apparently nothing weak about his genes.

Ajax

“And wars screw with it because often the strong die and the weak survive.” Even worst: the weak don’t go to war, so only the fittest go to war… So, in term of genetic, after WW1 and WW2, the only male left for reproduction were the one who escape the front lines for whatever reason.