Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (15761)	1/19/1998 6:00:00 PM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Alex, I agree with you about money subsuming the evolutionary authority previously held by being strong, healthy and smart. Obviously, to truly enjoy money, being strong, healthy and smart is still a significant advantage, though, no? Live? Earn! does not work so well in a place like India, for example, where efforts may not be well rewarded by money. Your shift in the basic evolutionary mythos is an excellent subject for discussion, but I am not in a very philosophical mood at the moment, and am now rushing out to a movie. <You posted earlier that you believe that environmentalism necessarily entails a shift of resources to the very poor. I'm missing something here as I don't get it. Please help me undertstand.> Much earlier on this thread, when we discussed environmentalism, there was quite a rally by the Randians/Libertarians, who argued that it was a massive redistribution of wealth to the poor. Perhaps some of them could jump in and explain why. What I know is that in populations of the poor, when they had a little more stake in the society--something to look forward to, plumbing, an indoor living situation--there seemed to be more comprehension of, and compliance with--environmental goals. It is hard to sell deferred gratification to someone who has nothing to lose. Obviously, though, if people are so hungry they are burning the rain forest or selling tiger organs and elephant tusks to feed themselves and their families, this falls on deaf ears. Transferring some 'unearned' (I might dispute that, because I am a weird socialist or something) wealth does change their behavior!!! Hey, what happened to la bambina?

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (15761)	1/19/1998 7:24:00 PM
From: j g cordes	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Alex, your "idea that money has subsumed the evolutionary authority previously held by being strong, healthy and smart" needs a little work. Lets step back and not look at all the toys and luxuries having money brings.. lets just look at time, survival and reproduction of genetic material into the future. That is what evolution is really all about... which DNA proliferates, projecting oneself biologically not culturally or by money. Have wealthy genes done any better than poorer genes at perpetuating themselves? No, indeed many wealthy families become dynastic dinosaurs. They inbreed, or breed so few that their DNA dead ends. Wealth typically creates a slowdown in population growth, with fewer offspring to fend for themselves in a world of overpopulating poor. The score is not in on the effects of technology on population groups, but its clear that while some are typing on the internet living in spacious homes driving 4 wheel attack vehicles, others are having babies and those babies will inherit the earth. Jim