> One can assume that the way to balance things out is to encourage the most
> aggressive to grab all they can and leave the rest to extinguish, or one
> might assume that there are a lot of good genes being destroyed (like
> endangered animals) by an economic system which does not reward people who
> are motivated by generosity, kindliness, quiescence.  They're regarded as
> losers.
> Do wars winnow the weak, or do the survivors of war carry an intensified
> aggressiveness and viciousness into our gene pool?

      The scene on Earth suffers from some arbitraries that upset the
wisdom of the laws of nature.  Humans are not just animals, they are
animals with semi unconscious spirit beings entombed in them, spirits
who are forgetful of their immortal past, unaware or worse undesirous of
their immortal future, and implanted with subconscious violence and evil
that is unimaginable to the normal mind.

      Worse the planet as a whole is owned, controlled and monitored by
off world civilizations that would prefer that we not find out about
them.  Earth is sort of a Devil's Island of the stars and the people
here are the rejects of various intra galatic civilizations.  The most
artistic, bright, free thinking, criminal and perverted are dumped here
implanted with the veil of forgetfulness, and internal conflicts between
good and evil that keep them fighting themselves so they will never rise
above a certain level of 'uncivilization'.

      So it's a weird mix and you gotta spot it to keep your even keel
about what's going on here.

      Thus the people here can and do take even the best of things and
make them bad.

      Animals in nature do not war with each other the way humans do,
although they do fight for territory and food when their paths cross.
Thus humans take a natural pro survival impulse and turn it into a
planet wide destructive force.

      In most animal kingdoms, only 1 out of 10 born survive, so really
only the fittest of the very fit make it.

      Without that agressiveness that you complain so bitterly about,
nothing would be alive.

      But animals are not insane, and their agressiveness is channeled in
pro survival directions.

      Animals are able to operate a balance of agressiveness and
quiescence that walks a natural middle path.

      But now in the human world we are bent on making everyone survive
no matter what, so there is no selection any more except based on what
humans want rather than what is based on long turn survival of the
species.  What humans want in general is not good for anyone, including
some of their autre-ended ideas of charity and nobility.

      In particular the desire that all agressiveness be breeded out of
the gene pool is quite short sighted.

> To follow the analogy that aggressiveness is not necessarily the grandest
> virtue: Are humans earth's supreme beings because we compete with other
> species so well that 1/3 of the USA's plant species are endangered (NYT
> last month).  Is earth enriched because elephants, wolves and wolverines
> are being shoved of the planet to make room for people?

      The answer is clear.  However the other extreme is just as deadly,
where everyone survives whether fit or not, and the least fit get to
breed more.  The mathematics of this are inexorable.

      Neither extremes of black and white are sane, they are not nature's
nor Buddha's middle path.

      The problem of man's insanity is a serious one, I am merely
pointing out that the solution's being offered are being offered by
people who are themselves just as insane as those they fight, and by
swinging the pendulum of agressiveness as far in the other direction as
they can, they are setting themselves up for a fall of magnitude.

      See the movie Serenity...

Sun Oct  5 20:20:19 EDT 2014