comment by b

a thoughtful web.

Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking. Login or Take a Tour!

comment by b_b

b_b · 4558 days ago · link · · parent · post: Biology for Liberals

I don't think so:

Dawkins implied that this was all you needed to know to understand human nature, and the idea quickly led to an explosion of selfish gene-based explanations for every aspect of human behavior. He did not imply this; it was inferred by a bunch a bunch of soulless bastards who wanted a scientist to back up their approach to doing business and running the political machine. Dawkins explicitly (not implicitly) states that the title was chosen to be provocative, but it is nothing more than a metaphor and has nothing whatsoever to do with "social Darwinism".

markup tips · 0

JakobVirgil · 4558 days ago · link ·

that does not changed how it was used in the laziest of all sciences social science. Darwin did not intend social Darwinism. Marx did not intend Leninism.

we do not choose our descendants.

How do I say we agree?