Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="rounser" data-source="post: 216473" data-attributes="member: 1106">I'm well aware of what you're implying, and I have a solid background in the arguments you're making - and deconstructing the conclusions to be drawn from them.&nbsp; If you truly understood what your genes stood for, you wouldn't give a damn whether they had their way or not - except from a personal value viewpoint.No sirrah, you are the embodiment of &quot;a little knowledge is a dangerous thing&quot; and should take your own advice.&nbsp; By implying that &quot;evolutionary failure&quot; necessarily matters to the individual, you are making a classic mistake of confusing the needs of the individual with the &quot;needs&quot; of the genes.&nbsp; Far more knowledgeable (and less rude) people than you have been down this train of thought before - I remember some passages in The Red Queen where Matt Ridley goes down just this track of thought, and finds your views wanting (but I can't find them just at the moment).Once again, with feeling:You are not your genes, you are just a carrier, your body is merely a vehicle for them.&nbsp; They simply exist, and what is &quot;good for them&quot; is not necessarily good for the individual who carries them.&nbsp; &quot;Evolutionary failure&quot; may exist, but it may mean nothing to the individual on any level.&nbsp; Dead is dead is dead, descendants or not.Now, go read yourself, until you grasp that simple, simple little fact - which is not &quot;feel good&quot;, but rather soaked in theory.&nbsp; Confusing what is &quot;good for genes&quot; with what is &quot;good for the individual&quot; is a classic mistake - and you've made it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="rounser, post: 216473, member: 1106"] I'm well aware of what you're implying, and I have a solid background in the arguments you're making - and deconstructing the conclusions to be drawn from them. If you truly understood what your genes stood for, you wouldn't give a damn whether they had their way or not - except from a personal value viewpoint. No sirrah, [b]you[/b] are the embodiment of "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" and should take your own advice. By implying that "evolutionary failure" necessarily matters to the individual, you are making a classic mistake of confusing the needs of the individual with the "needs" of the genes. Far more knowledgeable (and less rude) people than you have been down this train of thought before - I remember some passages in [i]The Red Queen[/i] where Matt Ridley goes down just this track of thought, and finds your views wanting (but I can't find them just at the moment). Once again, with feeling: You are not your genes, you are just a carrier, your body is merely a vehicle for them. They simply exist, and what is "good for them" is not necessarily good for the individual who carries them. "Evolutionary failure" may exist, but it may mean [i]nothing[/i] to the individual on any level. Dead is dead is dead, descendants or not. Now, go read yourself, until you grasp that simple, simple little fact - which is not "feel good", but rather soaked in theory. Confusing what is "good for genes" with what is "good for the individual" is a classic mistake - and you've made it. [/QUOTE]

Verification