The question is how far we want to take our progressivism

[Taverner]

The whole idea behind progressiveness is to say "We want things better for everyone."

Right there, you are going against animal nature and the survival of the fittest.

This would be trying to make all folks have as pleasant experience here on Earth as we can.

-------------------------------------

This is an extremely noble goal. It's also an uphill battle.

BUT at the same time, this goal must be pursued.

This is why we aren't sun spiders, who try to go into a black ants' colony to get some shade, and are gnawed apart unless they leave.

This is why we DON'T want to follow in the Social Darwinist model.

Nobody likes to be removed by nature.

And no one should have to go through that - that is the core of humanism.

--------------------------------------

So because of this - how do we proceed?

Do we set limits? Do we evaluate the pain, or the legacy?

I think the amount of suffering should be THE factor. There can be others ; how much suffering is created - that's my measure.

Your thoughts?

[Greyhound]

1. Sorry, but this premise,"you are going against animal nature and the survival of the fittest",

is just plain wrong. The human animal is weak, slow, nearly deaf and blind, and our olfactory skills laughable, IOW we are singularly unsuited to survival. Nature's indifference forced us to evolve into the communicative, highly social animals we are today. The only way we've survived is to band together and form communities, working for the common good.

If you withhold your extra food from my starving grandmother, I'm not rushing over to help you kill the bear that decided you would provide both a nice shelter and a tasty snack.

There is not such thing in science as 'social Darwinism', nor any model of such, this is a nothing but a catch-phrase used to divert or squelch discussion of social issues. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism">the Wiki article; "Social Darwinism is a pejorative term used to attack ideologies or ideas allegedly misusing concepts in biology in social sciences to promote a wide range of social concepts..."

How far to take it? This question is pejorative in it's construct, there are only three social states, progress, regress, or stagnation.

Perhaps I have misunderstood what you are really asking, but it seems that the question is loaded to make conclusion impossible.

[Taverner]

2. Consider how animals behave in the wild

Yes, our greatest accomplishments have been when we banded together - but this is a small-pack animal deciding to create a bigger pack.

I agree its been the key of our sucess, but we are taking a big leap in the process. All the more reason to push the envelope we are already pushing...