http://www.cracked.com/article_23040_6-attempts-to-save-environment-that-failed-miserably.html Something even well intention leftists should read and appreciate. handouts never work, they are counter productive, and an a front to human dignity.
The beauty of unintended consequences. There is more in the original article, though, than you cite: "Monarchs depend on milkweed to reproduceits the only food source for their caterpillars. The loss of native milkweed across the US largely due to the adoption of herbicide resistant crops is one of the primary drivers of the decline of monarchs. So please, everyone, carry on. Plant your milkweed. Go to your local garden store and ask for the species of milkweed that are native to your area. If you dont garden, support our Green Gift of milkweed which will pay for NATIVE milkweed to be planted by schools and nonprofits around the country in partnership with MonarchWatch. Planting milkweed is still the best thing we can do to help monarch butterflies." In other words, the monarchs also die if you plant no milkweed at all. To translate that to our economy: The poor are screwed either way: No jobs (no milkweed at all), or welfare (the wrong milkweed). On the other hand, the "holier than thou" welfare opponents should look into the mirror and ask if they are not victim to such unintended consequences as well: The modern lifestyle makes us sedentary, just as the milkweed makes the monarchs sedentary. Sitting all day in the office, lack of exercise, too much sugar, all the niceties of the modern lifestyle actually make us less healthy and increase risk of premature death by cardiovascular disease and cancer. What say you?
You are praising making those needing assistance migratory, to find sustenance. Instead of finding help in one spot. False equivalency.
Sadly, man does not learn from nature very well. Despite nature having thousands of species that have thrived for millions of years without trashing or poisioning the planet, we come along with better ideas and fix what isn't broken. There is a section from the writings of Charles Darwin that explains it pretty well: “With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.” One would think that man should be able to be able to extend the hand up to those in need and who would otherwise do their best, without continually providing the hand-out to those who are happy to be useless and ride on the backs of others. Unfortunately, we have a very hard time telling these apart, and an even harder time saying "no" when we should. As Pogo once said, "We have seen the enemy- and he is US."
So, what is your FINAL SOLUTION? The Final Solution (German: (die) Endlösung, pronounced [ˈɛntˌløːzʊŋ]) or the Final Solution to the Jewish Question (German: die Endlösung der Judenfrage, pronounced [diː ˈɛntˌløːzʊŋ deːɐ̯ ˈjuːdn̩ˌfʁaːɡə]) was a German plan for the extermination of the Jews during World War II. This policy of deliberate and systematic genocide across German-occupied Europe was formulated in procedural terms by Nazi leadership in January 1942 at the Wannsee Conference near Berlin,[1] and culminated in the Holocaust which saw the killing of 90 percent of Polish Jewry,[2] and two-thirds of the Jewish population of Europe.[3] No aspect of the Holocaust has been studied and debated as intensively as the nature and timing of the decisions that led to the Final Solution. The program evolved during the first 25 months of war leading to the attempt at "murdering every last Jew in the German grasp." Most historians agree, wrote Christopher Browning, that the Final Solution cannot be attributed to a single decision made at one particular point in time.[4] "It is generally accepted the decision-making process was prolonged and incremental."[5] In the first phase of the mass murder of Jews, wrote Raul Hilberg, the mobile killers pursued their victims across occupied territories; in the second phase, affecting all of Europe, the victims were brought to the killers at the centralized extermination camps built for this purpose.[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Solution Which of course was necessitated by the need to eradicate Tays Sachs from the human genome. Progress and all. Folks, and mods, this is in response to a call to cull the weak humans. Of which I am one.
A discussion of natural selection is incomplete without considering group selection. Of course, the social Darwinists always focus on individual selection, neglecting the fact that group selection is what made man successful in the competition with other species. Look at Bill Gates, for example. He is fairly nearsighted. If it was for purely individual natural selection, he probably wouldn't have made it to adulthood, because a predator would have snatched him. The protection of the group, however, allowed him to stay alive and contribute immensely to progress. That's how group selection works, it selects for traits that benefit the group as a whole, rather than the individual. I can expand on this topic, if needed.
the largest percentage of Medicaid fraud cases in NY state are in a certain zip code, which just happens to be the zip code of Brighton Beach, NY. do you think we should stop handouts to Russian Jewish immigrants?
While this is generally true, one has to look at what effect the groups we protect have on society and our specie's future. There is nothing wrong with the human race working to improve itself- but that is not the point Darwin is making. He's pointing out that we breed the worst, and support that. His writings were made long before our overboard social programs and mentality took over, yet even then there was subsidy for our own demise. Today, we penalize productivity in order to subsidize slothe. As a group, those who are most industrious are targeted, both financially and socially, blamed for the financial state of those who lack the discipline to do for themselves. One has to ask what qualities might allow the future of mankind to be better- and which will bring about self-extinction. Humans have the ability to change the world more than any species has ever had, but we are botching the job not only for ourselves, but for everything else alive on this planet. That is not something to brag about; nor something to excuse.
Indeed, we see also that unnatural selection is fraught with peril, in the pool of politicians, and it's creep towards the lowest common denominator. Who is better at detecting a fortuitous mutation? The American voter? Or nature? Although many naturally selected leaders have not proven effective at the long term goals of MANKIND as a whole. Even those chosen on the basis of survival of the fittest. In addition, due to lobbying, those most wealthy, and subsequently sociopathic, or at least least empathetic, are the ones naturally selected for. Indeed, those wealthiest are the most likely to reproduce. This is due to factors such as affording vehicles with the most effective safety devices and design. We had best determine what traits we choose to promote, before we go monkeying with un natural selection.
I don't know why you start with welfare for the social Darwinist approach. Darwin himself, when looking at the quote above, seemed to rather be concerned about medicine allowing the weak to survive. According to the simplistic individualist Darwinist view: Strong glasses: You are out, unfit to survive in the wild Diabetes: You die within a year, unable to further procreate High blood pressure: Same as diabetes Yet, how many people with these diseases have contributed strongly to society? That's what society brings to the table: The ability to survive beyond debilitating disease, thus increasing the number of individuals who can positively contribute to progress. In such a sense, welfare also has Darwinistic group-selection benefits: It allows people to take risk creating something new without the possibility to starve when the risk taking fails. It is no coincidence that the nations with strong social safety networks are also the most innovative ones. On the other hand, people who have to fight for food and survival every day will not be inventing the next technological breakthrough.
I have been fortunate it seems, in that I was able to re-program my basic thinking by myself. That means correcting the sub-conscious fundamentals that control the way you evaluate things, sort of a pre-thinking step that works like a ruler and scale. I taught this for awhile, hoping I could give it to others so they could change their lives. Greatly disappointing to find out that most people can't do it, even with a road map and a guide. However, it is the content of those fundamentals that often determine if you thrive or flounder- it is extremely important. For example, if we did an excellent job of parenting- our children would not longer need us at the age of maturity. They would be strong enough to make it on their own, be truly independent. For that gift, even though they may have fought it, they will always revere the parent who made it possible. In order to do that, the child absolutely must accept full responsibility for himself, for everything he does, thinks, says or feels. In so doing, he knows he is not responsible for how others do those things. He is responsible fully for what he can control- and within that is the power over your own life. If we pamper and protect this child (out of love of course, or wanting them to have an easier life) they grow up dependent and always needing to rely on others. This is a destructive emotion, and quite often brings a resentment of a parent that never ends. Nature teaches this to all living things- only mankind attempts to improve it; to fix what wasn't broken. Most of the best people I know have had to struggle at times in their lives, and in winning those struggles proved to themselves that they are able to stand alone. Better yet if they can stand alone and be proud of their values, they have a personal power that is incredibly strong; it makes them virtually bulletproof.... they know whatever happens, they can handle it. They don't live in fear- they thrive. It can be done on your own, and it's simple. However as one psychologist taking my class said, it is virtually impossible for most people to do. Unfortunately, I found that to be generally true. I often felt that I had discovered a gold mine- and I couldn't give it away. If I had my way, we would start with a revision of the way congress is regulated that would insure that our leaders were consistently honorable men, setting the example for all to see- and follow. There is currently no oversight of congress except congress itself and the corrupted elective process. So we have examples of the worst kind, sort of an ongoing side show of snake-oil peddlers. Just as children need to see honorable parents to guide their actions, citizens need to see honorable leadership and know that this is the character of the nation.. If only it were so....
Don't I know it. My parents sat me down young, and said, if you get in trouble, we will let you rot in jail. This UN NURTURING environment made me badass. While it didn't help in reproduction, due to my child barreness, I have had a YUGE impact on my culture at several points of those I acted to keep alive. While I am soon to throw off this mortal coil, my un naturally selected humans to survive, will likely reproduce in earnest. In fact, one life I saved, was met later in that same day, to announce her pregnancy to that surviving human. The most fit, often receive their Darwin award naturally, while the least fit, live on to pollute the gene pool like unpotty trained children.
To have a chance at success, reasonable health is a must- and in many cases, conditions are of natural origin, not choices. Medical is not what I am talking about. As individuals, perhaps the single greatest factor determining success is mindset- the will to thrive and be independent. It's a mental issue, and we do have control over that to some degree. Each of us has the most, but only over ourselves. What is vital here is the understanding that you are the person put here to take care of yourself, and in accepting that comes the motivation so vital to success. So long as someone else will feed you, most people will take that at the easiest way. Feed a feral cat on a regular basis for example, and he will quit hunting, and become dependent on you. We have learned it is wrong to make animals dependent, but we still make humans dependent by depriving them of the challenge to do for themselves... and so we weaken them. This is the role of welfare; if it why we have multi-generational welfare families. They were brought up that way, they just accept that it is what you do. You never hear a politician talk about improving our work ethics, or booting kids out of school that refuse to do do anything but cause trouble. We don't have to cause trouble for people in order for them to learn, we just need to stop protecting them from the consequences of their own actions. Stop feeding the stray cats, and most will learn how to hunt again. If we never fed them, they would all know how.
Do some people become dependent on welfare? Possibly. However, if welfare was so enticing, why isn't the whole country on it? You could be on welfare too? Why are you not? Let's look at the analogy to fed animals: My dogs are fed every day. That doesn't prevent them looking for more food any way they can. Leave a piece of meat on the table unattended and the chairs not pushed in, it's gone in 10 seconds. In the same way, people on welfare look for more as well. I bet that anyone on welfare, if given the opportunity, would rather have a decent job than continually enduring the social stigma associated with using food stamps and living in assisted housing. What we have to work on is not taking welfare away, but rather giving opportunity to everyone. A 10% unemployment rate doesn't cut it, but seems to be the standard of offshore capitalism. Thus, welfare is rather a symptom of the underlying malfunction of the system, rather than the cause.
Most people with opinions, like you- are "speculating" as to the feelings and motivations behind these issues. That means you state what is logical to you, based on what you see and the values you have. I have no idea what your age or experience is- yet I have no doubt that you would not consider the opinion of experience to be any more valid than the opinion of inexperience, because it appears you miss a lot of what is obvious. I don't know everything, of course. I do have business ownership experience since 1968. One of my enterprises, intentionally non-profit, was to teach a skill that I had developed on my own- one that some say is impossible to do alone, that of re-programming your own subconscious to allow you to overcome the very thinking that limits you. I've had psychologists in my class that stood there and told me it was impossible- then asked me how I did it. I've also had some rather noteworthy clients (Boeing, for example) pay me to teach these skills to their management teams. So just maybe, I've learned something of value on this subject. The most powerful thing any man can possess is the belief in himself- confidence in his skill, his integrity and honor, his ability to be independent. This is not something nature grants to anybody, it is something that must be earned, and that is often very difficult. Most people will take the easy path, not the tough one. That special quality does come in various levels- the more of it you have, the stronger you are, and the more you control your own life. The basis of it is the full acceptance of responsibility for yourself, and if you have that- welfare is indeed repugnant. However, if you don't have it, If you have bought into the comfortable explanation that someone else is responsible for your problems and denying you your just due.... then welfare is only a small payment of an overdue bill. Such people don't experience the shame that I and possibly you would. They take it as just what they are entitled to. I quit teaching my classes to open public, because I like to win, to succeed- and I found the majority of those who enrolled wanted a better life... via a short cut that wouldn't require them to make any significant changes. Give me the easy way, I want results now. One of the analogies I used to explain the value of independence was called the "Mud wall". It explains that if we make blocks out of clay mud, we can build a wall with them. If we fire half the blocks, a strange thing occurs; they become far stronger and impervious to many outside forces- bricks. So we build a wall with mud blocks... and we build a wall with the mud blocks that have become bricks. However, we have to bind these parts together, we need a mortar. If we use clay mud for the first wall, and cement mortar for the second one. we have two walls of almost identical appearance. However, one is destined to fail; it is not stronger as a wall that it was as a block of mud. Not so with the brick wall- each brick gains strength by it's association, and provides strength to the others in the same way. Even if some of the mortar has weak spots, the wall will stand, and all parts of it will benefit. Now human endeavor is like this. A marriage, a business, a nation- they are a sort of structure, a wall, built with the components known as people. Part of our people have been through the fire and become independent (the bricks). Some have avoided the fire, and are not (the mud blocks). This structure is held together with a form of mortar, which we call Relationships. These are honor, morality, laws, contracts, trust. Good mortar serves the bricks universally- it does not take advantage of one to serve another,. nor advantage of the many to serve the few. If you mix a few mud blocks into the brick wall, it will stand but will be weaker. If you start thinning and weakening the mortar- the relationships- things begin to get worse. Soon, those who contribute strength and have been generous to those who do not begin to see that in allowing the mud blocks to use the brick wall for protection, they have undermined their own strength. In allowing dilution of the mortar (laws and rules that make it easier to avoid personal responsibility) they have eroded the structure overall.... and the entire wall (society) is at risk. No, people who become dependent may talk about wanting a better job (if they have a job) but you will find that they do want a paycheck- but not really a job. This is not universally true of course, but is so prevalent as to be the essence of those who remain in the category of "poor" for any length of time. Those who have more to bring to the table fight to improve their lives and most often do. As an employer, I can recall the regularity with which people came in to "apply", yet made it obvious by attitude and conduct that they did not want to be hired... but they did want you to sign a form saying they had applied, so that they could prove to the welfare office that they were trying. The quality of life relates more than anything else to how one thinks, and that relates to principles that are embedded in their subconscious- which vary widely between people. The only person that can change that is the individual themselves. Someone outside can be a sort of guide, as I tried to be, but unless that person is seriously driven to improve who they are, all efforts are wasted. The real life event that frequently changes the negative person is severe crisis- "hitting bottom", something that shatters their beliefs to the core. Then, sometimes, they rebuild with a new foundation.. In all the programs I did, the one group that showed great potential was with a program called Paralax where I trained recovering drug addicts who were rebuilding themselves. Many of those people could realize where I was going before I got there, and knew what the point was. In the average class of open enrollment, even when the same points were made, this was never true; they would argue how it wouldn't work for them or didn't apply or something similar. They wanted the result, but they wanted to dilute the process of getting there so it wouldn't require basic change on their part. Even some women who were domestic violence victims argued that they didn't need to change, they just wanted to know how to change the man who was beating them. That too is a form of dependency, one with a high price, yet many will stay and pay it despite that being a totally illogical choice- one coming from weakness and lack of self-esteem. People think short-term. Taking five years to reach a goal is too long, so they won't try. Of course, five years later the goal is still five years away. I know smoking can kill me, so I'm planning to quit someday. It goes on and on. Human weakness..... Blocks of clay mud that will remain mud until they face the fire, the challenge of becoming a person who is independently strong. All these fine, generous people who help them are enablers, delaying the need for them to do that, and yet feeling good about "helping" those in need. Government promotes this dependency too- but not to feel good, rather to have control over dependent people they can easily manipulate. Meanwhile, the nations decays from being a brick wall with sound mortar into a mud wall held together with more mud. We should help those in genuine need that has come about through no fault of their own, and our people have always done this. We should help those who will re-organize their affairs as soon as possible, and would be just as willing to help others. This is like the standards common on farms, where crops are planted or harvested by neighbors when someone is unable- knowing that the person they help would do the same for them if the situation were reversed. That is the hand-up, and it gets "payed forward" as it should. It is not a hand-out which is often seen as an overdue payment from an unjust society that refuses to give him his fair share of success. These two forms of assistance have nothing to do with one another- the first is constructive, the second destructive. Welfare has a place- but we handle it so poorly it propagates need rather than relieving it. If what you are doing is making things worse, perhaps you should quit doing it and try some opposite approach.
Social Darwinists/libertarians have never understood the physical sciences, full-stop. Don't indulge them
