What do you think is something that is overvalued in society/the world?

Honestly? Sports all-stars. Come on! He hits a thing with another thing then sprints. It’s not that important!

@EmpressPixie I don’t think it’s that over-valued. It’s the kind of thing where sports is something that a lot of people cherish to lift their spirits. I come from Buffalo, NY, and the people there have seen a lot of hardships, they all bust their asses working crappy jobs for little pay all week, and to say the least there isn’t a lot to get excited about. Buffalonians all have a certain inferiority complex, because we love our home, but no one else does, that’s why we’re quick to defend it and get up in arms whenever anyone bashes the area. So the Buffalo Bills and Sabres are our claim to fame, if you will. The bright spot, and there’s precious few in WNY. On sundays Buffalonians get to say ‘hey, look at what we have, if nothing else at least our sports teams can be better than other cities.’ Take it from first hand experience, in a place where there isn’t a lot to cheer about, the bills and sabres have made life a little more bearable.

I don’t really think many things can be over-valued, to be honest. Because if it helps one person get through the day, or live a little bit better, is it not worth it, in the end?

@EmpressPixie I look at sports as a celebration of the human form and all it’s physical capabilities. It’s truly amazing; something you never get tired of seeing. Plus, there’s a lot of honest human drama in sports.

Paris Hilton and other shallow celebrities.

@Dog Amen… let’s toss in the entire aim of the “E” Channel as well…

sex

@ABoyNamedBoobs03, @Jiminez: Sure, sports are awesome and those guys do amazing things. But do they do amazing things to the tune of $50 or whatever per ticket? To the tune of millions in compensation? I don’t think so.

I’m far more comfortable with (and love) the Olympics which are, I feel, really a celebration of humanity and the human form.

@EmpressPixie The fact of the matter is, the olympics come around once every four years, and they do it for national pride. But every sunday for 20 weeks of the year cities inside the US go head to head. And just as many people tune in every week, as they do for the olympics when they come around. They’re entertainers, they get paid so much because football/basketball/hockey/baseball is so widely popular in the US.

Yes, I know how it came to be overvalued. But I still find it to be so.

The idea some people hold that it’s a right to breed, regardless of having the means to support children (or themselves) in a healthy way.

The idea that life is fair, that is, if one person is better off than another, he should be brought lower in order to level the field.

@Poser I second that. I mean, it’s supply and demand, these people put more time and dedication than anyone else at their craft, and thusly are more successful. I’m tired of people who didn’t put the work in saying it’s not fair.

Television and the cult of celebrity.

@ABoyNamedBoobs03 I wasn’t speaking only of those who work hard to achieve more for themselves. I’m also speaking of those who, by sheer virtue of their station in life, find themselves better off than others. Certainly, those with higher moral character will strive to lift others to their level. What bothers me is people who see others who have more and believe life should either deliver as much at their feet or knock those others down a level or two. As if life/fate/God exists only to make life easier for them.

It’s always easier to look at those who have more than us and feel jealous, than to look at those who have less and feel guilty.

Human life and the concept of equality. There are too many of us. All life is not precious. Furthermore, this silly idea that we’re all equal is causing us to go brain dead and not recognize quality or failure in other people

@TheIowaCynic Social Darwinism is bullshit.

The concept of equality means that people should be treated humanely despite being a failure.

@boots It’s a nice idea but look where it’s taken us. I realize Social Darwinism is out of fashion, but consider the world we live in and the path we’re on. The resourceful nations of the world see it as their moral obligation to transfer massive amounts of wealth and resources to loser nations who are overpopulating the planet and have learned that sticking their hand out and whining loudly is a good racket.

Social Darwinism used to be a fact. It’s how things operated. If you were resourceful, you could support a large family. If you weren’t, you and your family died. The ants lived and the grasshoppers died. It was an effective evolutionary strategy that took us from being single cell organisms to where we are today. Now we have effectively removed those evolutionary devices. We’re even keeping sick people alive who should be dead, who are giving birth to more and more sick people. The dumbest among us are having the most children and the top 10% of females, on the IQ scale. have effectively stopped reproducing. We’ve gone mad and placed morality in these silly ideas that GOD FORBID we let anybody die or let two groups of savages in Africa kill each other.

P.S. still have any doubt who I am?

@TheIowaCynic You do realize that the most over-populated country is also the one with the economy with extreme growth, right?

Social Darwinism can’t be a fact. It was modus operendi[sic]. But the examples you give are actual Darwinism. Please make the distinction. I do agree that we’re over populated, but to stop helping them just because of this is ethically and morally wrong. The thing that would be best is to give a better education to those people.

And no, no doubts. I got that from looking at your questions asked. No Shell in there.

@boots Morally wrong is engaging in policies that are suicidal to the human race and/or will degrade human quality. That’s a great deal more immoral than allowing nature to takes its course. In fact, that is the path of the weak and self-congratulating.

Unfortunately, all the empirical evidence is in, as far as “education,” is concerned. It’s been the liberal’s wet dream for the past 60 years – “All that seperates the people of Nairobi, from the people of Stockholm is education” Actually no. That’s very wrong. We’ve tried lots of education in third world nations…..doesn’t help.

@TheIowaCynic Social Darwinism is forcing nature to “take it’s course”.

@boots Semantics. What I’m saying is that prior to this nutty age of “all human life is precious,” and “we’re all equal” and our deciding to pat ourselves on the back for prolonging the lives of diabetics and people with congenital diseases and watching them have kids…...etc…..etc…......nature and life itself was very effective at weeding out the sick and the weak. These tactically unfortunate realities kept us going in the right direction.

We’ve effectively removed these devices and failed to consider their long term consequences. We’ve been smothered by the feminine impulse to nurture and protect and we’ve lost the masculine impulse to destroy and harness.

Ego

@TheIowaCynic “Forcing” and “Letting” are very different things. Semantics it is not.

Hypothetical: You find that you get diabetes. Do you kill yourself and your daughter?

@boots You’ve just effectively highlighted the difference between forcing and allowing things to happen. We have subverted the natural processes without considering the long term effects of this. Your hypothetical, attempts to personalize things. I DON’T have diabetes and didn’t have diabetes when I spawned. Save a slight rotator cuff injury I got playing tennis, I’m in perfect health. If I DID find I have diabetes I would probably not choose to have any more kids and if my daughter got diabetes I would advise her not to have children as well

Nobody is suggesting some program of killing off the imperfect genetic specimens. What I’m suggesting is that we are keeping them alive in all parts of the world in a way that has unimaginable long-term consequences.

Physical attractiveness. The beautiful people of the world get better treatment than the rest of us, when really physical beauty has very little to do with who we are and/or what we are capable of achieving.

@TheIowaCynic Look up “Guns, Germs, and Steel” By Jared Diamond. I think it’ll help provide some perspective on social evolution and the reasons for such.

Diabetes isn’t entirely genetic. That’s not a valid analogy.

I suppose the question remains then, is inaction, by default, action? By not helping them survive are we essentially killing them?

Why are we discussing diabetes? Is it over valued in our society?

@TheIowaCynic I was using your thoughts as an example for actions that would fit with them.

@ABoyNamedBoobs03 I’ve read everything Diamond has written. He errs in imagining that progress is the result of randomness….....for instance, he once wrote (I’m trying to remember the book) about Easter Island vs. Japan. Easter Island allowed their land to become deforested. Japan, on the other hand, when facing a similar problem, came up with a plan to slow the cutting of trees and plant more. Japan survives and Eastern Island died. Diamond would us believe that this and other such instances were simply a matter of Japan choosing A and Easter Islanders choosing B. What he routinely fails to see is that the Japanese created a superior and more adaptive culture. The were able to weather that storm, while the Eastern Islanders could not successfully do so.

Diamond fails, in my opinion, in that he never factors for the success or failure of humans who MADE these decisions and organized themselves successfully….....or in other examples, were successfully able to create coal by smoking wood and hence, could smelt iron. The Hittites could…....the natives of Asia minor could not. Hence, the Hittites win and the Asians lose.

@ABoyNamedBoobs03 By not helping them survive we are, most certainly not killing them. The point I am making over and over and over again, is that we have subverted natures own evolutionary mechanisms that used to exist. Before we figured out how to feed all the hungry people in the world, people’s ability or inability to access food served as a win/lose or live/die evolutionary function. We have removed that function by keeping the improvident alive and have done so without considering the long term consequences. That is irresponsible.

I’m aware of the flaws, I was referencing to one specific aspect of the book, I should have clarified earlier, on whether or not social evolution is based on race or not.
and I think we would be killing them, simply because we have the means to do so, and yet take no action. I don’t think it would be responsible to accept that certain parts of the world(africa, as you mentioned) should just become our social crap holes.
On a second note, There hasn’t been plenty of attempts to educate Africans. small pockets, mostly mission work. But when you look at the amount of people on the continent, the percentages that have never had any formal education is staggering.

@ABoyNamedBoobs03 Not intervening in Africa, in such a way that would prevent nature from taking it’s course, in no way equates to making Africa or other parts of the world “Our social crap holes” I don’t even know what that means.

If we put the term “race,” aside and consider “cultures,” that form and thrive or fail, you’ll have a much better picture of what I’m getting at.

When the Dutch did a survey of Africa in 1649, they estimated a population of 10 million sub-saharan Africans. There are now. 1.3 Billion and they’re growing. We send them massive amounts of Aid and food that keep them artificially alive and very soon there will be 2 billion…....than 4 billion…...etc…...etc. We’ll need to have more “Live Aid,” concerts and busy-body Bono’s going around. There will be progressively more wars on that continent that we will chastise ourselves for not stopping.

Do you think people in Africa feel bad that America is approaching a 10% unemployment rate? Would you ever expect them to do so? Our “let’s help everybody,” impulse is purely narcissistic and has unimaginable long term consequences. Our failure to both realize and compensate for this represents a gargantuan failure of will and a suicidal weakness on our part

I’m not saying it’s not an issue… but simply letting them fend for themselves isn’t working already by any means… we see genocide after genocide, it surely seems like that’s acceptable in your mind. I’m saying there needs to be wide spread reform in the political and educational system if we ever want areas of the planet like that to pull itself out of the third world. And yes, as a collective, the UN has the means to do that, but not enough people care as of now. that’s why you see the half assed attempt, such as air dropping food and letting them fight over it. Saying that we should just let them sort it out by themselves is only going to result in even more chaos and tailspin for the next 300 years. However, if the UN/NATO(etc) decided to give a concerted effort to baby step Africa into a new political and education system, we’d see positive results much fast and a much less cost of human life.

@ABoyNamedBoobs03 You’ve left the realm of our conversation and moved to the topic of what “our responsibilities are to Africa,” using the set of contemporary morals that I’m arguing are not valid. When there are 20 billion on the planet and half of them are starving to death, there is going to be widespread, uncontrollable chaos and civil war and all because we fell victim to a completely new philosophy that says that we have a moral responsibility to import medicine and food onto a continent where the average female gives birth to 9 children in her lifetime.

When that day comes and our grandchildren are living in that world, it will be the lefty busy bodies, thinking we need to make sure Africans don’t kill each other, who will be responsible. I hold them responsible for it NOW and think that allowing people to kill each other now is a FAR more moral system than making sure that nobody dies, or thinking that we’re killing people who can’t feed themselves.

When is the last time an African nation sent peace keeping troops to some non-African war zone.

We’re not seeing the bigger, evolutionary picture but are instead allowing our policy and morality to be formed by images on our television. Lots of people are going to die. Lots of people are going to kill each other. I would just assume let nature takes its course as opposed to allowing the world to descend into that weltering chaos.

And almost all of your conversation has left the realm of relevance to this thread.

Celebrities… of all sorts.

CEOs seriously

Oh, and Standarized tests seriously

Money.

Youth.

@Harp GA for standardized tests!

Beauty