L
Lebensmüder
Soon to be deleted account
★★★
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2018
- Posts
- 5,202
There is a simple formula in biology which says:
Vp = Vg + Ve + Vge --> phenotypic/observable variance as the sum of genotypic variance, environmental variance and genotype/environment interaction
With our so(y)ciety we have (especially in Europe) almost completely removed the environmental aspect, so you see nowadays that the observable differences between humans are mostly on a genetic basis (like intelligence/mental wellness/looks - all which are highly influenced by genetics). With the decreasing amount of environmental differences we see an increasing amount of the importance of your genes. "Equality" is a myth - when you remove the influence of one factor the importance of other factors just increases.
Important to know: The game always stays the same, just the axioms (which are used to quantify success) get changed. This is the funny moment when leftists try to paint pictures of a post-capitalist commune. In that commune people would also be judged, but due to other things except money like for example intelligence/physical strength/looks. Humans always differ due to varying traits and everyone will always find a reason to look down on others (their constructivism is a mental disease and hatred/contempt belong to humanity like any other emotion too).
For example in that hypothetical commune: Why would an able-bodied/intelligent man not see the mentally/physically disabled man as something that takes more than he will ever be able to give back due to his natural limitations? Why would that not lead to the inherently logical question why it is even worth to keep someone like that around when he is nothing more than a liability? Why would someone less blessed by fate (a weaker/less intelligent/less good-looking man) not hate those who have it better than him?
Money as a distinguishing criterium for the worth of people would be removed, but it would just be replaced by a new measure for the value of men. When you change a system you just change the rules of the game - well, now you don't play Monopoly anymore but Uno, but in the end there will be a new winner/loser as defined by the axioms which are used for the quantification of success. When somebody wants equality he deems himself to be a loser in the current system and just wants to redefine the rules until he stands as the victor.
Vp = Vg + Ve + Vge --> phenotypic/observable variance as the sum of genotypic variance, environmental variance and genotype/environment interaction
With our so(y)ciety we have (especially in Europe) almost completely removed the environmental aspect, so you see nowadays that the observable differences between humans are mostly on a genetic basis (like intelligence/mental wellness/looks - all which are highly influenced by genetics). With the decreasing amount of environmental differences we see an increasing amount of the importance of your genes. "Equality" is a myth - when you remove the influence of one factor the importance of other factors just increases.
Important to know: The game always stays the same, just the axioms (which are used to quantify success) get changed. This is the funny moment when leftists try to paint pictures of a post-capitalist commune. In that commune people would also be judged, but due to other things except money like for example intelligence/physical strength/looks. Humans always differ due to varying traits and everyone will always find a reason to look down on others (their constructivism is a mental disease and hatred/contempt belong to humanity like any other emotion too).
For example in that hypothetical commune: Why would an able-bodied/intelligent man not see the mentally/physically disabled man as something that takes more than he will ever be able to give back due to his natural limitations? Why would that not lead to the inherently logical question why it is even worth to keep someone like that around when he is nothing more than a liability? Why would someone less blessed by fate (a weaker/less intelligent/less good-looking man) not hate those who have it better than him?
Money as a distinguishing criterium for the worth of people would be removed, but it would just be replaced by a new measure for the value of men. When you change a system you just change the rules of the game - well, now you don't play Monopoly anymore but Uno, but in the end there will be a new winner/loser as defined by the axioms which are used for the quantification of success. When somebody wants equality he deems himself to be a loser in the current system and just wants to redefine the rules until he stands as the victor.
Last edited: