On Darwinism and Factual Justification
I agree
Side Score: 11
|
 |
I disagree
Side Score: 19
|
|
|
|
|
While I do agree with you, I am curious as to where you got your information. I also want to address point 5. While I do see what you were trying to get across, why talk about it unless someone brought it up? Also, does going from a state of what seems like a better body plan so to speak to a seemingly worse one count? Here's what I mean. Dire wolves becoming the normal wolves we see today Side: I agree
1
point
To answer your questions, in the order they appear: 1. "I am curious as to where you got your information": The bulk of my information is pieced-together memories of the content of several books (namely "Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds") and online articles on the subject. 2. "While I do see what you were trying to get across [in point 5], why talk about it brought it up?": For the simple reason that I believe it to be a significant contradiction to Darwinian Evolution. 3. "Also, does going from a state of what seems like a better body plan so to speak to a seemingly worse one count?": In the example you used, of wolves decreasing in size over time, a contradiction to Darwinian Evolution (if that's what you're asking) does not appear to be present; larger creatures require exponentially greater sustenance than smaller creatures, so, from an Evolutionary perspective, size reduction would, in many instances, increase survivability. If, for example, a species of wolves suddenly lost the majority of its sustenance, decreasing in size would both reduce sustenance requirements and possibly increase the speed of said species, thus allowing it to better survive. If that explanation does not address the intended matter of your inquiry, my apologies. Side: I agree
Let me begin by giving you a little "synopsis" of evolution, and please forgive me for oversimplifying it. Evolution is the process in which something not living becomes living, then eventually, it becomes a fish, then eventually it learnd to breath and live on land and then eventually we came as one of its product. Talk about wild imagination. I would treat it as fact, only I'm confused about some points. How did the first organism come to life? Sure the elements could have built a body, but what actually gave life? We have bodies both in life and death but what made the first organism alive, with abilities and etc? Or how about when the fish came out the water how did it last more than a minute or two outside the water? The fact is evolution is a theory backed by narrow minded beliefs that have been taken to an extreme and it is in itself a form of extremism. Proof you say? What about a fish millions of years old, whose fossil was found with that of dinosaurs and was thought to be extinct yet was found alive and had not changed or evolved? What happened there? 65 million years and not a single change, or was it an exception? Surely this was enough time to grow to the size of a shark or add a limb or two, no? So then why is evolution accepted as fact when we know it is not? Side: I agree
|
1. No indication is a very strong claim. One set of fossils from one looks like another species with adapted changes. That is some indication that they transitioned. What would you consider the minimal amount of indication in the fossil record to counter your claim that there is no indication?
2. This isn't true at all. There are many adaptations that have been found with "incomplete" organs where it leads to benefits. Wings that aren't fully functional can allow an animal to survive falls from greater heights than an animal with no wings at all. Photo receptor cells that work as a primitive eye it increases survivability.
3. Again, not true. Symbiotic organisms would have been primitive and separate. One the organisms come together they start developing specific mutations that allow for separate tasks to be handled by the different organisms. 4. There are so many different environments on Earth that organisms can find different places to live. A polar bear doesn't survive in the tropics. Evolution involves adapting to the environment you are in, not dominating the environment. In a Darwinian environment, all life would be in a continuous struggle to gain dominance, until, at some point, a specific organism achieves an unanswerable advantage over all other life, becoming dominant and destroying all else. This is not stating in evolution by anyone. 5. Morality involves the way humans treat each other. Morality helps the species survive. Humans have destroyed more species than any other species. Not being able to destroy mosquitoes does not mean we don't want to.
6. Much of the support for gravity comes from those who were taught to believe it. Much of the support for heliocentrism comes from those who were taught to believe it. Schools do not teach that evolution is untouchable so your objection is invalid. Side: I disagree
3
points
For those wondering why this user was banned from this topic, despite providing legitimate counter-arguments to the original post, find their second post on this page. The reasoning behind their ban should be obvious, but, in the event that it is not, said reasoning is as follows: My first "discussion" with this user amounted to little more than them saying "You said X, and X is wrong", and me responding with "I never said X, I said Y" where "Y" is my original statement, and "X" is a flawed statement only vaguely related to "Y", apparently fabricated by this user for the purpose of undermining my arguments. Given this unpleasant encounter, I was naturally hesitant to respond to their arguments on this topic, legitimate though they are. As such, I sent them a message, basically stating that I did not want to deal with another discussion like our previous one, so I would not be responding. Shortly afterward, I received a response, which was simply "Makes sense. No reason for you to look like a complete fucking idiot in 2 debates.". This went back and forth a couple times, in which this user resorted to childish name-calling, at which point I blocked them. Several hours later, I check this topic, and this user had written their second post on it, which is, first of all, in no way related to the topic, second, a baseless ad hominem attack which is blatantly disproved by the original post, and third, clearly written out of nothing more than spite. As such, it's clear to me that this user has no interest whatsoever in rational discussion, and should thus be restricted from posting in this topic. Side: I agree
3
points
Before I get to my argument I want to say that I most definitely do not have a lot of knowledge on this area, my argument is solely based on what I've been told from teachers, seminars, etc. and articles I've read. 1. Our current fossil record provides no indication that a given species has become another, dissimilar species. The proof is visible before our eyes every day. The very fact that your offspring differs from you genetically is proof of evolution. If we can acknowledge genetic diseases and disabilities as devolution, then we must also acknowledge special abilities documented in human beings that can be attributed to genetics as evolution. Such as photographic memory, hyperthymesia, tetrachromacy and other abnormal human abilities often seen in people with Autism. 4. The theory does not explain the vast diversity of life on Earth. In a Darwinian environment, all life would be in a continuous struggle to gain dominance, until, at some point, a specific organism achieves an unanswerable advantage over all other life, becoming dominant and destroying all else. This is clearly not the case, given the astounding diversity of life (and forms of life) currently in existence. You could ask if this hasn't already happened. Hasn't the human species an unanswerable advantage over all other life, and haven't we become dominant over the strongest species on our planet, not to forget the deadliest viruses and so on? Yes, we have cancer, which we can't seem to find a cure on, yet still our population is growing. Your argument says that this dominant species would kill all else - why is that necessary? A dominant species like the intelligent species we are would know better than to kill all else. 5. The theory does not explain many aspects of human beings, specifically morality. Human morality, in many instances, is an anathema to survival. People, for example, have not deliberately destroyed inferior (yet still somewhat threatening) species. This is counter to survival, as many of said species have caused a disturbing number of deaths (such as, indirectly, mosquitoes). Another example is charity: people are willing to donate their resources to other people, often in other countries, who they don't know at all. Sacrificing one's resources to someone they don't even know is counter to their survival, for hopefully obvious reasons. In order to consider this as an argument against evolution you must 1) assume that morality is independent from intelligence, and 2) that morality actually exists. Yes, we give to charity, but the amount given to third world countries through charity organizations (which by the way profit from their work) is nothing compared to what we take from third world countries. Side: I disagree
1
point
"The proof is visible before our eyes every day." Let's assume for a minute that that sentence is entirely true. It still bears no relevance to the point it's supposedly contradicting, being that the fossil record doesn't support Evolution. "The very fact that your offspring differs from you genetically is proof of evolution." Proof of adaptation? Certainly. Proof that organisms can (and have) develop significant mutations through astronomical amounts of time? Of course not. "...then we must also acknowledge special abilities documented in human beings that can be attributed to genetics as evolution. Such as photographic memory, hyperthymesia, tetrachromacy and other abnormal human abilities often seen in people with Autism." Except that said traits have been around for a long time (since the beginning of recorded history), yet have never been anything but exceptions to the norm. Ironically, Autism, a disorder that damages, if not outright cripples, social functioning, would cause a lower likelihood of reproduction, thus being a maladaptive trait for the survival of a species, and would thus fall under what you described as "devolution". "Your argument says that this dominant species would kill all else - why is that necessary?" The Earth contains finite resources. Since most (if not all) living organisms must contest with other species for said resources, it thus follows that the death of their rivals would be in the bests interests of their species (fewer rivals consuming resources equals more resources for your species). "In order to consider this as an argument against evolution you must 1) assume that morality is independent from intelligence" I fail to see the relevance; please clarify. "and 2) that morality actually exists." Here's a thought experiment for you: if you were forced to stab someone to death, and you knew there would be no external repercussions, would you be fine with doing so? Absolutely not. The mere fact that concepts like "guilt" and "remorse" exist prove morality's existence. How one could claim otherwise is beyond me. Not to say, however, that morality is objective. At the most basic level, all human beings (sans sociopaths) possess some sense of morality, be it shaped by surroundings, actions, or dogma. " Yes, we give to charity, but the amount given to third world countries through charity organizations (which by the way profit from their work) is nothing compared to what we take from third world countries." Once again, I fail to see the relevance to the topic, which is, to reiterate, the intellectual justification of Darwinian Evolution. Side: I agree
1
point
Proof of adaptation? Certainly. Proof that organisms can (and have) develop significant mutations through astronomical amounts of time? Of course not. Yes we do have proof that our genetics change. There have been multiple studies with pregnant women as well as identical twin studies showing that our DNA changes throughout our lives, which explains why identical twins are so alike in early childhood, but gradually become more and more distinguishable appearance-wise. I have also heard of a study in progress with siblings born years apart versus siblings born 1 year apart, to see how much they each share genetically with one another. I'm looking forward to read that study, it sounds very interesting. http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/ Except that said traits have been around for a long time (since the beginning of recorded history), yet have never been anything but exceptions to the norm. The beginning of our medical history is not that old, and we don't even see these attributes in those early records. Evolution takes thousands of years to make significant changes. Ironically, Autism, a disorder that damages, if not outright cripples, social functioning, would cause a lower likelihood of reproduction, thus being a maladaptive trait for the survival of a species, and would thus fall under what you described as "devolution". My argument wasn't based on Autism, it's just that these special abilities are often seen in people with Autism. And to say that Autism cripples social functioning is an insult to those many people who manage their disorder well. You are of course thinking of extreme cases, which of course exist, but those cases are certainly not the majority. Most people with Autism have normal or relatively normal lives. The Earth contains finite resources. Since most (if not all) living organisms must contest with other species for said resources Like someone else already said, if someone has an overflow of these resources there is no reason not share. There are other species that live in groups like we do. I fail to see the relevance; please clarify. and if you were forced to stab someone to death, and you knew there would be no external repercussions, would you be fine with doing so? Why is morality different from intelligence? Studies show smarter people are more likely to give to charity, so a conclusion of those studies could be that giving to charity is an intelligent thing to do, rather than a moral thing to do. Source: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ Once again, I fail to see the relevance to the topic, which is, to reiterate, the intellectual justification of Darwinian Evolution. It's relevant because it shows that we aren't generous, even though we like to think we are. Side: I disagree
All your arguments have been very ably addressed by Cartman and Shoutoutloud I wish to ask you something you say ........ 6. This isn't an objective argument, but I'll list it anyway: much of the support of Darwinian Evolution comes from those who were taught to believe in it, and nothing else. I find that the Public School system (at least here in the U.S.) trains students to have little, if any, critical thinking skills, and forces this theory upon them, much like Jehovah's Witnesses. The fact that this is treated like untouchable scripture is disturbing at best, and, when coupled with a scientific community more interested in politics than truth, leaves me with little faith in the products of said community........ People who are taught about evolution in my experience are allowed question it and indeed in my experience many do and are encouraged to do so . I think you're being totally unfair and disengenous when you say schools in your country force evolution on students and compare it to what Jehovahs do ; also you state students in the US are trained to have little or any critical thinking skills which is insulting to the many excellent students in the US . Not suprisingly the critical skills you accuse fellow students of lacking seem to be the very thing you lack .... critical thinking skills . You then go on to insult the scientific community and compare the teaching of evolution to that of untouchable scripture thus recognising the fact that the teaching of scripture is rigid and unlike science not open to questioning . Most the world recognises evolution as fact and that includes believers in a god shockingly the few opponents seem to be American hardline Christians and not suprisingly Muslims . I'm not sure your question is a genuine one regarding debating the topic as all , your points are well and truly addressed by your average schoolteacher or a quick Google check you know this so I assume you're looking for argument . If you and people you know have a counter theory to the evolutionary model why not write your papers up and present your findings to the Nobel committee it would make international news. Scientists from every country , and belief system accept evolution as fact maybe it's about time you did a bit of serious research on the subject . Side: I disagree
1
point
"I think you're being totally unfair and disengenous when you say schools in your country force evolution on students and compare it to what Jehovahs do" While I was not in the Public School system for a terribly long time (several years), I can say, from personal experience, that all information contrary or irrelevant to the current orthodoxy was either dismissed or suppressed. Even then, one needn't be in the system to see that it teaches Darwinian Evolution, a supposedly scientific Theory, as irrefutable fact. This, combined with the aforementioned suppressing of inconvenient information, draws quite striking parallels with the Jehovah's Witnesses, a cult well known for its Orwellian approach to Theology (that is, denying "members" the ability to read unapproved material, among other things). If you'd like to be more specific about exactly how my comparison was "unfair and disingenuous", feel free to do so. "also you state students in the US are trained to have little or any critical thinking skills which is insulting to the many excellent students in the US ." Just because some students have critical thinking skills doesn't mean said skills are a result of their education. Likewise, just because Public schools don't provide students with critical thinking skills doesn't mean said students are incapable of possessing critical thinking skills. "Not suprisingly the critical skills you accuse fellow students of lacking seem to be the very thing you lack .... critical thinking skills" In what way is questioning the current scientific orthodoxy lacking in critical thinking skills? Or were you referring to something more specific? " thus recognising the fact that the teaching of scripture is rigid and unlike science not open to questioning ." If Scripture's meaning is so rigid, then why do so many denominations exist? What I meant was that organized religion (the Roman Catholic Church, for example) teaches their interpretation of Scripture as the ultimate, irrefutable, and exclusive truth. Furthermore, who's to say that Scripture can't be questioned? Such questioning has been undertaken many times throughout recent history, and has been answered just as often. Furthermore, your blatant attack on Theology in general bears absolutely no relevance to this discussion, as Darwinian Evolution bears no direct relevance (by contradiction or causation) to Theology. Therefore, undermining Theology does not, in of itself, prove Darwinian Evolution. "Most the world recognises evolution as fact and that includes believers in a god shockingly the few opponents seem to be American hardline Christians and not suprisingly Muslims ." "Fact" is not how science works. Science, by itself, is incapable of proving anything with complete certainty. The closest to objective truth a Scientific Theory can achieve is being consistent with multiple generations of data, and even then, is still quite vulnerable to disproving (for example, the former Scientific Law of Spontaneous Generation, which was disproved several hundred years ago by Francisco Redi). Darwin's Theory, being a supposedly scientific Theory, would follow this rule. By claiming it to be fact, you're stating your faith in its truth, as reason alone does not justify said claim. "I'm not sure your question is a genuine one regarding debating the topic as all , your points are well and truly addressed by your average schoolteacher or a quick Google check you know this so I assume you're looking for argument ." I'd bet you can find arguments on pretty much anything on this website with "a quick Google search". But that's not really helpful, is it? Why don't you attempt to engage in intellectual discourse with an article, and tell me how it works out for you? As for my motivations, what did you expect? This website's called "createdebate.com" for a reason; when I created an argument, I wasn't trying to persuade people. I wasn't posting it out of a genuine desire to change people's minds; I simply posted my thoughts, and wanted to see why people disagreed with it. Is there any other motivation one would have for engaging in, much less instigating, a debate? "If you and people you know have a counter theory to the evolutionary model why not write your papers up and present your findings to the Nobel committee it would make international news." Assuming this argument is in relation to the topic (I'm a little unsure; some of your other arguments have been irrelevant), you're basically arguing "Evolution must be right, because no one else has built a counter-model!", which falls under the logical fallacy of "ad ignorantiam", or "appeal to ignorance". If this argument is irrelevant to the topic, however, why bother posting it? Who does it help to pointlessly mock others? "Scientists from every country , and belief system accept evolution as fact maybe it's about time you did a bit of serious research on the subject ." Considering your apparent lack of knowledge of the nature and mechanisms of Science, I dare say I'm significantly more informed on the subject than you. It's ironic, then, that you're condescendingly suggesting I "do a bit of serious research on the subject". Side: I agree
You say .... While I was not in the Public School system for a terribly long time (several years), I can say, from personal experience, that all information contrary or irrelevant to the current orthodoxy was either dismissed or suppressed. Even then, one needn't be in the system to see that it teaches Darwinian Evolution, a supposedly scientific Theory, as irrefutable fact. This, combined with the aforementioned suppressing of inconvenient information, draws quite striking parallels with the Jehovah's Witnesses, a cult well known for its Orwellian approach to Theology (that is, denying "members" the ability to read unapproved material, among other things). If you'd like to be more specific about exactly how my comparison was "unfair and disingenuous", feel free to do so. All information was suppressed or dismissed which is a ridiculous claim what do you base this broad generalisation on ? If information was valid and had merit donyou honestly think it would be dismissed and if so why ? Evolution is fact get over it by you saying it's not proves absolutely nothing except to yourself . What information is being suppressed please share it with me as I and many others are totally unaware of it . Yes your comparison is unfair your basically saying you're being forced and brainwashed into accept it as fact . You say .... Just because some students have critical thinking skills doesn't mean said skills are a result of their education. Likewise, just because Public schools don't provide students with critical thinking skills doesn't mean said students are incapable of possessing critical thinking skills...... That point makes no sense at all ... You say ...... In what way is questioning the current scientific orthodoxy lacking in critical thinking skills? Or were you referring to something more specific?..... In what way ? the fact that evolution is fact clearly shows you refuse to accept it despite the mountains of evidence in support . You say ..... If Scripture's meaning is so rigid, then why do so many denominations exist? What I meant was that organized religion (the Roman Catholic Church, for example) teaches their interpretation of Scripture as the ultimate, irrefutable, and exclusive truth. Furthermore, who's to say that Scripture can't be questioned? Such questioning has been undertaken many times throughout recent history, and has been answered just as often. Furthermore, your blatant attack on Theology in general bears absolutely no relevance to this discussion, as Darwinian Evolution bears no direct relevance (by contradiction or causation) to Theology. Therefore, undermining Theology does not, in of itself, prove Darwinian Evolution.... This is rather Rich coming from someone who compared the teaching methods used to teach evolution as Orwellian and smacking of JW type methods to instruct students . Again you prove the rigidity of religion and the various groups by the amount of denominations you disagree with the teachings of one denomination and your out because you disagree wth it's interpretation this is religious rigidity You say .... "Fact" is not how science works. Science, by itself, is incapable of proving anything with complete certainty. The closest to objective truth a Scientific Theory can achieve is being consistent with multiple generations of data, and even then, is still quite vulnerable to disproving (for example, the former Scientific Law of Spontaneous Generation, which was disproved several hundred years ago by Francisco Redi). Darwin's Theory, being a supposedly scientific Theory, would follow this rule. By claiming it to be fact, you're stating your faith in its truth, as reason alone does not justify said claim...... I know how science works ..... Ask a question Formulate a hypothesis Perform experiment Collect data Draw conclusions Faith does not come into scientific thinking evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confidant that the basic components of the theory will not be overthrown by new evidence . Yo say .... I'd bet you can find arguments on pretty much anything on this website with "a quick Google search". But that's not really helpful, is it? Why don't you attempt to engage in intellectual discourse with an article, and tell me how it works out for you?.. As for my motivations, what did you expect? This website's called "createdebate.com" for a reason; when I created an argument, I wasn't trying to persuade people. I wasn't posting it out of a genuine desire to change people's minds; I simply posted my thoughts, and wanted to see why people disagreed with it. Is there any other motivation one would have for engaging in, much less instigating, a debate?..... Well you've got your answer I most certainly disagree with you
You say ..... "If you and people you know have a counter theory to the evolutionary model why not write your papers up and present your findings to the Nobel committee it would make international news." Assuming this argument is in relation to the topic (I'm a little unsure; some of your other arguments have been irrelevant), you're basically arguing "Evolution must be right, because no one else has built a counter-model!", ........ I'm saying evolution has been tested band proved as I pointed out earlier so my use is non fallacious and your point is void . which falls under the logical fallacy of "ad ignorantiam", or "appeal to ignorance". If this argument is irrelevant to the topic, however, why bother posting it? Who does it help to pointlessly mock others? "Scientists from every country , and belief system accept evolution as fact maybe it's about time you did a bit of serious research on the subject .".... Stating a fact is not mocking others if you think me correctly stating that the main opponents of evolution are mainly American religions hardliners and indeed Muslims I suggest you need to do a bit of research . You say ..... Considering your apparent lack of knowledge of the nature and mechanisms of Science, I dare say I'm significantly more informed on the subject than you. It's ironic, then, that you're condescendingly suggesting I "do a bit of serious research on the subject"..... You base this assumption on what ? You're more informed ah I see so evolution is wrong because you're more informed .... got ya Side: I disagree
1
point
It looks like your arguments have already been addressed by others, but I want to go into a little more detail on how Evolution can explain morality. Lets say we have two groups of people, the selfies and the groupies. The people in the selfies group only look out for themselves. They will lie, cheat, steal, and murder as long as it benefits them in some way. Then we have the groupies; they work together as a group, share responsibilities, and look out for each other. Which of those groups do you think will be more likely to survive, find mates, and have children? The answer is the groupies. By working together they can accomplish more and protect each other, increasing their likelihood of survival. The selfies on the other hand kill each other off, have a harder time finding a mate because who wants to be with a selfish, murderous bastard, and therefore be less likely to have offspring. Regarding your charity argument, people who donate to charity aren't donating things they can't live without, so it would have no effect on their ability to survive. Side: I disagree
1
point
"Lets say we have two groups of people, the selfies and the groupies. The people in the selfies group only look out for themselves. They will lie, cheat, steal, and murder as long as it benefits them in some way. Then we have the groupies; they work together as a group, share responsibilities, and look out for each other. Which of those groups do you think will be more likely to survive, find mates, and have children? The answer is the groupies. By working together they can accomplish more and protect each other, increasing their likelihood of survival. The selfies on the other hand kill each other off, have a harder time finding a mate because who wants to be with a selfish, murderous bastard, and therefore be less likely to have offspring." I partially agree; those who would go around blatantly murdering and stealing are certainly not going to survive as long as those who restrain themselves. However, you ignore that many can stand to gain from morality, by abusing it. Emotional or moral manipulation, exploiting willingness to appease the status quo, etc. are simple, if somewhat dangerous, methods of success in our moral society. Essentially, a system of morals only improves survival if the entirety of a species is bound by it; if not, it causes an unfair disadvantage to long-term survival, meaning that, unless it's perfect, it's a maladaptive trait, counter to Darwinian Evolution. "Regarding your charity argument, people who donate to charity aren't donating things they can't live without, so it would have no effect on their ability to survive." An increase in resources means an increase in survivability; to a point, that's a general truth. It follows, then, that a decrease in resources means a decrease in survivability, and donation is a significant decrease in resources with no benefit to you or your kin. As such, it follows that donation is harmful to survival, and is thus contrary to Darwinian Evolution. Yet it still exists, and thrives. To be a bit more clear on your specific issue, that donation is an excess, and thus not harmful, I ask you if you'd be more generally secure with $50,000 or $500,000 in the bank. In either case, you'd certainly have enough money for the immediate, predictable future (groceries, house/rent payments, etc.), but what if you sustain an expensive-to-fix injury, or your house burns down? If you took the former option, you'd be completely screwed, while, with the latter, you'd be better off, if not perfectly fine. Side: I agree
1
point
"you ignore that many can stand to gain from morality, by abusing it. Emotional or moral manipulation, exploiting willingness to appease the status quo, etc. are simple, if somewhat dangerous, methods of success in our moral society." People eventually catch on when someone is manipulating and exploiting them, and once that happens the person is ostracized, reducing their chances of reproducing. A person who is kind is more likely to find a mate than someone who manipulates and uses people. "Essentially, a system of morals only improves survival if the entirety of a species is bound by it; if not, it causes an unfair disadvantage to long-term survival, meaning that, unless it's perfect, it's a maladaptive trait, counter to Darwinian Evolution." Nothing is Evolution says a trait has to be "perfect." Far from it. It only has to offer a slight advantage. "donation is a significant decrease in resources with no benefit to you or your kin." I think you're exaggerating there when you say a "significant decrease." Most people don't donate significant amounts of their resources. The average American only gives around 3% of their income. "As such, it follows that donation is harmful to survival, and is thus contrary to Darwinian Evolution." You're not looking at the big picture. Evolution isn't concerned with individual people's survival, it's concerned with the survivability of the entire species. So, if someone donates their excess resources to someone who is lacking in resources, it increases the survivability of the species as a whole, because the person who donated their excess resources is unlikely to even need them, whereas the person who needs the resources may actually need them for survival. Plus, if the person donating their resources runs into hard times in the future, they may then end up on the receiving end of a donation. If you do nice things for others, they are more likely to do nice things for you. "To be a bit more clear on your specific issue, that donation is an excess, and thus not harmful, I ask you if you'd be more generally secure with $50,000 or $500,000 in the bank. In either case, you'd certainly have enough money for the immediate, predictable future (groceries, house/rent payments, etc.), but what if you sustain an expensive-to-fix injury, or your house burns down? If you took the former option, you'd be completely screwed, while, with the latter, you'd be better off, if not perfectly fine." Again, most people don't donate significant amounts of their resources. The ones who do, and later end up needing those resources and die because of it, are such a small percentage that it would have no significant impact on the survival of our species as a whole. Side: I disagree
|
