One of my many little pet peeves is when creationists use evolutionary language to describe economics or social structure. Darwin is wrong about natural selection, but that is how capitalism works. That is why certain societies flourish. Capitalism weeds out the inefficient. Capitalism is the equalizer in that if you have a better idea you can compete and win.
I call BS on that. History is far too chaotic. James Burke had a couple of series that showed a “Pinball” approach to history. They were “Connections” and “The Day The Universe Changed”. Random occurrences, luck plays a role. Yes, individual skills and work can be needed to utilize that luck, but luck plays a role. Look up the odds of surviving gastrulation if you doubt me. What constitutes a “Free” market? It doesn’t exist and has never existed except in the cases of niche markets for limited amounts of time. Economics, like the other social sciences is not as straight forward as mathematics, chemistry, or physics. In the latter two certain assumptions are made, but they’re made with an awareness of those assumptions. Physics will use massless strings and frictionless pulleys when teaching concepts. Chemistry uses homogenous solutions and uniform transitions in similar ways. They are useful when you acknowledge the limitations of your models. Any study involving people will involve specific individual reactions that really don’t model well. It gets more individualized when you have LEADERS. And that doesn’t have to be just political leaders. Would our space program look the same if Von Braun never came to the US? Would we have developed the bomb without Oppenheimer? Those people weren’t monolithic geniuses. They had help. They would acknowledge that help. They would probably have been influential in any society. Maybe. The social Darwinist might play up their individual capabilities regardless of the society they were in, proving the superiority of certain individuals. It’s an experiment we can’t do, although Hitler tried. I don’t think life is like a video game where you can restart and try a different strategy. And that is why the what if arguments get so volatile when talking about politics. It’s opinion not a repeatable experiment. Feelings aren’t necessarily logical or rational. Revenge is an ideal example. It’s never an eye for an eye. It’s an eye and a finger for an eye. How would you punish a mass/serial killer? You can only kill them once.
Obviously not a G string, but stringy underwear none the less. Way back when the riots at Tiananmen Square were going on I heard that the military used their belts as flails. I have seen articles where people say that it’s not a good idea. The belt buckle doesn’t really do enough damage to deter an attack. I also heard that the belt buckles they were issued were quite heavy and capable of causing severe injuries. I seem to recall hearing that motorcycle chains worn as belts can be effective flails also.
I remember seeing an Army training film about Russian foot wraps when I was in basic training. I can’t believe they used them that long. They did look interesting.
NOW DO YOU APPRECIATE THE UNDERWEAR AND SOCKS?
As a Red Dwarf fan there is of course that reference. The unending circle of life, consuming and being consumed all at once, a Greek version of Yin/Yang or of the Phoenix, it’s all of those. First the bird eats the ants, after the bird dies the ants eat the bird.
Wild lost in the ozone again