Comments on: This is absurd

By: Britblog Roundup N241 – Best of British | nourishing obscurity

Britblog Roundup N241 – Best of British | nourishing obscurity — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 13:33:08 +0000

[...] to task on the mystery of life: “The aim of life is to pass on one’s genes”, says Mr Worstall, adding that “we are told by the scientists” that it is [...]

By: Monty

Monty — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 19:34:47 +0000

In that article she declares that this is the first time in history that women have exploited the bodies of other women.

Wet nurses employed by wealthy women who did not, or could not suckle their own babies.
Madams who housed and ran the prostitutes in every town and city.
Wealthy women who employed young women as servants, and forbade them to marry, or have children.
Back street abortionists who accepted poor women’s money to kill the unborn.

Throughout history, and all over the world, women of means have exploited their less fortunate sisters in all manner of ways.

It seems to me that this is a ploy to take fertility out of the control of those who have it, and curtail their ability to derive benefit from their own good fortune. Because you see, these things should be administered by people with clipboards, following the guidelines, convening meetings, and taking their cut of the proceeds. Pretty soon that would be all of the proceeds.

By: Roue le Jour

Roue le Jour — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 04:44:47 +0000

John Malpas,

Sperm banks have a legal exception for child support, but private individuals don’t.

Donating eggs is or course different because under our legal system women don’t have the same responsibility for their actions as men.

By: john malpas

john malpas — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 23:59:36 +0000

If someone used your sperm for fertilazation purpose – you would be paying child support surely?
Giving/selling eggs is different I suppose.

By: Ross

Ross — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 21:50:27 +0000

Evolution obviously it gives humans a predisposition to raise children and to have sex to create them, but it seems unlikely that human responses have evolved to the point whereby someone gives one of their ova to a stranger for evolutionary advantage.

So unless you are taking the perspective of a gene rather than of actual people I don’t see how it can be said that the donor is exploiting the recipient (not that I view the recipient as expoititive either).

By: Mark Wadsworth

Mark Wadsworth — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 21:31:44 +0000

I thought much the same when I read the article.

But, being a bit old-fashioned, I would have written “Who is exploiting whom?”. And I would never start a sentence with the word ‘but’. Or the word ‘and’, for that matter. Or the word ‘or’.

(Thus arriving swiftly at the parody singularity).

By: First Class posts on Saturday | Letters From A Tory

First Class posts on Saturday | Letters From A Tory — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 19:53:20 +0000

[...] Tim Worstall wonders if anyone takes Darwin seriously anymore. GET THESE LETTERS DELIVERED BY [...]

By: Tim Almond

Tim Almond — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 17:36:49 +0000

“Good grief, does no one actually take Darwin seriously any more?”

It’s all a bit pick and mix, really. Disproving god’s existence? Absolutely fine. The some people beat others because they’re stronger, smarter or faster? Err no, that’s all down to society.

By: Deogolwulf

Deogolwulf — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 15:36:31 +0000

“The aim of life is to pass on one’s genes.”

“For I would get what is, we are told by the scientists, the aim of life, grandchildren”

Randy scientists might tell you such things, but science — as knowledge only of the empirical-mechanical world — does not. Aims, goals, purposes, etc, of any kind play no role whatsoever in empirical-scientific accounts. To say that life per se has an aim of any kind is to impute to it a teleological nature and a value, upon which science by itself is utterly silent. It ought to be obvious, however, that the claim, to wit, that the aim of life is to pass on one’s genes, is not a scientific hypothesis, since it is not in any way testable, verifiable, or falsifiable. Not even Dawkins — who is not the brightest star in the intellectual firmament — believes so.

By: This is absurd 168888 Lottery

This is absurd 168888 Lottery — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 14:45:27 +0000

[...] post: This is absurd By admin | category: Lottery? | tags: buy-other, chelsea, elgordo, even-using, exchange, [...]

By: jameshigham

jameshigham — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 12:55:34 +0000

Good grief, does no one actually take Darwin seriously any more?

No one serious does, Tim.

By: dearieme

dearieme — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 09:49:39 +0000

Come the Revolution, brothers, let’s string up all the puritan lefties.

By: Brian, follower of Deornoth

Brian, follower of Deornoth — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 08:41:52 +0000

‘If I don’t approve of it, it must be stopped. To help pass the necessary legislation I will lie by calling this something it isn’t.’

Professor Pfeffer is not stupid; she is evil.

By: David Gillies

David Gillies — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 08:19:28 +0000

Of course the Left doesn’t take Darwin seriously (or, rather, it takes him very seriously indeed and identifies him as an existential threat: it wasn’t a snake-handling Xtian retard that dumped a jug of water on E. O. Wilson’s head.)