In response to:

Science Demands Big Government!

Brent171 Wrote: Jun 12, 2012 5:04 AM
Position of Prof. Liebermann is distorted by Prager. Truth is: 1) evolution is not matter of belief, adaptation through several generations to a slowly changing environment, through selective reproduction with mutation as an unguided process is scientific fact as sure as gravity. 2) all changes from neolithic on have been too fast for evolution 3) in our natural environment food was scarce and calories diffuse so our desires are adjusted to this, so when we come across high calorie processed food our evolved response is "OMG!!! EAT!! NOW!!! you wont get another chance!!". If we evolved on planet where big macs grew on trees it would be different. So public health increased by pushing against the natural programming - coercion.
pastorial Wrote: Jun 16, 2012 9:51 AM
johnm h Wrote: Jun 12, 2012 7:09 AM
You are actually defending this idiot? Amazing. It is so whacko and ill formed one doesn’t know where to begin. I suppose I could say, yes, ok parents have to exercise compulsion to control a kid’s natural (evolved) desire to want to pile on calories. To go from there to the nanny state? Give me a break you assume that the nanny state means well. Does not evolution explain the abuse of power and self interest? If you want man to adapt quickly to changing reality then you must have maximum freedom under the rule of very simple knowable and transparent laws. Is there any evidence big states adapt faster than markets? Ever? Anywhere?
Tacitus X Wrote: Jun 12, 2012 6:43 AM
In that case Liebermann is contradicting himself since imposing coercive government is to an even greater degree "too fast for evolution." Also left out of Liebermann's little calculus is any role for reason among individuals. Liebermann assumes without evidence that he and the government have a monopoly on reason. He also seems too historically ignorant to realize what the ruling clique will do with that coercive power once it's created. Hint: it won't be to maximize others' well-being.
soliton2 Wrote: Jun 12, 2012 6:42 AM
>> So public health increased by pushing against the natural programming - coercion.
Public health of course, itself being outside of evolution.
How about, govt. itself as an organism dominating it's environment, and growing (unbounded) by consuming recources of all the entities within it's reach.? With antibodies (conservatives) being thwarted by an inimical virus (progressives) that are in a symbiotic relationship with the govt organism?

The quotation of the week last week had to be that of Harvard professor Daniel E. Lieberman in an opinion piece for the New York Times.

Lieberman, a professor of human evolutionary biology, was among those who publicly defended New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's plan to ban the sale of sugared soft drinks in cups larger than 16 ounces.

And he did so using, of all things, evolution.

Now, we all know that humans have always needed -- or evolved to need -- carbohydrates for energy. So how could evolution argue for Mayor Bloomberg's ban...