- get viagra
- cialis prescription online
- canadian pharmacy viagra no prescription
- viagra supplies
- generic cialis online
- cialis prescription not required
In particular, recent discoveries suggest that the adoption of agriculture, supposedly our most decisive step toward a better life, was in many ways a catastrophe from which we have never recovered. With agriculture came the gross social and sexual inequality, the disease and despotism, that curse our existence.
He argues the hunter-gatherer diet is better nutritionally, as agriculture tended to focus on a single crop, like potatoes. This led to deficiencies and over-reliance, which led to events like the potato famines in Ireland. Overall, he paints a very rosy picture of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle, and almost romanticizes it. This comes from a Marxist perspective (big surprise):
Hunter-gatherers have little or no stored food, and no concentrated food sources, like an orchard or a herd of cows: they live off the wild plants and animals they obtain each day. Therefore, there can be no kings, no class of social parasites who grow fat on food seized from others. Only in a farming population could a healthy, non-producing elite set itself above the disease-ridden masses.
But it soon gets more interesting (or horrifying). He asks the question, if agriculture is so bad for us, why did we choose it?
Forced to choose between limiting population or trying to increase food production, we chose the latter and ended up with starvation, warfare, and tyranny.
So what should we have done instead? Well, infanticide is a good solution to the problem.
…nomadic hunter-gatherers have to keep their children spaced at four-year intervals by infanticide and other means.
And here is where Diamond’s (or any secularist’s) definition of evil comes into play:
As population densities of hunter-gatherers slowly rose at the end of the ice ages, bands had to choose between feeding more mouths by taking the first steps toward agriculture, or else finding ways to limit growth. Some bands chose the former solution, unable to anticipate the evils of farming.
To limit growth by infanticide is reasonable. To support a larger population via farming is evil. And in other news, up is down, down is up, Lady Gaga is a serious person, and Congress is a fine group of people to which you feel comfortable turning your back.
This is what passes for morality in our brave new world. Based on speculation about history, most people who have lived are both dependent on agriculture for their life AND victims of what agriculture has wrought. Ergo, it’s better if they had never been born at all. This is what I call Over-Dramatic, Petulant, and Ungrateful Brat Syndrome. Or, ODPUBS.
And it’s strange, since the progress allowed by agriculture is the very thing that allows Diamond to write academic papers and best-selling books in the first place. He’s a thin branch looking down at the trunk of his tree, shaking his head in condescension, and saying “You shouldn’t have grown so tall. You’ve jeopardized our survival. Don’t you know its windy up here?”
God: “Be fruitful and multiply. Fill the earth.”
Diamond and others: “Nope.”
It is no surprise that progressives like Diamond champion abortion and free contraception. And soon, maybe they will champion infanticide itself, and give up the pretense of the fabled “woman’s right to choose,” and just start bowing to Molech openly in the public square. We’ve already started down that path, with one journal of medical “ethics” saying that after-birth abortion should be allowed.
But when the idols are taken out of the closet, perhaps they’ll be easier to tear down.
If this type of reasoning from the halls of higher learning sounds familiar, it should. When you start talking about population control, you start harkening back to the eugenics movement, which is a natural outpouring of Darwinism in a culture. It is a fount of many deaths.
The authors of the “ethics” article are, of course, correct in the sense that abortion inside the fetus is no different from abortion outside the fetus. That reasoning is sound. But they just give the car more gas when they should be slamming on their brakes, shifting into reverse, and pushing the RPM gauge into the red going the opposite direction. They are discovering where their core assumptions have led them. Again. But this time they are not stepping away in absolute horror.
Eugenics, in essence, is still alive. But instead of elites and other brights deciding who lives and who dies, we have that power passed to the parents themselves, a decentralization of evil. Or rather, those who don’t want to be parents.
No related posts.