Santorum blames ‘abortion culture’ for Social Security woes

[Peikko 1,575]

You don't trust the scientific consensus?

What scientific consensus?

Laziness qualifies inactivity as a 'bad' thing. Inactivity in and of itself is neither good nor bad. How is that hard to understand?

[mawilson 2,133]

Inactivity in and of itself is neither good nor bad.

If inactivity equals "no job", it's bad.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Don't try and imprint your nonjudgmental attitude on the scientific community.

If inactivity equals "no job", it's bad.

Or, worse, being a burden on those productive members of society.

Edited March 31, 2011 by Some Old Guy

[Peikko 1,575]

If inactivity equals "no job", it's bad.

Not always but regardless there is no genetic component to having a job or not having one. Jobs are a human construct.

Don't try and imprint your nonjudgmental attitude on the scientific community.

Or, worse, being a burden on those productive members of society.

Which again has nothing to do with genetics.

The other part of your statement is nonsense and relates to nothing, literally

[mawilson 2,133]

Not always but regardless there is no genetic component to having a job or not having one. Jobs are a human construct.

There's a genetic component to EVERYTHING. Everything you do (or don't do) is affected by your genes.

[Peikko 1,575]

There's a genetic component to EVERYTHING. Everything you do (or don't do) is affected by your genes.

Trying to suggest that evolution can and would produce a work ethic is mindless. Laziness is not a behaviour, it's a qualification of a behaviour. A hibernating bear must be inactive or it will not survive. Is a hibernating bear lazy? Of course not, an inactive bear during the hibernation cycle is ensuring its survival, inactivity in this case is essential. Inactivity in and of itself is not good nor bad. Now, I am certainly not suggesting that humans can or should hibernate, I am simply trying to illustrate why words such as lazy have no place in a discussions of evolution. In certain environments a human that is more prone to inactivity would have an advantage over one that is more prone to be active and vice versa both traits can influence survivability.

Humans can and do place a value on 'working hard' but outside of human activity such a phrase has no meaning. Animals do not work hard or not hard, they simply do whatever is necessary for their survival as long as they can do so. What exactly is 'working hard' anyway? Manual labourors who 'work hard' generally die younger than those who do not. How does that square with your theory that 'working hard' is universally good?

Edited March 31, 2011 by Madame Cleo

[rika60607 215]

Take two brothers. One is very active. On a Sunday he gets up at the sunrise before anybody in the house, chews on a jelly sandwich and takes off with the family dog and a bicycle for a cruise around the local forest preserve, with his friends (what a good energetic boy). He comes back home at lunch, eats, tells his mom he can't help with chores because he's got a baseball practice and takes off again. He is not particularly good at baseball, but he loves to play.

He returns home late in the afternoon and learns that his brother is going to a party. He wants to go to, so he lies about having done his school homework and goes to the party. Returns home very late, party was fun!

Another brother gets up after his mother, and watches TV. Does his share of house chores and finishes homework (lots of sitting). Family has lunch and then he helps his mother with chores again (since the other guy bailed out). Then he goes over to the neighbor's house to babysit for a couple of hours, because he could use the money for the gift for the birthday party he's going to. Both brothers go to a party, only one brings a gift (but who cares). Comes back early because he's tired and tomorrow there's school.

Which brother is energetic? Which brother is lazy?

Most current jobs that require education, also require ability to sit patiently for hours. Energy is not required, ability to stay immobile yet focused is what makes success at those jobs.

I agree with MC, laziness is uniquely a human concept. It is not a genetic trait. IQ, strength, level of energy - all genetic. Laziness - is a concept with many underlying reasons, and is rarely an all around quality.

The same guy who will not do his chores if his life depended on it, will spend hours at conquering a computer game.

The same guy who will help anyone with anything (build friend's house, move neighbors) will spend as long as he can on unemployment (he just hates having a boss or may be he hates his job).

The same guy who will know everything about stock market and invests every penny he gets a hold of, will not work a lower income job than his previous one, because he views it as a waste of time (he can make more money playing stock market).

The same guy who will work hard as a janitor and take lots of overtime, will not take a promotion, because he has no interest in having responsibility.

I do not think I ever met anyone who is just plain lazy

There's a genetic component to EVERYTHING. Everything you do (or don't do) is affected by your genes.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

There's a genetic component to EVERYTHING. Everything you do (or don't do) is affected by your genes.

You are wasting your time. Some people just like living with a complicated set of beliefs that makes no sense to a reasonable intellect. What makes it truly ironic, is when they deny those beliefs with the same breath that they profess them. Shame, really, but the world goes on, despite their lunacy.

Edited March 31, 2011 by Some Old Guy

[Peikko 1,575]

You are wasting your time. Some people just like living with a complicated set of beliefs that makes no sense to a reasonable intellect. What makes it truly ironic, is when they deny those beliefs with the same breath that they profess them. Shame, really, but the world goes on, despite their lunacy.

There is nothing complicated about understanding that some concepts are man made and do not exist outside the realm of the human imagination. It also doesn't take a genius to understand how and why these concepts have come about - that in fact it is the ABILITY of man to create a complex society that has ensured his success despite not always having the genetic material to survive in specific natural environments. However, in terms of genetics, these concepts are meaningless. You might find that lunacy but actually what it is is education.

Edited March 31, 2011 by Madame Cleo

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

There is nothing complicated about understanding that some concepts are man made and do not exist outside the realm of the human imagination. It also doesn't take a genius to understand how and why these concepts have come about - that in fact it is the ABILITY of man to create a complex society that has ensured his success despite not always having the genetic material to survive in specific natural environments. However, in terms of genetics, these concepts are meaningless. You might find that lunacy but actually what it is is education.

ETA: I would ask for your money back.

Edited March 31, 2011 by Some Old Guy

[Peikko 1,575]

ETA: I would ask for your money back.

I know you would.

Tell me this, if you were shipwrecked and ended up on a desert island and you could save one item from the shipwreck and had a choice between a gold bar and a fishing rod, which would you choose?

[mawilson 2,133]

Trying to suggest that evolution can and would produce a work ethic is mindless.

Who said anything about evolution? A genetic trait doesn't have to be evolutionarily advantageous to be genetic.

For example, having blue or brown eyes is not evolutionarily advantageous, yet it's still genetic.

Some people are ambitious and want to accomplish something with their lives beyond survivability and mere reproduction. Others have no drive to succeed above the bare minimum. Who are you to claim that there's no genetic component to what we call "ambition"?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I know you would.

Tell me this, if you were shipwrecked and ended up on a desert island and you could save one item from the shipwreck and had a choice between a gold bar and a fishing rod, which would you choose?

Depends what other resources are available on the island. One might be immediately useful, but unnecessary, the other has the potential to be necessary later.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Who said anything about evolution? A genetic trait doesn't have to be evolutionarily advantageous to be genetic.

For example, having blue or brown eyes is not evolutionarily advantageous, yet it's still genetic.

Some people are ambitious and want to accomplish something with their lives beyond survivability and mere reproduction. Others have no drive to succeed above the bare minimum. Who are you to claim that there's no genetic component to what we call "ambition"?

I think you're discounting that a lot of this stuff is behavioural (i.e. learned behaviours) not genetic.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I think you're discounting that a lot of this stuff is behavioural (i.e. learned behaviours) not genetic.

So, the rest must be genetic? Cool.