The Left has sided with science and liberals. The Right has religion and conservatives.
Upon closer inspection, we find that both sides are full of shit, and their positions are contradictory, perhaps on purpose. Let’s first be clear about definitions:
- Left: Liberal, Democrat, Occupy Wallstreet.
- Right: Conservative, Republican, Tea Party.
- Religious: Christians, Muslims, Jews.
- Science: Includes a belief that evolution occurs.
Now, the left (in the U.S.) are people who are generally aligned with liberalism and science, the right with religion and conservatism.
The crux of it is that evolution is the idea that those who navigate through the environment better than others will (should?) eventually out reproduce those who are not as successful in the environment. In the end, evolution is creating an organism that is better at operating in the environment. Social programs, on the other hand, ease the burden on individuals, making lives better, easier, for them. The logic is that we cannot control to whom we are born, and thus everyone deserves the opportunity to make something of their life.
Certainly noble, BUT, If we follow strict evolution, we should be full on capitalists. We should be 100% laizze faire, the staunchest pull yourself up by the bootstraps, Ayn Rand, followers. It is odd though, that we do not apply evolution to ourselves.
By strict evolution, the poor are poor for a reason, because of their own poor decisions or their ancestor’s poor decisions, and the hardship is the inexorable grip of evolution bringing to a close the genetic line that made those decisions. We should not worry about starvation in Africa because this is, quite literally, evolution at work. Even if the choice was all the way back to simply going south or east instead of north or west out of the fertile crescent, that is an evolutionary choice, with longstanding outcomes, that has played itself out over the course of human history (read more about that here).
Social welfare programs are explicitly designed to help those who are less successful in the environment.
It is a relevant theoretical question, to ask whether social welfare programs are beneficial for our evolution as a species. Indeed, one only needs to look at Google to find evidence that the poorest and least educated among us are having the most children. Strictly speaking, these are the individuals who are most ‘evolutionarily successful’. Is this the evolution that we as a society wish to maintain and even endorse?
It is interesting to note that the countries with the most social welfare programs are the happiest on average (northern European countries like the Netherlands), which says good things for social welfare programs. But, conversely, it is those countries that have the least social welfare programs that have the best economic outcomes (US 100 years ago, China, Brazil). The greatest human achievements have largely come at the exploitation of a lower class (e.g., pyramids, railroads, great wall, Dubai).
There may even be a trade off between the economic outcomes of the group and the well-being outcomes of the group as pointed out above. This will be a decision the group as a whole must make. Which is better in the immediate and which is better in the long run? Is there a difference? In the end, is it better to maintain our social welfare programs and live by the Christian ideal (more socialistic), or to ditch them and live by the strict, evolutionary, conservative capitalistic paradigm (more science based)? These are questions only more science and time can answer.
What do you think about the odd pairing of Christian and Evolutionary ideals? What should be the ultimate goal of the group, life satisfaction or job status?
Looking at it the other way:
It is perhaps an easier to understand if we look rather at Christian and Conservative values:
Christians follow Christ, who was essentially a communist hippie who lived among the poor and outcast.
Religious individuals are, generally speaking, also conservative. Conservatives though are the evolutionary/ capitalistic thinkers, who are also the religious ones that follow the communist hippie… Are things started to look a little twisted yet?
The religious ones, the ones who follow Jesus the Hippie, are the ones who also espouse the capitalistic/ evolutionary model of economics? I mean, if this was in a book I would call it a farce.