lightburst

I do not particularly root for Socialism that smothers business incentives. That is to say, like what the other guy said, stops me from making my own business because of the philosophy of 'equal distribution of wealth'. People should properly give credit to manual labor as well as, as what the other guy said, the 'risks' and 'intellectual labor'. Just because a coal miner, not considering the hazards, does 'harder' work doesn't necessarily mean he should get paid more than a software developer, which really just sits on a chair maybe sipping some Latte.

That being said, what I root for Socialism is to be able to stop 'exploitation' of the workforce yet not fall in the hole of Communism. If they get paid well then I think it's fine. Now what counts as 'getting paid well'? This is considering the overall exerted work relative to the overall profit(the one after all the bills). I think there should be a formula where your wage is exponentially increased depending on your labor relative to the company profit.

I do find people 'calling the shots' earning millions a year annoying in the expense of minimum wage workers which is really the ones doing all the magic. Hold on. Let's consider 'intellectual labor'. I do think Bill Gates deserve all the credit for Microsoft to a certain extent. If the point comes that he just has some team conceptualizing designs and he just pretty much 'checks' over things then I don't think his over $100 a second is justified. At that point, should it not be the team the ones getting paid? I'm sure they do well but not fairly paid considering who gets paid more for less work. That's not considering his charity ofc, which I think is cool.

That's a bit convoluted, wait a sec. Point is there is no provision that limits ones profit and how one cuts wages in Capitalism. Things usually go as 'as long as the worker is happy'. Put in some benefits, a fancy cubicle, and you'll do good. Let's take how a certain shoe/bag(i forget) manufacturer uses Asia to cheaply manufacture. They employ kids. Their justification was that the workers were doing better relative to their previous lifestyle and that they were happy. AFAIK their stuff was expensive. That, I think, is revolting.

I do greatly recognize the need to have a gauge and weigh physical to intellectual labor. Until then, Socialism won't hold water.

I was hit by the idea: "Society is the prime suppressor of Freedom.". Society is built upon certain rules/practices wherein they dictate how an individual should act and the limits of what a person can say, contrary to the idea of Freedom. A society 'for' freedom eventually overpowers its ruling body; therefore a dictatorship itself does not at all circumstances censor. Even notions that withhold Freedom should be free to be expressed but is not in a 'free' society(as preposterous as that is). I was told Nazism is in a way still in Germany, free, but is frowned upon and so what freedom is that. Ultimately free society is not so free.

I want to hear some arguments and to see if this holds water. Or is it quite obvious? And I'm not Nazi. You could replace that with Communism in America.

I figured this was the best section to post this; although not necessarily the right forums. Just didn't want to register to a new forum.

I can see that but only vaguely though... But sure it does work when I warp it around... It would've been more convenient if he was more explicit. Thanks.

Yes I am considering the context of the book, the time when genetics was not yet an accepted/known mechanism.

But I am asking in the context of Origin. How Darwin got to that conclusion through the idea that confined animals fail to reproduce. How he got there might be false(I don't know) but I'll get there. :<

I quoted the whole paragraph I found online if it helps. Its at the first post.

That part was discussing variation rather than inheritance.

I'm using the first edition, according to the publisher at least. It's literally the second paragraph on mine. It starts off as "It has been disputed at what period of life the causes of variability, whatever they may be, generally act;..."

Also sorry for the grammar. I have horrendous formal english. Not to mention it's not my first language. Not that I'll do better in my first language though. lol

by " ...how variability happens right before conception than anything else." I meant how variability isn't determined during embryo development or the moment of conception but rather it is determined right before that.

"animals really are impaired in their ability to reproduce in confinement."? Yes.

Sorry if this was the wrong section. I figured it didn't fit in the Biology section(Or any book forum). Plus it's specifically about a book... so yea... :<

So I started reading Origin of Species just for the lulz and at the second paragraph of the first chapter (Variation under Domestication) Darwin talks about how variability happens right before conception than anything else, that is that it doesn't happen during embryo development but rather at that point it was already determined, and says that his reason to believe so was how animals are generally impaired to reproduce when in confinement, sometimes without regard to the level of confinement, and goes on some examples that animals really are impaired to reproduce under confinement.

I was sort of with him when he said "But I am strongly inclined to suspect that the most frequent cause of variability may be attributed to the male and female reproductive elements having been affected prior to the act of conception." since that made sense to me. He lost me though when he said that this conclusion of his was chiefly based from the "... remarkable effect which confinement or cultivation has on the functions of the reproductive systems..."

Now my concern is how did he arrive at that conclusion that variation does not happen on or after conception with the idea that animals cannot reproduce in confinement. Unless I completely read that wrong, I can't follow his reasoning.