BTW, believing Christians and Jews–whose God by choice does not make Himself obvious to everyone, but reveals himself in specific ways on special occasions–should for that reason actually *expect* a naturalistic (if you prefer, a mechanistic) explanation for the origin of life and of consciousness. If it weren’t Darwinism, it would have to be something else just as offensive to the ID crowd.

And why do we have these desires? Why would God give them to us? God’s framework of evolution is designed to get the job done (keep the human race alive) for the as little energy as possible. That’s why we are coded to desire sex and not to desire wedding ceremonies, perfect relationship skills, and unforgiving love. Evolution faulted towards survival instincts that will on average bring the advancement of the species.

So think of all the money wasted each year on inefficient programs that worship the quixotic theory of the blank slate. Science gives us the facts and the advantage for learning how to deal with moral issues.

Stretching further into public policy it is important for us to realize our friend and enemy of evolution. Like Adam Smith’s invisible hand, we must realize that millions will die from evolution. What is important for us in public policy is to fund those programs which provide a basic quality of life instead of spending millions on inevitable diseases. Simple things like heart disease and cancer. It is better for us to give this choice to the individual when seeking coverage and instead look to providing pre-natal care and childhood health to all. We must stop fighting with the ruthless hand of evolution and pursue programs which will on the average benefit all of society.

I note that the three hedge-fund moguls whom I know (casually), with a combined personal income of over $6,000,000,000 (no misprint!) last year, are all extremely liberal on “social issues” and, perhaps, outright Social Democrats. Maybe they know something the free-market absolutists don’t.

The problem with “Darwin for Conservatives” and the automatic equation with the pseudo-science Spencerian “Social Darwinism” is that it ignores advances in both complexity theory and the shift of the various meanings of conservative (a term that has little agreed upon meaning these days other than “not a Liberal Democrat”).

That said, we must not forget that must charters of abundance do show that natural scarcity does make the current “economic paradigm” have more limits than our current opulence would lead, and ecological thinks really need to deal with economic thinkers and vice versa on how to deal with that.

Ultimately, science and evolutionary thinking (as well as economics) is too important to cater to left-/right- political “distinctions.”

Is that a fact? Tell that to the victims of the Enron and Tyco abuses. Tell that to everyone who will be suffering for years to come from the credit crises and other ramifications of the lax oversight of regulatory agencies over the banking system and the “shadow” banks.

I guess the operative word here is “excessive”. But how does one define it? I am sure that a Conservative is going to define it very differently from a Progressive.

So what, exactly, does the above clause mean anyway? Is most anti-trust legislation excessive? I’ll bet some on the right think so. After all, look at all the consolidation that has gone on in the past 25 years. Are free markets optimal with oligopoly? I think not but it doesn’t seem to bother too many in recent administrations.

How about some real balance. We don’t need more self-serving statements from financiers about too much government ALWAYS being the problem. We need to recognize that too little can also be a problem. Note that countries with much more “top-down direction” (planning?) have better health care, better transportation systems, etc. and may be more able to survive the coming economic and social dislocations as a result. Consequently, in the long run, Darwinism may ensure that we either adapt to a different model or perish.

Around the world, rising food prices have made basic staples like rice and corn unaffordable for many people, pushing the poor to the barricades because they can no longer get enough to eat. But the worst is yet to come.

Fort Dimanche, a former prison in the hills above the Haitian capital Port-au-Prince, is a hell on earth. In the past, it was home to the torture chambers of former dictator “Baby Doc” Duvalier’s death squads, the Tontons Macoutes. Today thousands of impoverished Haitians live in the prison’s grounds, digging through piles of garbage for food. But even dogs find little to eat there.”

On the roof of the former prison, enterprising women prepare something that looks like biscuits and is even called by that name. The key ingredient, yellow clay, is trucked in from the nearby mountains. The clay is combined with salt and vegetable fat to make dough, which is then dried in the sun.

For many Haitians, the mud biscuits are their only food. They taste of fat, suck the moisture out of the mouth and leave behind an aftertaste of dirt. They often cause diarrhea, but they help to numb the pangs of hunger. “I’m hoping one day I’ll have enough food to eat, so I can stop eating these,” Marie Noël, who survives with her seven children on the dirt cakes, told the Associated Press.

The shortages triggered revolts in Haiti last week. A crowd of hungry citizens marched through Port-au-Prince, throwing stones and bottles and chanting, “We are hungry!” in front of the presidential palace. Tires were burned, and people died. It was yet another of the rebellions that are beginning to occur with increasing frequency worldwide, but which are still only a harbinger of what is yet to come.”
________________________________

“Even When Times Get Tough, the Ultra-rich Keep Spending,”
NYT, April 14, 2008

…“Many businesses that cater to the superrich report that clients—many of them trades and private equity investors whose work is tied to Wall Street—are still splurging on multimillion-dollar Manhattan apartments, custom-built yachts, contemporary art and lavish parties.

“Buyers this year have already closed on 71 Manhattan apartments that each cost more than $10 million, compared with 17 apartments in that price range during all of 2007… And the GoodBar, a downtown lounge, reports that bankers continue to order $3,000 bottles of Rémy Martin Louis XIII cognac.”

The article describes a party planned for May 10 at the exclusive Plaza Hotel. “It will feature a dozen female string musicians made up to look like statues and clothed in dresses of fresh flowers, like roses and gardenias. There will be caviar and cognac bars, as well as a buffet designed to visually replicate 17th-century Dutch paintings from the recent Metropolitan Museum of Art exhibit, ‘The Age of Rembrandt.’”