Is bush superior to us (in an evolutionary way)?

[The Straight Story]

No god. No afterlife. No reason to care about the world outside of yourself. Why care for the homeless, the sick, anyone really?

If evolution is survival of the fittest (loosely speaking) than is not bush way up the food chain from us? He has the power, he probably won by cheating (which may show a more advanced species in some ways), and we have little. To the strong go the race, and he is in power.

Sure he might aid in the destruction of the world as we know it, but why should he care? He has his bunkers and lackeys. He will be ok - and since there is no afterlife and judgement of mankind why should he ever care about others?? Why should anyone really?

I am not being totally sarcastic really. The human race can come and go, but if we die after maybe 80 years why should we care about those that come after us, what incentive do we have to care? Live life to the fullest, use others, kill others, make all the money you can, grab all the power you can, and change the world as you can to suit your desires. That includes cheating in elections as well.

Bush won, whether cheating was there or not. He will be sworn in. He has what he wants. He suceeded and we did not. With no god, no higher power, we are left with bush as one of the highest powers in the world. You and I are not in that position. If he engineered 9/11 for his gain, so what? He won. Why should he care about morals in a scientific world without a higher power? Why care about the climate? He won't be here to suffer from his decisions, his kids will be well taken care of.

Evolution: The earth will be gone someday (sun dying, meteorites, et al) or not really worth living on. There is no god. There is only today and what you have for yourself and your comfort level.

WHY should anyone care about others (unless they profit themselves - ie by helping others we help ourselves)? Who decides what is moral and 'right' - those in power to do so? If so, bush is in power and he gets to decide (which we should accept maybe because he rose to power).

IRAQ? Who cares who dies there? Why should you care? If they are not stong enough to make it then scientifically they deserve it.

OK - some sarcasm here in all this. My overall point/question revolves around - if there is no god or higher power, who sets the rules? Those in power - and bush is in power, so maybe from a scientific view he is our better (not a view I personally hold....)

[HeeBGBz]

1. Only if you are a mutant dung beetle

and that's pushing it.

[The Straight Story]

2. Personally I don't think he is of course

but from a scientific view how does one justify that? Does morals exist or only results which promote X?

I dunno, maybe I am confused somewhat on it all. As a christian I see a higher power in things (a larger law). But humanistically speaking - how can one really attack him when he is doing all the things he wants to do and getting away with it? Is that not a sign of something good within relation to life here? IE he is doing what is best for himself in the here and now and what is 'wrong' with that?

[opihimoimoi]

3. Absolute Power corrupts.

Its all in the History Books.... Bush has a good chance to destroy/hurt America with dumb decisions...just as many other idiots in charge did.

[The Straight Story]

4. But why should he care?

From a world perspective - if there is no higher power than man, he is in a position where he should not give a hoot about anyone other than himself really.

So what if he destroys america? I don't want him to obviously, but why should he as a human care what he does if there is nothing beyond the here and now???

[opihimoimoi]

7. If he truly does not care...then he is a very selfish man.

Usually, parents think about their kids... thats why he should care.

[Starlight]

5. I've thought about this, too.

And it bothers me. Evil, violent, self centered people without consciences really do tend to use war, assasination, fraud, theft, deceit, etc to destroy good, kind, gentle, nonviolent, selfless people. :(

[youthere]

6. I think you are confusing

evolutionary superiority(a.k.a. survival of the fittest) with the perils of selective inbreeding. Look at Barbara Bush(the elder). You can't tell me her parents weren't related.

[opihimoimoi]

8. At our level, Homo Sapiens, its gone beyond the survival of the

Fittest.... we should include wisdom too.

This we seem to ignore and much to our suprise..... its starting to result in negative returns.

[MrModerate]

9. I'm with the Dung Beetle guy . . .

Nihilism might seem like an evolutionary advance if the consequences come due after you die, but human beings are more complicated than that. In addition to lust for power, goodies, and nookie, we also have an intellect (well, some of us, anyway) that drives us to make decisions that mitigate the urgings of our reptile brains.

Someone famous (5 points for who, 10 points for when) alluded to "the better angels of our nature" -- a concept that works even if you don't believe in angels.

Social conscience (essential to the survival of a complex society), self control, moderation, honesty, fairness, these (and a million more) are evolutionary advances that seem strangely lacking in all the president's lackeys. <Does anyone know the etymology of lackey -- did I just make a pun or just a lower order of wordplay?>

So, to comfort the afflicted, no, Georgie is not an advance but a clear devolution toward primordial snot, and you can wish for whatever awful fate you feel he deserves without lowering yourself to his level.

P.S.: I just hit 100 posts, which makes me less than a tenth as verbose as most of the people here. A vote please: is that better or worse?