Yaani wewe hauwezi lala ata siku moja bila kuni quote?:D:D:D
By the way, kwa roho safi, I know you’re a good guy and all, but this is how your posts look like:-
[INDENT][/INDENT]
[INDENT]The real culprit of the climate crisis is not any particular form of consumption, production or regulation but rather the very way in which we globally produce, which is for profit rather than for sustainability. So long as this order is in place, the crisis will continue and, given its progressive nature, worsen. This is a hard fact to confront. But averting our eyes from a seemingly intractable problem does not make it any less a problem. It should be stated plainly: It’s capitalism that is at fault.[/INDENT]
[INDENT][/INDENT]
[INDENT]As an increasing number of environmental groups are emphasizing, it’s systemic change or bust. From a political standpoint, something interesting has occurred here: Climate change has made anticapitalist struggle, for the first time in history, a non-class-based issue.[/INDENT]
[INDENT][/INDENT]
[INDENT]There are many reasons we do not typically talk about climate change in this way. The wealthy are holding fast to theirs. Bought politicians and state violence are on their side. Eco-apartheid is not yet seen as full-on apartheid. Everyday people have plenty to keep up with, and they don’t want to devote their precious time off work to often tedious political meetings. The inertia, it is sad to say, makes enough sense.[/INDENT]
[INDENT][/INDENT]
[INDENT]Perhaps the most common belief about this problem is that it is caused by widespread ignorance — even outright “stupidity” — and that its solution lies in its opposite, intelligence. This belief is neatly expressed in progressive opposition to Donald Trump and his administration. Trump voters are often criticized for being unintelligent, for voting against their objective interests. Trump himself is regularly portrayed as unintelligent.[/INDENT]
[INDENT][/INDENT]
[INDENT]The basic idea is that if voters were intelligent, they would vote for an intelligent person who listened to intelligent people and all would be well. It is a staple of the liberal imaginary. Reflected here is the obtuse belief that the populist tide is simply mistaken, that it has gotten something wrong, which has the effect of veiling the real and justified dissatisfaction with the past 40 years of neoliberalism. Also reflected is the common view, which is not confined to one end of the political spectrum, that our biggest problems are essentially technical ones, and that the solution to them lies in the empowerment of intelligent people. The aura around Elon Musk is an extreme example of this kind of thinking.[/INDENT]
[INDENT][/INDENT]
[INDENT]The problem with the general view that intelligence will save us is that it involves pinning the failures of capitalist society on supposedly dumb people (them), who, so the logic goes, need to be replaced with supposedly smart ones (us). This is a spectacular delusion.[/INDENT]
[INDENT][/INDENT]
[INDENT]When a company makes a decision that is destructive to the environment, for instance, it is not because there are bad or unintelligent people in charge: Directors typically have a fiduciary responsibility that makes the bottom line their only priority. They serve a function, and if they don’t, others can take their place. If something goes wrong — which is to say, if something endangers profit making — they can serve as convenient scapegoats, but any stupid or dangerous decisions they make result from being personifications of capital.[/INDENT]
[INDENT][/INDENT]
[INDENT]The claim here is not that unintelligent people do not do unintelligent things, but rather that the overwhelming unintelligence involved in keeping the engines of production roaring when they are making the planet increasingly uninhabitable cannot be pinned on specific people. It is the system as a whole that is at issue, and every time we pick out bumbling morons to lament or fresh-faced geniuses to praise is a missed opportunity to see plainly the necessity of structural change.[/INDENT]
[INDENT][/INDENT]
[INDENT]Put differently, the hope that we can empower intelligent people to positions where they can design the perfect set of regulations, or that we can rely on scientists to take the carbon out of the atmosphere and engineer sources of renewable energy, serves to cover over the simple fact that the work of saving the planet is political, not technical. We have a much better chance of making it past the 22nd century if environmental regulations are designed by a team of people with no formal education in a democratic socialist society than we do if they are made by a team of the most esteemed scientific luminaries in a capitalist society. The intelligence of the brightest people around is no match for the rampant stupidity of capitalism.[/INDENT]
[INDENT][/INDENT]
[INDENT]On the defensive for centuries, socialists have become quite adept at responding to objections from people for whom the basic functions of life seem difficult to reproduce without the motive power of capital. There are real issues here, issues that point to the opacity of sociability, as Bini Adamczak’s recent book, “Communism for Kids,” playfully explores. But the burden of justification should not fall on the shoulders of those putting forward an alternative. For anyone who has really thought about the climate crisis, it is capitalism, and not its transcendence, that is in need of justification. And don’t be surprised, or fooled, when its defenders point to the tireless work of intelligent people. [/INDENT]
[INDENT][/INDENT]
[INDENT]There were many theories of evolution before Darwin. All of them share the idea that species change slowly over time, generally in a way that makes them better suited to survival and reproduction in their environment. Evolution in this sense was widely accepted in the time before Darwin, including by most religious theologians. These theories differ in the mechanism by which this evolution process supposedly happens. For example, one theory is that God planned it this way and so these evolutionary changes are following a pre-ordained plan. This is the “intelligent design” version of the theory. Another theory is that individuals learn things and pass them on to their children. This is the Lamarckian version of the theory.[/INDENT]
[INDENT][/INDENT]
[INDENT]Darwin studied animal species all over the world, especially in the Galapagos islands, and compared notes with another naturalist named Alfred Russell Wallace, who studied species in Australia and Southeast Asia. Both came to the conclusion that there’s a third and more logical explanation, namely that accidental differences in individuals that cause them to have advantages that result in more reproductive success will eventually result in changes that make the species better suited to survival and success in their environments. For example, in The Origin of Species, Darwin talks about birds on different islands that were similar and obviously related, but had different size and shape beaks. These could be attributed to the different kinds of foods available on these different islands and the beaks being ideally suited to the kinds of foods on each bird’s home island.[/INDENT]
[INDENT][/INDENT]
[INDENT]The big difference here is that the Darwinian theory posits that changes occur as a result of a very long sequence of small, random changes rather than some designed process or some learned characteristic. And it turns out that pretty much all the evidence supports this Darwinian/Wallace version more so than any of the other theories. In particular, what we know about genetics (DNA, etc.) strongly supports the Darwinian theory and also helps explain in more detail how it works.[/INDENT]
[INDENT][/INDENT]
[INDENT]Here’s a simplified version of how it works.[/INDENT]
[INDENT][/INDENT]
[INDENT]The idea is that all offspring of any species are slightly different from each other. We know this from our own experience. Brothers and sisters are not all the same. This is sometimes called diversity or diversification. Note that these differences are reflected in their genes - there are very slight genetic differences, for example, between your dark haired offspring and your light haired offspring. Sometimes, one of those differences will convey a slight advantage. For example, in humans, an offspring might be a little taller or a little stronger or better at producing healthy babies or better looking or a little better at something else that matters. This makes that particular offspring a bit more attractive to potential mates and thus perhaps results in that offspring having slightly more children (on average) than others. Those children are more likely to also have that advantage (that extra height or whatever) and if it really does result in an advantage, over a very long time (thousands of generations) you end up with a large group of people having that specific advantage and they are more numerous than the offspring of people without that advantage.[/INDENT]
[INDENT][/INDENT]
[INDENT]An example of how this is believed to have worked in practice is the migration of humans from Africa to Europe, perhaps 20 or 30 million years ago. In Africa, dark skin protects one from damage due to the hot sun. Thus it is an advantage when you live near the equator. Also, because of the intensity of the sun near the equator, the body absorbs more vitamin D from sunshine. But in Europe, where the sun is not so hot, dark skin is less advantageous. The sun is not so bright and hot. Furthermore, there is less vitamin D to be absorbed. Light skin allows more vitamin D to be absorbed, and thus is an advantage for those living in Europe. So if an offspring living in Europe had lighter skin than his or her siblings, they would likely be slightly healthier and slightly more likely to reproduce. Multiply this over millions of years and the result is that Europeans all tend to have light skin. It makes them better suited to survival and reproductive success in their environment (Europe).[/INDENT]
[INDENT][/INDENT]
[INDENT]Note that all theories of evolution rely on the Earth being a lot older than the 6000 or so years sometimes claimed by certain fundamentalists, although the way they come up with that number is strictly a matter of how they interpret the bible or some other scripture - the age of the earth is not actually stated anywhere in any of those sources. Moreover, archeologists have provided an abundance of evidence that the Earth is, indeed, millions of years old, that humans originated about 30 million years ago in Africa, and that various intermediate forms of humans and other species did exist.[/INDENT]
[INDENT][/INDENT]
[INDENT] [SIZE=7] HINT: [/SIZE][/INDENT]
[INDENT][SIZE=7]http://www.relevance.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Aint-nobody-got-time-for-that.jpg [/SIZE][/INDENT]
