Lay off of kettle, pot. You're not adding anything with your 'slashdot sucks, it's just an echo chamber, no wonder Taco left' redundancy. You're not original or insightful either. The only difference is that you parrot negatives because you think that makes you edgy. Well zzzzzzzzzzz.
... and then you'll be privy to all the excitement of setting up traffic detours and hanging around construction sites! Auxiliary police do nothing but harmless gopher work.
And this is why I'm not taking a lot of effort to discuss it. It's clear you really don't understand it. Offspring with Down's are less likely to survive and reproduce, so mothers who had and primarily utilized late fertility would actually be less likely to successfully continue their lineage. Mothers who primarily used their fertility early would be more successful. There's no group selection dynamic to that at all.
You're conflating kin selection with group selection. Beyond that, far as I'm concerned all the sterile offspring of an ant queen are for most intents and purposes extensions of the queen as a superorganism. The sterile workers don't have a separate existence, and are almost as much a part of the queen as another animal's armor or other biological adaptation.
It's more likely to prevent the addition of tons of offspring with Down's. The chances of mentally disabled kids skyrocket as mothers enter their 40s. Quite frankly I think it's irresponsible to have children at such at age since the likelihood of Down's approaches one in twenty.
Evopsych != natural selection. People really need to stop imagining that all the complex social shit has a demonstrable effect on allele composition and effect. Turning off geriatric sex drive would simply have to have a greater positive effect on reproduction than a negative one. Apparently it doesn't, and in fact no post-fertility behavior can impact genetic traits downstream except where it involves the care for the young (which by extension includes survivability).
Group selection has been debunked. Only genes that reproduce have effects. The end.
From my own personal experience this is false. I was extremely interested in sexuality in my prepubescent adolescence. I found some dirty magazines in the woods when I was 10 or so and was thoroughly obsessed with them. I started browsing porn when I was 12, and I feel my obsession was fueled primarily by the way my parents similarly obsessed with keeping me away from it. It was a secret amazing forbidden fruit, and I was fascinated by that.
If my parents were more like the way I am now as a parent and treated sexuality as just another natural thing, I probably would have had a "normal" tepid interest as a prepubescent. The more you highlight something as special and forbidden that is also undeniably abstracted as a sign of maturity and right of passage, the more fascinated those minors will be who have any initiative and curiosity.
Religion only becomes more moral as it abandons itself. The Bible is quite clear that demonic possession occurs (Matt 8:28) and that witches should be killed (Exodus 22:18). You either admit that the Bible is immoral and abandon it, or you follow it in exorcising imaginary forces from people with mental problems and killing innocents who happen not to share your religious views.
I have a hard time believing that. I've had a fair number of -1s, but they haven't cancelled out my +5s or taken me out of the mod pool and my karma remains maxed. Your karma couldn't have been that great if one post undid everything. That isn't to say maybe you pissed off one of the editors who tweaked your account.
There is no monolithic "Christianity", albeit the Catholic church came close to becoming it, for no other reason than Constantine (and therefore the Roman state and all the European successors who have fought vainly for the phantom of its mantle) threw his weight behind them so they could kill everybody who disagreed. I suggest you examine some of the diverse positions taken within the early church.
"Nor does the church promote it" my ass. Why do you think there are all these other Catholics and ex-Catholics in here going 'oh yeah I had the same experience!' Did it ever occur to you that maybe your specific parish was the odd one out, if indeed, and I rather doubt, it was. My wife was raised Catholic and she dumped the religion in part for the same reason. She experienced the same things both at church and in her parochial schools. It's systemic, and either you were extremely lucky (more likely extremely blind) or you're just lying to cover up the reality of emotional manipulation and abuse in your cult.
It's the god that Jesus said was his father. The god who sure as hell played favorites with a "chosen people" who were given divine commands to kill all the infidels, not to mention all the petty squabbles about birthrights among the leading patriarchs and progeny.
Your "Christian" god is heresy, as you're describing the conception of Christianity as viewed by Marcion of Sinope, who was excommunicated for it.
Christians would do well to research their religion fully, and they will perhaps realize their religion is morally detestable, and that anybody who opens their eyes and questions it is kicked out, lethally if the tempora's mores are willing. (Forgive me, Cicero.)
These people want to believe they are victims at all times regardless of facts. I wish their fantasies were true and the media were ignoring them so I wouldn't have to hear about their anarcho-syndicalist entitlement nonsense all the time now.
Yes, the rate of reclamation for steel and such is a fact, and that's all well and good and a lovely attempt at trying to change the subject. The same is not true of what I was talking about, rare earths.
Also your cited hyperbolic rhetorician (I told the Chinese that if they used bricks they would destroy all their soil and burn all their coal... durrrrrrrrr... because I have no idea that you don't make bricks from topsoil and coal isn't the only source of heat... durrrrrrr), who acts like he invented putting grass on top of everything, does not substantively demonstrate this near-perfect local renewability that you want to claim. It's not hard to grow things on roofs designed to support soil, nor hard to get methane out of sewage or smelt metal or whatever. What's hard is the real world where everything isn't in a hypothetical closed system, where people will need resources that just do not and cannot exist in their square mile.
A lathe is just a motor? Really? I guess you should tell all the machinists they've been wasting their time with all that horsepower when they could have been doing the job with some tiny shit recovered from discarded vibrators. Engineering is about thresholds, and you must have equipment of a certain quality and capacity to produce things of similar quality and capacity. A press is not "just" a hydraulic cylinder if the thing you need to press provides more resistance than your hydraulics can overcome. Then all you have is scrap when all your shit breaks.
And then you try to attack efficiency itself? Please.
I shouldn't have to explain this, but its inefficient and wasteful to have to build the means to produce each thing for each thing produced. That was the point of the car factory analogy. If each household has the means to produce its own car, that necessitates producing those means, instantly magnifying the required resources, and then those resources (production means) are inefficiently used for less work. When a centralized production produces many, many things with the same equipment, it reduces costs and the drain on materials.
I did not design the IQ tests I've taken, so it is hardly self-assessment. Further, most people do not have monuments built to them in their twenties. Lastly, because I fall into the 'problem-solver' category, most of what I do is largely invisible (and since I work for the government under a security clearance, I can't talk about it either). I fix things and integrate things. I will readily admit I'm terribly unoriginal and uncreative and devoid of artistic talent when it comes to making anything from absolute scratch.
If by some miracle we succeed at making machines that can fix themselves 100% of the time, I would be capable of falling back on my extensive study of the humanities, which is more or less what I plan to do anyway. The sort of break-fix stuff in IT that I actually enjoy doesn't pay well, and rather than continue doing work that pays better at the cost of submerging my sanity in a sea of ennui, I intend to go back to school and get the graduate degrees necessary to teach history (probably Chinese history specifically) at a university level, at which point I would start appearing in textbooks and journals.
For somebody my age I am very skilled and productive and provide well for my family. Even if I currently would not place highly in the strata of a future economy by the standards and metrics you arbitrarily select, that too ignores that this future economy does not exist and was not a structure I would have perceived and adapted to maximize in my personal development. In other words, if the fundamental environment were different, my development and present situation would also be similarly different. However, the point is that it would be the intrinsic elements and capacity which would allow me to succeed personally as well or better in a different model as I do in the current model, whereas others' intrinsic limitations would leave them bereft in such hypothetical economies.
It may come as news to you, but raw materials don't just poof themselves into existence. Extraction requires huge amounts of infrastructure investment, and some extraction industries like rare earths must be done on massive scales simply to be efficient.
And then there's transportation, you've got to move all those logs/ingots/barrels around, and you've got the efficiency of the logistical support of the transportation, the smaller you make the transportation units the more logistical support you need to keep them maintained. It seems to me you are divorced completely from the realities of efficiencies from scale.
I wager you imagine some desktop manufacturing utopia, and I wouldn't mind one myself, but that's just not current technology, nor is it really an efficient use of resources. We can't make everything out of chintzy polymers, and it's rather inefficient to give every household a multi-axis lathe or whatever just to make a few things and then sit idle in the basement.
Centralizing manufacturing is fundamentally more efficient. When you stand up the resources for a car factory and build thousands of cars, that makes more sense and is more efficient than an individual acquiring all the lathes and presses and welders etc. etc. to build ONE or TWO cars for themselves, and then what? Nonsense.
For the record, I'm all for the abolition of the Federal Reserve, but that's because I ascribe to Austrian economics.
Lastly, your scare quotes are quite appropriate, as any demarcation depends entirely on one's definition of 'useful' and 'work'.
I should thank you for giving me the opportunity to brag about myself a bit. I have an IQ of around 144, and I consume non-fiction across the length and breadth of the humanities at a fairly rapid rate. I'm a rabid individualist who would rather learn how to fix something than pay somebody else. When just about anything stops working, I don't think 'who will fix it?' I think 'get the fuck out of the way useless twits and give me and my Leatherman some room.' I can read and build circuits from schematics, I can design, build and maintain computers, networks, databases, and applications (albeit shitty ones, I'm not a good programmer, but I can still program). But the fundamental reason I am not stupid is not my IQ or what I know, it is my adaptability and autodidactic nature. I can learn damn near anything (except foreign languages) roughly thrice as fast as others, on the fly and without reference.
The second part of your criticism seems to derive from a massive miscalculation about what motivates large portions of the economy. Needs? Ha. People do not get excited about toilet paper. People will pay others to develop anything they perceive as fun and interesting, regardless of its necessity or even utility. I don't need a custom hand-forged jian, but I've commissioned one because having one is exciting to me.
There will always be room for true innovators, artisans, and problem-solvers no matter how far humanity progresses. None of this addresses what happens to people who have not and will not or cannot developed themselves beyond the ability to mop tile floors.
A future economy which has essentially eliminated the scarcity and/or labor cost of material needs requires full scale automation of agriculture and manufacturing. This is at odds with two shibboleths of society: the family farm and unions. The former can't afford to automate (and it would ruin their bucolic romanticism if they did), and the latter is fundamentally opposed to it on the grounds that it would be outside of the immediate best interests of their constituency and their own organizational existence.
The other aspect that people don't want to have to face is... whither stupidity? If we automate all the labor-intensive work that fuels the essential material needs of civilization, what are we going to do with all the janitors and nut-tighteners? Is it truly optimal to create a future economy where perhaps less than 30% of people do useful work and more than 70% of people who are too dumb for anything else simply wander around between bread and circuses provided by their robot slaves?
There are solutions to the problem, but not ones that people are likely to accept (anymore than they would the transition). We are rapidly approaching a point where we could genetically engineer a more intelligent baseline and institute controls on having unmodified children, but the masses would scream "eugenics!" and out would come the pitchforks. (Being a libertarian I too would be opposed to an imposition on the right of private persons to have children on their own terms.)
So your utopian economy is more or less impossible in the current social reality. Maybe a few generations after the singularity when people are more used to the positive aspects of genetic modification it might be possible.
That analogy is false on its face. In the first place there is nothing even inherently illegal about a better accountant doing taxes better. A reasonable person assumes that a credentialed accountant is acting legally and in good faith unless something indicates otherwise.
And this you contrast with (inherently criminal) plotting to attack the government and kill people? The minimum requirement to sign on to such an effort is, duh, an intent to kill people. That's about as 'much different' as you can get in the same universe.
And why wasn't this true ten years ago? Consoles have always been a generation or three behind the bleeding edge PC because their design specs a) must be finalized well in advance to get devs on board to make good launch titles and b) must be affordable enough that more people will buy them than gaming PCs or their competitors' consoles.
Even after another decade I don't see this changing.
Never is a really long time. I have a feeling you'll be eating your words in a few decades. (And whatever 'consensus' you're referring to is likely a luddite echo chamber.)
They're still leaving, and expect another exodus now that they're breaking the synergy between physical media and streaming. It's hard to say how long and how far the domino effect will go.
Clarity is in fact achieved by using the most appropriate words to both denote and connote a full spectrum of meaning. Anything less leads to oversimplifications and misunderstandings. If readers/listeners are inadequately educated to absorb the conveyance of all the details, the onus is on them to rise to that level of understanding, not the speaker to lower himself to pander to their shortcomings. That is unless he is a politician. (Ha ha!)
Further, while not all arguments by analogy are considered fallacious, the ones which are not are essentially those for which no other argument is possible (those things which are so abstract or poorly understood that hard facts either don't apply or don't yet exist, respectively). Arguments about such topics are usually nothing more than metaphysical pissing contests between sophists, so for those areas for which a significant amount of real information exists, arguments by analogy are usually to some degree fallacious.
Whether societies or markets are like or unlike evolution and natural selection is at most a tool for understanding models of behavior, not a justification or validation of actions within either the physical reality or its abstraction through said models. If conservatives "proved" that society was just like evolution, or liberals "proved" that it wasn't, neither would actually demonstrate which mode of action is more "right" or "moral" because evolution itself is an amoral natural phenomenon. Nature is full of brutalities, and the argument from natureis a fallacy.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought that was R. Kelly's defense?
Lay off of kettle, pot. You're not adding anything with your 'slashdot sucks, it's just an echo chamber, no wonder Taco left' redundancy. You're not original or insightful either. The only difference is that you parrot negatives because you think that makes you edgy. Well zzzzzzzzzzz.
... and then you'll be privy to all the excitement of setting up traffic detours and hanging around construction sites! Auxiliary police do nothing but harmless gopher work.
And this is why I'm not taking a lot of effort to discuss it. It's clear you really don't understand it. Offspring with Down's are less likely to survive and reproduce, so mothers who had and primarily utilized late fertility would actually be less likely to successfully continue their lineage. Mothers who primarily used their fertility early would be more successful. There's no group selection dynamic to that at all.
You're conflating kin selection with group selection. Beyond that, far as I'm concerned all the sterile offspring of an ant queen are for most intents and purposes extensions of the queen as a superorganism. The sterile workers don't have a separate existence, and are almost as much a part of the queen as another animal's armor or other biological adaptation.
It's more likely to prevent the addition of tons of offspring with Down's. The chances of mentally disabled kids skyrocket as mothers enter their 40s. Quite frankly I think it's irresponsible to have children at such at age since the likelihood of Down's approaches one in twenty.
Evopsych != natural selection. People really need to stop imagining that all the complex social shit has a demonstrable effect on allele composition and effect. Turning off geriatric sex drive would simply have to have a greater positive effect on reproduction than a negative one. Apparently it doesn't, and in fact no post-fertility behavior can impact genetic traits downstream except where it involves the care for the young (which by extension includes survivability).
Group selection has been debunked. Only genes that reproduce have effects. The end.
From my own personal experience this is false. I was extremely interested in sexuality in my prepubescent adolescence. I found some dirty magazines in the woods when I was 10 or so and was thoroughly obsessed with them. I started browsing porn when I was 12, and I feel my obsession was fueled primarily by the way my parents similarly obsessed with keeping me away from it. It was a secret amazing forbidden fruit, and I was fascinated by that.
If my parents were more like the way I am now as a parent and treated sexuality as just another natural thing, I probably would have had a "normal" tepid interest as a prepubescent. The more you highlight something as special and forbidden that is also undeniably abstracted as a sign of maturity and right of passage, the more fascinated those minors will be who have any initiative and curiosity.
"Ceremonies" "catechism"
Religion only becomes more moral as it abandons itself. The Bible is quite clear that demonic possession occurs (Matt 8:28) and that witches should be killed (Exodus 22:18). You either admit that the Bible is immoral and abandon it, or you follow it in exorcising imaginary forces from people with mental problems and killing innocents who happen not to share your religious views.
I have a hard time believing that. I've had a fair number of -1s, but they haven't cancelled out my +5s or taken me out of the mod pool and my karma remains maxed. Your karma couldn't have been that great if one post undid everything. That isn't to say maybe you pissed off one of the editors who tweaked your account.
There is no monolithic "Christianity", albeit the Catholic church came close to becoming it, for no other reason than Constantine (and therefore the Roman state and all the European successors who have fought vainly for the phantom of its mantle) threw his weight behind them so they could kill everybody who disagreed. I suggest you examine some of the diverse positions taken within the early church.
Study history.
"Nor does the church promote it" my ass. Why do you think there are all these other Catholics and ex-Catholics in here going 'oh yeah I had the same experience!' Did it ever occur to you that maybe your specific parish was the odd one out, if indeed, and I rather doubt, it was. My wife was raised Catholic and she dumped the religion in part for the same reason. She experienced the same things both at church and in her parochial schools. It's systemic, and either you were extremely lucky (more likely extremely blind) or you're just lying to cover up the reality of emotional manipulation and abuse in your cult.
It's the god that Jesus said was his father. The god who sure as hell played favorites with a "chosen people" who were given divine commands to kill all the infidels, not to mention all the petty squabbles about birthrights among the leading patriarchs and progeny.
Your "Christian" god is heresy, as you're describing the conception of Christianity as viewed by Marcion of Sinope, who was excommunicated for it.
Christians would do well to research their religion fully, and they will perhaps realize their religion is morally detestable, and that anybody who opens their eyes and questions it is kicked out, lethally if the tempora's mores are willing. (Forgive me, Cicero.)
These people want to believe they are victims at all times regardless of facts. I wish their fantasies were true and the media were ignoring them so I wouldn't have to hear about their anarcho-syndicalist entitlement nonsense all the time now.
Only those youth who never saw "The Way to Eden".
Bullshit.
Yes, the rate of reclamation for steel and such is a fact, and that's all well and good and a lovely attempt at trying to change the subject. The same is not true of what I was talking about, rare earths.
Also your cited hyperbolic rhetorician (I told the Chinese that if they used bricks they would destroy all their soil and burn all their coal... durrrrrrrrr... because I have no idea that you don't make bricks from topsoil and coal isn't the only source of heat... durrrrrrr), who acts like he invented putting grass on top of everything, does not substantively demonstrate this near-perfect local renewability that you want to claim. It's not hard to grow things on roofs designed to support soil, nor hard to get methane out of sewage or smelt metal or whatever. What's hard is the real world where everything isn't in a hypothetical closed system, where people will need resources that just do not and cannot exist in their square mile.
A lathe is just a motor? Really? I guess you should tell all the machinists they've been wasting their time with all that horsepower when they could have been doing the job with some tiny shit recovered from discarded vibrators. Engineering is about thresholds, and you must have equipment of a certain quality and capacity to produce things of similar quality and capacity. A press is not "just" a hydraulic cylinder if the thing you need to press provides more resistance than your hydraulics can overcome. Then all you have is scrap when all your shit breaks.
And then you try to attack efficiency itself? Please.
I shouldn't have to explain this, but its inefficient and wasteful to have to build the means to produce each thing for each thing produced. That was the point of the car factory analogy. If each household has the means to produce its own car, that necessitates producing those means, instantly magnifying the required resources, and then those resources (production means) are inefficiently used for less work. When a centralized production produces many, many things with the same equipment, it reduces costs and the drain on materials.
I did not design the IQ tests I've taken, so it is hardly self-assessment. Further, most people do not have monuments built to them in their twenties. Lastly, because I fall into the 'problem-solver' category, most of what I do is largely invisible (and since I work for the government under a security clearance, I can't talk about it either). I fix things and integrate things. I will readily admit I'm terribly unoriginal and uncreative and devoid of artistic talent when it comes to making anything from absolute scratch.
If by some miracle we succeed at making machines that can fix themselves 100% of the time, I would be capable of falling back on my extensive study of the humanities, which is more or less what I plan to do anyway. The sort of break-fix stuff in IT that I actually enjoy doesn't pay well, and rather than continue doing work that pays better at the cost of submerging my sanity in a sea of ennui, I intend to go back to school and get the graduate degrees necessary to teach history (probably Chinese history specifically) at a university level, at which point I would start appearing in textbooks and journals.
For somebody my age I am very skilled and productive and provide well for my family. Even if I currently would not place highly in the strata of a future economy by the standards and metrics you arbitrarily select, that too ignores that this future economy does not exist and was not a structure I would have perceived and adapted to maximize in my personal development. In other words, if the fundamental environment were different, my development and present situation would also be similarly different. However, the point is that it would be the intrinsic elements and capacity which would allow me to succeed personally as well or better in a different model as I do in the current model, whereas others' intrinsic limitations would leave them bereft in such hypothetical economies.
It may come as news to you, but raw materials don't just poof themselves into existence. Extraction requires huge amounts of infrastructure investment, and some extraction industries like rare earths must be done on massive scales simply to be efficient.
And then there's transportation, you've got to move all those logs/ingots/barrels around, and you've got the efficiency of the logistical support of the transportation, the smaller you make the transportation units the more logistical support you need to keep them maintained. It seems to me you are divorced completely from the realities of efficiencies from scale.
I wager you imagine some desktop manufacturing utopia, and I wouldn't mind one myself, but that's just not current technology, nor is it really an efficient use of resources. We can't make everything out of chintzy polymers, and it's rather inefficient to give every household a multi-axis lathe or whatever just to make a few things and then sit idle in the basement.
Centralizing manufacturing is fundamentally more efficient. When you stand up the resources for a car factory and build thousands of cars, that makes more sense and is more efficient than an individual acquiring all the lathes and presses and welders etc. etc. to build ONE or TWO cars for themselves, and then what? Nonsense.
For the record, I'm all for the abolition of the Federal Reserve, but that's because I ascribe to Austrian economics.
Lastly, your scare quotes are quite appropriate, as any demarcation depends entirely on one's definition of 'useful' and 'work'.
I should thank you for giving me the opportunity to brag about myself a bit. I have an IQ of around 144, and I consume non-fiction across the length and breadth of the humanities at a fairly rapid rate. I'm a rabid individualist who would rather learn how to fix something than pay somebody else. When just about anything stops working, I don't think 'who will fix it?' I think 'get the fuck out of the way useless twits and give me and my Leatherman some room.' I can read and build circuits from schematics, I can design, build and maintain computers, networks, databases, and applications (albeit shitty ones, I'm not a good programmer, but I can still program). But the fundamental reason I am not stupid is not my IQ or what I know, it is my adaptability and autodidactic nature. I can learn damn near anything (except foreign languages) roughly thrice as fast as others, on the fly and without reference.
The second part of your criticism seems to derive from a massive miscalculation about what motivates large portions of the economy. Needs? Ha. People do not get excited about toilet paper. People will pay others to develop anything they perceive as fun and interesting, regardless of its necessity or even utility. I don't need a custom hand-forged jian, but I've commissioned one because having one is exciting to me.
There will always be room for true innovators, artisans, and problem-solvers no matter how far humanity progresses. None of this addresses what happens to people who have not and will not or cannot developed themselves beyond the ability to mop tile floors.
A future economy which has essentially eliminated the scarcity and/or labor cost of material needs requires full scale automation of agriculture and manufacturing. This is at odds with two shibboleths of society: the family farm and unions. The former can't afford to automate (and it would ruin their bucolic romanticism if they did), and the latter is fundamentally opposed to it on the grounds that it would be outside of the immediate best interests of their constituency and their own organizational existence.
The other aspect that people don't want to have to face is... whither stupidity? If we automate all the labor-intensive work that fuels the essential material needs of civilization, what are we going to do with all the janitors and nut-tighteners? Is it truly optimal to create a future economy where perhaps less than 30% of people do useful work and more than 70% of people who are too dumb for anything else simply wander around between bread and circuses provided by their robot slaves?
There are solutions to the problem, but not ones that people are likely to accept (anymore than they would the transition). We are rapidly approaching a point where we could genetically engineer a more intelligent baseline and institute controls on having unmodified children, but the masses would scream "eugenics!" and out would come the pitchforks. (Being a libertarian I too would be opposed to an imposition on the right of private persons to have children on their own terms.)
So your utopian economy is more or less impossible in the current social reality. Maybe a few generations after the singularity when people are more used to the positive aspects of genetic modification it might be possible.
That analogy is false on its face. In the first place there is nothing even inherently illegal about a better accountant doing taxes better. A reasonable person assumes that a credentialed accountant is acting legally and in good faith unless something indicates otherwise.
And this you contrast with (inherently criminal) plotting to attack the government and kill people? The minimum requirement to sign on to such an effort is, duh, an intent to kill people. That's about as 'much different' as you can get in the same universe.
And why wasn't this true ten years ago? Consoles have always been a generation or three behind the bleeding edge PC because their design specs a) must be finalized well in advance to get devs on board to make good launch titles and b) must be affordable enough that more people will buy them than gaming PCs or their competitors' consoles.
Even after another decade I don't see this changing.
Never is a really long time. I have a feeling you'll be eating your words in a few decades. (And whatever 'consensus' you're referring to is likely a luddite echo chamber.)
They're still leaving, and expect another exodus now that they're breaking the synergy between physical media and streaming. It's hard to say how long and how far the domino effect will go.
Clarity is in fact achieved by using the most appropriate words to both denote and connote a full spectrum of meaning. Anything less leads to oversimplifications and misunderstandings. If readers/listeners are inadequately educated to absorb the conveyance of all the details, the onus is on them to rise to that level of understanding, not the speaker to lower himself to pander to their shortcomings. That is unless he is a politician. (Ha ha!)
Further, while not all arguments by analogy are considered fallacious, the ones which are not are essentially those for which no other argument is possible (those things which are so abstract or poorly understood that hard facts either don't apply or don't yet exist, respectively). Arguments about such topics are usually nothing more than metaphysical pissing contests between sophists, so for those areas for which a significant amount of real information exists, arguments by analogy are usually to some degree fallacious.
Whether societies or markets are like or unlike evolution and natural selection is at most a tool for understanding models of behavior, not a justification or validation of actions within either the physical reality or its abstraction through said models. If conservatives "proved" that society was just like evolution, or liberals "proved" that it wasn't, neither would actually demonstrate which mode of action is more "right" or "moral" because evolution itself is an amoral natural phenomenon. Nature is full of brutalities, and the argument from nature is a fallacy.