Re: Replacing babies (was Re: PROPOSAL: Alt.terriorism.american)

Bryant (
7 May 1995 11:23:08 -0600

In article <>,
Eric Shook <Panopticon@oubliette.COM> wrote:

[In response to a cross post from a fellow contributing to a thread about
social Darwinism:]
>Michael, you are only attempting to involve us on your behalf. We are
>already well aware that there are continuous arguments about this. You
>really only are asking that we join in on this thrash fest. We decline.
>No serious anthropologist will waste his time. (Me? I'm only a serious
>beginner.) The material refuting your opponents is already published.

What a shame. The Big Bang, various threads on whether or no God exists,
and other nonsense gets extended play here at sci.anthro, but you refuse
to share your expertese on a misguided line of "Darwinian" (Spencerian)
thinking to which many laypeople subscribe. As a member of the academy,
I thought that part of our mission is to contribute to the general

>But don't cross post the drivel here, please.
>-- Eric Nelson --
>University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee:

Mike, Eric doesn't own the Internet. He can ignore your thread just like
he can ignore the ones about cosmology and mysticism, if he's so
inclined. It's important that rational arguments be presented to a
public all to eager to buy into Spencerian rationalizations for immoral
behavior. I, like you, would have thought that anthropologists would
have an interest in contributing to such arguments. They're more than
willing to characterize human sociobiologists' research as dangerous and
wrong; I cannot imagine why they would attack you for inviting
contributions regarding social Darwinism.