He could've just said 'cos it's there'.

It's a nice letter, but he's on shaky ground suggesting space exploration might lead to a more harmonious war free mankind. Seems strange he'd forget how and why NASA went into space in the first place.

(or why satellites and the internet exist)

Kirk suggests yes, but it's green chicks

That's a sad perspective.

Er...

I don't know what he's erring about but you appear to be saying that a process of biological change is the same as a human psychological phenomena. 

whatchutalkingabout dive?

I'm going to have to assume the "Evolution = Ego" thing was a little spazzout and so should be ignored and carry on.

Well now that you've actually put your thoughts into words I might. 

It is a terrible argument without any substance so I won't on this occasion though, if that's OK with you and whatever you're defining your ego as.

Liveinadive wrote:

In western society egotistical people generally do well (unfortunately) therefore it could be considered evolutionary.

Ok that's actually quite interesting. 

But flawed I think. Although its only a gut instinct. 

There's people with an ego who genuinely merit it. (edit: not merit it exactly, Unlikely was right that the word needs to be defined). It's not necessarily egotistical for a genius to consider themselves better than many people, and to be very focused on themselves. They'll often be the most capable of the people they know, best at work etc. They're actually doing humanity a favour by worrying about themselves a lot, because they're optimising their chances of making an positive impact. Maybe.

But I've met enough dicks to consider egotism as basically a flaw and nothing to do with inherent ability. Its rare to find it accompanied by actual talent.

Arse on you, stop posting while I'm going to the fridge.

I agree with both your points Monkey.

The thing is, the type of person you describe in your first point, the intellectual, would be who we want to reproduce. However, as you rightly say , they doubt themselves and often aren't the most confident or egotistical.

The dicks, are the egotistical ones and unfortunately they will probably reproduce in higher numbers.

Again I realise this is an argument with more holes that swiss cheese but it does have some legs. Either that or I have been watching too much Idiocracy.

I mean essentially the rich kids are competing for resources with other rich kids so comparing these strategies across socio-economic boundaries is probably pointless.

I think we are roughly on the same wave length Monkey. I generally see people with large egos as typically stupid and in that poorer, heavily reproducing segment of society you describe.

Have you seen Idiocracy? It's not a great film but does have a message I think you will relate to.

And yes this is mostly drunken ramblings on this end too.

@Mod.
Going off purely what I see in society. Yeah poor people do tend to have more kids, and the current benefits allowances in this country only encourage it.

Liveinadive wrote:

Have you seen Idiocracy?

No. I shall investigate.

FWIW - Some proof, stats or, you know, science, would be appreciated in this here SCIENCE thread.