Why does the length of time matter? Domesticated varieties of cows and pigs would go extinct if humans stopped raising them for meat. The only niche where they can survive is a farm. They are in symbiosis now even if they weren’t 10,000 years ago.
So cows and pigs - like many fruiting plants - co-evolved with the creatures that fed on them. In both cases, those creatures became necessary for their long-term survival.
If you want to make a teleological argument, then you could equally ask why agricultural animals, compared to wild animals, have much higher fat content and other characteristics that humans find delicious.
All evidence suggests those features are favored by humans, who are the animals currently responsible for ensuring their continued reproduction.
You just asserted that the fruit is freely given, but you haven’t supported that.
I mean, one could also say that cows and pigs willingly sacrifice themselves so humans will continue to feed their descendants, but there isn’t any evidence of that either.
It’s freely given by a plant just as human sacrifices are freely given by a cult.
The stinky place isn’t soil. It’s a sewer or a landfill, because that’s where human waste ends up. Neither can support plant life because they are devoid of light, just like the realm of Cthulhu.
And the deal with Cthulhu is that he gets to devour whoever you’ve sacrificed, and in return he provides a benefit to the survivors: allowing them to live long enough to provide more sacrifices. It’s basically the same deal.
Also, if anyone reading this happens to be a seed on a fruit meant to be devoured by humans then I have bad news about your final destination: it’s rather a stinky place that is not in any way conducive to your growth. The cake is a lie.
In the same way that cultists give human sacrifices to Cthulhu specifically to eat.
I’m pretty sure the fruits are screaming too.
why you’re trying to get away with not delivering things that progressives want
I’m not doing anything. That’s what I think Democrats should do, if they want to win elections. If Democrats promise too much to progressives, they will inevitably disappoint progressives and lose their support.
I’d argue Obama’s 2008 campaign was too
Obama did exactly what I’m suggesting.
He campaigned not as a progressive, but as someone who would appeal to centrists and even conservatives in order to bring unity. He made just one major promise to progressives, health care reform. For many of them, that was enough. He delivered, by signing a fairly centrist version without a public option. It was derided at the time by leftists but they got over it.
Then he put most of his energy into futile attempts at bipartisanship, hunting down bin Laden, drone strikes, and trying to ignore another major progressive issue, gay marriage.
He was a huge success! Even today he is widely admired. I think future Democrats will try to emulate him.
It wasn’t a losing strategy in the past.
The key for Democrats is to realize that “progressivism” is impossibly broad. So there is no way to deliver on that promise.
However, a candidate who does not identify as “progressive” can still deliver specific promises to progressives. Say, a carbon tax and a trans rights law. And that’s it.
For a progressives who care about climate and/or trans rights, that might be enough to vote for the Democrat. Sure, they aren’t promising UBI or student debt relief or housing or a minimum wage hike. Maybe the other things in their platform are aimed at Latinos and liberals.
But if you actually care about trans rights, why not vote for the Democrat who will deliver that instead of the Republican who offers nothing or the Green who can’t deliver anything?
I think there might be enough progressives who really do care about trans rights and/or climate to make up for losing the ones who only care about UBI. And I think Democrats don’t need every last progressive voter to win.
“You call that UBI?”
Just as I predicted!
Democrats genuinely need progressive votes in order to win
The point is that they do not need a progressive candidate to win. Bill Clinton and Obama weren’t progressive, after all.
Biden’s support of UBI
Biden’s Stimulus Plan Contains an Experiment in Universal Basic Income
Do you expect the next Democratic candidate to win?
I don’t know. It depends on whether Trump screws the pooch for most Americans. I definitely think he will, so I think Democrats have a decent chance to win.
But I think there is a more important question for progressives. It’s easy to criticize and browbeat Democrats, but that doesn’t help pass progressive policy. It actually makes Democrats turn away from progressives and look for easier-to-please voters. And maybe they lose once more, but again: how does that help progressives?
I think progressives could take some hints from their opponents on the right. Anti-abortionists and gun nuts are fanatically loyal to the GOP. There is no question whether they will vote GOP in 2028 or 2032 or 2036.
And they are very patient. Anti-abortionists set Dobbs into motion thirty years ago! They don’t care that Trump used to be pro-choice and didn’t really want condemn abortion this year and has probably paid for an abortion or three. Over time, the GOP has rewarded them more than any other interest group.
In the end, parties reward loyalty. Not threats to stay home on election day.
Is climate change legislation progressive?
Is student debt relief progressive?
Is UBI progressive?
Biden enacted versions of all of those, and was more pro-union and pro-LGBTQ than Clinton or Obama or Carter.
But you’ve kind of proven my point. Progressives won’t vote for someone who enacts some progressive policies, even if it’s more than any other recent president. Progressives demand someone who gives them everything they want.
For years, all Democrats heard from progressives was “Not enough debt relief” or “You call that UBI?” And of course, “He still hasn’t earned my vote”. On top of that, progressives get very jealous when Democrats also try to please centrists. As though Democrats have to pass a purity test rather than try to maximize their votes.
I do not expect the next Democratic candidate to even bother with student debt relief. I think the lesson that Democrats will learn is that it is almost impossible to “earn the vote” of progressives. They will always give up on you.
Compare the success of progressives to, say, NRA supporters. Have you ever heard an NRA supporter say, “The GOP still hasn’t earned my vote”?
The closest Democrats got to embracing progressives was nominating Biden. It didn’t really work out.
No, I don’t think we are doing everything right. Like I said, there is always room for improvement. But that doesn’t necessarily mean we need an ideological shift to the left.
For example, we need to bring back Latino voters. I don’t think embracing leftism is the best way to do that.
There is always room for reflection and self-improvement.
Reflecting on past Democratic wins for the presidency, governorships, and Congress suggests that centrism is often an asset. If anything, the relative lack of victories for leftist candidates should prompt self-reflection.
Democrats have won the presidency roughly half the time over the past 30 years.
Holding a primary in stages where specific states go first and sway and influence other states that go later is not valid democracy.
The alternative is to hold all primaries at once, which costs candidates a lot more money. It would basically exclude any candidate who did not have significant establishment support from the moment they annouced and/or is not a billionaire.
If you want a non-establishment candidate to have any chance, you must give them the opportunity to prove themselves in a small contest, like Iowa, and allow them time to build up momentum.
Why? Are leftists not capable of winning governorships too?
Superconductors and Bose-Einstein condensates are both macroscopic phenomena that result from coherent matter waves.