However, I argue that since the Industrial Revolution, our society have moved beyond just "Mother nature", which allow for more diverse and 'fair' society which have their advantages. For example, great minds like Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawkings, would have never survived in 'mother nature', but made significant and material contribution to our society.
Quote:Sure, but even if you were right about most of what you've said whose rules do we follow. If it's Nature's then there is no rule that says anything about 'equality'. If it's God's then much the same applies. 'Equality' is a vector for control by the left (which is in itself a representation of our X chromosome) consequently it's hardly something that can be represented as being 'fair'.
Well, this really depend on what do you mean by "nature". If by nature, you meant Mother Nature, Earth nature. Then yes, it is not fair. It is cruel. It is a place where only the strongest survive. It is then a matter of personal choice. If people are content to be the sheep, to be lead and used by the wolves, then by all means do so. However, even with no Y chromosome, I dislike the idea of been controlled, and rather like to be the wolf if I had the choice. As such, if I was born in EB, I would have no choice but to become a sheep. So, to me, the EB represents a regressive force in the society.
Nature (when capitalized) means a naturally occurring random universe, as opposed to 'nature' all things not made by humankind.
And a 'determinist' would argue that your present position has been dictated to you in every-much the same way as it has a Brethren woman whose day might be made up doing entirely domestic duties. What I mean is suppose you were born with an identical twin sister who for one reason or another was adopted out to caring but childless Brethren couple, she would behave in many ways opposite to yourself, that's despite being genetically identical. 'Choice' would be an illusion in a Natural world.