Satyr: Here is my response, ignoring the insults. It is untrue that your thinking is so deep that nobody is intelligent enough to understand you. You presume too much. I made no reference to the past being inferior to the present. What prejudices do you imagine I have? Just that I'm incapable of sitting apart from the dominant paradigm, as you are? By the way, I've actually made no references to mainstream science; that's something you introduced. Right back at you. I have observed that you tend to start the name calling. Is there anybody you consider is not a moron, by the way? I think I can be excused for my ignorance of your personal observations and deep-thinking insight. I don't have access to your private thoughts. I can only go on what you write. So far, I haven't learned anything new from you. If you claim I'm ignorant, then tell me something I don't know. I doubt you've even worked out where I live, let alone my views on the state of democracy. This is a straw man. I have not demanded graphs and statistics. Why post in one? Why not publish your thesis in book form, for example? Or subject it to peer review by non-retards? Or is nobody qualified enough to evaluate your great work? Again, you say this like you imagine it is news to me. This would be a good place for specific examples, but I know you consider such things unnecessary. I'm having trouble parsing your first sentence. As to the rest, I disagree with your claim that all activities are motivated by need. Nice rhetoric, but empty. Obviously, but that doesn't in any way go to showing that collectivism is inferior to individualism. I'm not sure you understand the biological concept of "fitness". It doesn't necessarily mean "strongest" or "most dominant" or "most aggressive", as you appear to think. What I get is that you don't like democracy. You'd prefer government by the intelligent elite, which would, of course, include yourself while excluding all the "morons". Tell me, how would you guarantee that the elite would remain the unbiased intelligensia, and that your preferred system would not become dominated by the self-interest of the self-appointed "elite"? This is what democracy is supposed to guard against, after all. Who decides? You decide, among all the other members. I do not write all the posts here. The content of any forum such as this is determined by the combined efforts of the community, not by any one individual. Perhaps, with your preference for individuality above community, you'd be more comfortable with a blog than a "democratic" forum like this, where people can question your wisdom. (Do you have a blog already? I'd be surprised if you didn't.) You see self-censorship as a problem. I do not, or at least not in the extreme way you do. In what way do you consider me "weak"? Too much care about others? Not enough individuality for you? Too much respect for morons? Dare I say, too many friends? I'm not sure how you interpreted my statement. Perhaps I didn't spell it out clearly enough. I was thinking about the biological fact of sexual differentiation. The "robustness" I mentioned is a genetic robustness, which includes such things as resistance of a population to disease and adaptiveness to environmental change. If you're reading gender politics of human beings into my statement then you've taken it the wrong way. I don't know why you couldn't have written the last three sentences without the first two.