That is what is derogatorily called cynicism in the OP. Perhaps as one studies history they find that all forms of positive change conceivable by mere humans have been co-opted and are accounted for in the extremely energetic struggle of the system to remain alive, as it has been selected for very much Darwinistically.
> That is what is derogatorily called cynicism in the OP.
Then, there are clearly two things being called cynicism here.
Arguing that the author is wrong because X is good when the author is actually talking about Y is a fruitless exercise.
> Perhaps as one studies history they find that all forms of positive change conceivable by mere humans have been co-opted and are accounted for in the extremely energetic struggle of the system to remain alive, as it has been selected for very much Darwinistically.
That still doesn't and won't ever mean that positive change is negative. If you're still throwing the baby with a bathwater, you're the bad kind of cynic.
