Heh, are you serious? I suppose that would make perfect sense...but I feel like you are pulling my leg. But for Dutch names, your name is so much easier to understand than something like Edsger W. Dijkstra
Haha, I'm not pulling any legs here, it's true. By the way, most Dutch names can be explained, Dijkstra's name too. I'm pretty sure 'Dijkstra' must have got to do with 'dikes' somehow, but I don't know for sure.
I see national struggles as being more the survival of ideas and ideologies rather than the survival of a race based on their genetics.
For example, if we went by the early German eugenics movements both Stephen Hawking(a disabled man) and Albert Einstein(a Jew) would have been removed from Hitler's ideal gene pool, and that would be a tragedy to humans as a whole.
I don't want to stray of topic too much here, but nowadays nations aren't quite synonymous with race (have they ever?) and yes wars are mostly driven by ideology and definitely not actual survival. A lot of wars don't have an actual 'sense' when it comes to real survival of a race and evolution. And yes, you are right, it doesn't make sense to make a distinction based on race anyways as eugenics has done (does? I don't know if anyone still really believes in that, I'm pretty sure the scientific community doesn't and practically never did.).
I dont dispute survival of the fittest, it is readily observed, it is observed in every level of nature and social interaction.
Interesting, but it does surprise me a bit. So all you do dispute are the mutational changes that are beneficial?
