Posters, Prints and the Art of Michael Bedard
Logon Cart Checkout  
Advanced Search
All Categories   
Specials   
Michael Bedard Art   
Michael Bedard Posters   
Michael Bedard Prints   
Great Gifts   
Limited Editions   
       Your Cart:
Items: 0
Total: $0.00
 
 
[HOME]    [THE ARTIST]    [ABOUT US]    [GALLERY]    [CONTACT]

The Art of Michael Bedard

KünstlerBuchholz QuintTitelDer FlugRubrikMotiv - ComicGröße (cm)70 x 50Versandfertigin 24 StundenArtikelnr.8600010Preis (CHF)45,83Van Beek, Randy 29.99 - Art Print - 39x24Ship of Fools(Total: 0.00) 400 200 SALESALE Bedard Which Came First? S/N Limited EditionFine Art:Printmaking Which Came First? is a Limited Edition of 300 Numbered Prints. This is one of Michael Bedard's newest limited editions from an original acrylic painting now in the collection of a private collector. The 20 x 16 image, featuring Bedard's signature duck, is printed on Heavy Archival Fine Art Watercolor Paper which measures 24 x 20 . Each print will be individually hand-signed and numbered by the artist prior to shipping. For the first time, this limited edition work is being offered at the Barbara FeldonDigital CraniumMerchant Info 9.73Enter Zip Code AboveAdd a Review2 Reviewsarchives=(showAll ? prev : next);Built on November 17, 2004 at 01:39 PM in 0.07 seconds.TrackBacks (4) nslog /mt/mt-tb.cgi/737Post: Survival of the 'Fittest'?Blog: Luke's BlogExcerpt: A very interesting read here, well worth taking a few minutes to read about and think. Suddenly it all makes sense! And I have to agree with Erik's final statement: Intelligence isn't sexually (genetically) rewarded in our society. Oh, so Date: May 7, 2003 08:48 PMPost: Darwin has left the buildingBlog: The Long LetterExcerpt: At this point, I amend, but stand by, my original premise that through medical science and societal standards, we as a race have removed ourselves from the premise of Natural Selection. It is no longer the most fit - those with the best combinati Date: May 8, 2003 04:32 AMPost: Survival of the 'Fittest'?Blog: /dev/nullExcerpt: A very interesting read here, well worth taking a few minutes to read about and think. Suddenly it all makes sense! And I have to agree with Erik's final statement: Intelligence isn't sexually (genetically) rewarded in our society. Oh, so Date: May 22, 2003 07:47 AMPost: Darwin has left the buildingBlog: The Long LetterExcerpt: At this point, I amend, but stand by, my original premise that through medical science and societal standards, we as a race have removed ourselves from the premise of Natural Selection. It is no longer the most fit - those with the best combinati Date: June 7, 2003 03:46 AM/* Survival of the Fittest */[2003-05-07 18:23:14]; [Personal]; [Comments: 12];My previous two entries have touched off a little discussion. However, the piece I found most interesting was this one from Michael Hanscom:Intelligent people - those with more than two brain cells to rub together - look around at the world and realize that it has a tendency to be a pretty iffy bargain, and either resolve not to have children, or to limit themselves to one or two children. Less intelligent. people, though, seem to be popping babies out like there's no tomorrow.There are numbers to back up the fact that uneducated and less intelligent people tend to have more children. I'm from a household with two kids. We're an upper- or middle-middle class family. Nearly all of my friends are from two-child households. Nearly all of my friends are from upper- or middle-middle class families. The poorer families I know had about four children (if I were forced to guess) on average. Again, there are numbers to back that up.I'm not going to get into a discussion that poor = stupid and that wealthy = intelligent as the article I'm quoting does. And while there have been studies to show that intelligence is tied to genetics, it is in no way quantifiable (you can't determine the IQ of a child by averaging his parent's IQs). The part I will discuss, however, is this statement:Thanks to the miracles of modern medicine, Darwin?s theory of natural selection, in many ways, no longer applies to the human race at large.Combined with his earlier statements about less intelligent individuals having more kids, Michael reaches this conclusion:.the average IQ of the world drops incrementally with each new child, as the few children born by people determined to have no more children than they can support are far outnumbered by the teeming masses content to . have more children that they can?t take care of. And so, we breed ourselves into extinction.Unfortunately, more intelligent does not necessarily mean more fit for survival. Darwin makes no such statement regarding mental capacity. A stupid giraffe with a properly sized neck seems equally or better prepared to survive than a really brilliant giraffe with a short neck (neck length allows giraffes to reach leaves at the tops of trees, thus preventing them from starving to death).If survival is defined as reaching a breeding age and passing on your genetic material then certainly these less thoughtful people as Michael redfined them are fitter by definition! They are more successful at passing on their genetic material (by having more children). They're successes in Darwin's eyes, and thus, the fitter membes of the species.Nature, or in this case our society, does not reward intelligence with breeding rights. First cum, first served is the way it goes, and conformity and normalness get you bonus points. What is rewarded, in the Darwinian sense of the word? Sex. Pure and simple. Our society rewards conformity. Intelligent people (nerds, geeks, dorks) stand out. If you go by IQ tests (I don't personally place much weight in them), I'm in the top 10% as far as intelligence goes. Did I date 20 girls in high school? Did I get laid? Nope. Geeks aren't rewarded with sex. The 80% in the middle? They're humping like crazy. Are the 40% on the bottom half of the big middle humping more than the top half, slowly dragging the average IQ down as Michael stipulates?Studies say yes.Society sure as heck doesn't sexually (and thus genetically) reward intelligence. Survival of the fittest? It still applies. If you disagree with that, then you need to change your definition of fittest. Fitness is determined by survival (the passing on of genetic material), not the other way around. You can try to predict fitness, but you can only truly determine which group in a species was fittest after the results are tabulated. Giraffes with really long long necks may seem more likely to survive, but giraffes in the end a too long neck might actually be a liability. Intelligent people may seem more likely to survive, but they may also be less likely to have sex (and children).Anyway, time for a disclaimer: the above was a thought experiment. I'm fully aware that some very, very big generalizations have been made. I'm still thinking this through myself, but I will say this, and stand by it: intelligence isn't sexually (genetically) rewarded in our society. Darwin never said it would be. Those who are more fit to survive still do by definition. Easy as that.Comments (12)I know a family with dual doctors as parents with 10+ kids. I lost count how many, and frankly, they sicken me. it may be a religious thing in most cases. I see a lot of 'Just the Ten of Us' around here. Big in Catholic families, because the Pope doesn't believe in birth control, and neither should any good Catholics. Yeah, tell that to the ones with irreversible vasectomies.(apologies for the late-80s reference)Posted by: eli sarver on May 7, 2003 08:30 PMEver read C. M. Kornbluth's story The Marching Morons ?To order these great hardbound, best-selling books go to Hardbound Book Special or call -929-0434.Our : 14.95FotokunstFotokunstManchester United - David BechamView the large imageBuy this Poster at AllPosters Kitchen Whiz?Cooking Dining Kitchen Etc.On Writers and Writing 2005 CalendarEditorial ReviewsAbout Links 2 Love | Policy & Legal Information | Contact Us |Disclaimer: Please be aware that we may at times link to other web sites that are provided solely as a convenience to you and not as an endorsement by this site nor its third party providers or distributors of the contents of such other web sites. PosterCollections shall not be responsible for the content of any other web sites and make no representation or warranty regarding any other web sites or the contents or materials on such web sites. If you decide to access other web sites, you do so at your own risk.Art Poster Collections » Reciprocal Directory » Become our Link PartnersAll Rights Reserved. Sunday, 21 November 2004, 10:07 PM EST 106 Offers ConsideredOriginal Art ~ Modern Art by KThykeson ~ Mixed MediaFine Art:Drawings:Abstract:Expressionism:CubismThis is another of Kris's creations, called Highway of Life . (Note the cross shape in the approximate center of the piece) It is a larger sized piece, measuring a total of 18 x 12 , with plenty of room for framing and matting. Bright and vivid Ice Originals ~ Collectibles J ~ Exclusively on Ruby LaneRhapsody In Blue, Part Iii (conductor's Score)Kristy Swanson

 

 

. michael bedard art . michael bedard posters . michael bedard print . michael bedard prints . Bedard, Michael . Michael Bedard . Posters Art Prints . Great Gifts . Limited Editions . Mike Bedard . Mini Posters . Sitting Ducks . Bedard Poster . bedard sitting duck . sitting ducks cartoon . beddard . bedar . cartoon network . survival of the fittest . michael bedard poster . The Santa Claus Brothers .

©2003, Ven-American Trading Group, Inc. and Michael Bedard. All Rights Reserved.
12955 Biscayne Blvd. Suite 300 . N. Miami, FL 33181
E-mail: bedardstudio@aol.com . (305) 858-1188
Subject to errors, omissions, prior sale or withdrawal without notice.
. Privacy Policy .