-Firstly, philosophers since the days of D. Hume have recognized the distinction between _is_ and _ought_, and have identified the [naturalistic fallacy](TODO: linky) of direct inference from the former to the latter. [...]
+Firstly, philosophers since the days of D. Hume have recognized the distinction between _is_ and _ought_, and have identified the [naturalistic fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy) of direct inference from the former to the latter. That there exists a naturalistic explanation for the current state of affairs—and how could there _not_?—doesn't imply _anything_ about that state being good or just or worthy of being preserved.
+
+Secondly, not only does the nature _vs._ nurture dichotomy fail to hold up to basic scrutiny (the question has been compared to asking whether the area of a rectangle is caused more by its length or its width), it also isn't even adequate to the inferential work we tend to expect of it: [not everything biological is immuatable, and not everything social is easy to change.](http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/10/society-is-fixed-biology-is-mutable/) (Consider the case of [spelling reform](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English-language_spelling_reform): no one would suggest that the myriad quirks of English orthography are _genetically_ determined, and yet the entirely social difficulties of getting everyone to coordinate on more logical spellings seem insurmountable.)
+
+Because of these epistemological errors, adherents of the beautiful moral ideal
+
+that may put us at a competitive disadvantage to our ideological enemies