How can you believe in evolution but no social darwinism

[Archbob]

So I got a question for everyone who believes in the first but not the second?

Do you really think that evolution just stopped with humans or is it because your social agenda will not allow you to believe in this seemingly cruel concept? Scientifically, human are no different from any other species. Some members of the species are simply superior to others -- there's little argument that can be made against that.

It is actually quite hypocritical to believe in the theory of evolution and believe that all men are born equal -- because according to evolution, they are not.

 

[Camikaze]

Social darwinism is a morally corrupt concept that assumes the supremacy of certain races over others. It is not the logical extension of evolution, it is the rationalisation of a racist agenda.

 

[Archbob]

Social darwinism is a morally corrupt concept that assumes the supremacy of certain races over others. It is not the logical extension of evolution, it is the rationalisation of a racist agenda.

Morally corrupt as it may be, it does not need to be applied for a race to be superior to others. But in individuals, there is no doubt that some are simply superior to others.

The statement that all men are born equal is just not scientific.

Your forgetting that science does not care for your or my morality.

 

[JollyRoger]

Spring Thomas agrees with you.

 

[Bill3000]

Oh, it's very easy. You cannot derive an ought from an is. Just because natural selection exists does not mean that it ought to be what is considered ethical.

Next thread?

 

[Archbob]

Oh, it's very easy. You cannot derive an ought from an is. Just because natural selection exists does not mean that it ought to be what is considered ethical.

Next thread?

When has science ever been ethical?

Natural selection exists among species and within a species. You'd be stupid to deny that. Humans are no different.

Science basically proves that certain individuals are superior to other individuals and to try to make everyone equal is basically a failed idea before it even starts because everyone is not equal..

You guys laugh at creationists for denying evolution all the times. You deserve to be laughed at just as hard when you deny that the same forces aren't at work within our own species.

 

[Fr8monkey]

Humans continue to evolve. It is just that evolution is slow and takes thousands of years to notice. Humans like to think they are on top of the evolutionary heap and we are the best that humans can get... Just arrogance.

 

[carlosMM]

People who believe (in the literal sense of that word) in evolution are idiots, and it is not surprising if they are not logically consistent. Thus, no surprise.

People who are convinced of evolution understand what it refers to, and thus oppose social darwinism. Thus, no surprise.

 

[Tacitusitis]

Natural selection is inferior to intelligence, in terms of shaping the future of the human race.

You can see that just by looking at other species. Among the species that have the needed brain capacity, many species have evolved to have altruistic or kinship-based social relations. That right there defeats "social darwinism."

Natural selection is slow, it's a blunt instrument, it's random at the individual level and only really comes into force at the population genetics level. And even so, the long-term species extinction rate is upwards of 90% (some estimate upwards of 95%). Natural selection has more failures than successes! That said, the fact that something like a human being evolved is pretty astonishing.

That being said, human intelligence supersedes natural selection. We can deduce better ways to plan our future as a society and species than would be possible if everything was left up to natural selection.

 

[Archbob]

Yes, superior traits will continue to be selected, I doubt it will be based on race.

But you can't deny that some humans are simply superior to others.

Tacitusitis , your quite Naive if you think intellegence supercedes or has replaced natural selection. Intelligence is a product of natural selection.

Why do you think girls go for the guys with money or guys go for 'hot' girls. Its all based on natural instincts and selection.

People are quite foolish is they believe natural selection no longer effects humans.

 

[Tacitusitis]

Science basically proves that certain individuals are superior to other individuals and to try to make everyone equal is basically a failed idea before it even starts because everyone is not equal..

That's a fairly dumb statement.

Evolution says individuals are not equal with respect to reproductive fitness. Human beings value a whole lot more in each other than just reproductive fitness. Also the "society trying to make everyone equal" that you seem to be railing against doesn't usually have anything to do with reproduction (or else I want my free redistributed wife kthx).

 

[carlosMM]

But you can't deny that some humans are simply superior to others.

So? Variation exists - but that does not mean that any person should actively attempt to create selective pressures. ToE doesn't say that at all. Rather, it says that if we do anything to advance the evolution of our species we should select for social traits - after all those have been very successful picks for the last few million years.

 

[Archbob]

So? Variation exists - but that does not mean that any person should actively attempt to create selective pressures. ToE doesn't say that at all. Rather, it says that if we do anything to advance the evolution of our species we should select for social traits - after all those have been very successful picks for the last few million years.

No, ToE says nature will select whichever traits are best suited for survival in a specific environment. Just because they were successful picks in the last few millions years is no guarantee that they will continue to be so.

Evolution says individuals are not equal with respect to reproductive fitness. Human beings value a whole lot more in each other than just reproductive fitness. Also the "society trying to make everyone equal" that you seem to be railing against doesn't usually have anything to do with reproduction (or else I want my free redistributed wife kthx).

Its not just with respect to reproductive fitness. Some individuals are simply more athletic or smarter than others, traits that make them superior to others in our society. To state that all humans are remotely equal on an individual basis is complete folly.

 

[carlosMM]

No, ToE says nature will select whichever traits are best suited for survival in a specific environment. Just because they were successful picks in the last few millions years is no guarantee that they will continue to be so.

Why do you say "no"? You are not contradicting what I wrote at all. You are contradicting your opening post, though.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

Yes, superior traits will continue to be selected, I doubt it will be based on race.

But you can't deny that some humans are simply superior to others.

I suppose this is where you tell us how you're a part of the superiors...

But really, social darwinism fails because money isn't distributed according to actual merit.

 

[Archbob]

Why do you say "no"? You are not contradicting what I wrote at all. You are contradicting your opening post, though.

No, I am not. My first post suggested that its foolish to think all people are born with equal value -- because they are not.

Variations simply makes some individuals worth more than others.

Remember, from a scientific standpoint, there is no such thing as "intrinsic worth".

That is a completely human-made concept.

 

[Tacitusitis]

Tacitusitis , your quite Naive if you think intellegence supercedes or has replaced natural selection. Intelligence is a product of natural selection.

A computer is a product of humans yet can beat humans at chess (including the people who programmed it).

By saying intelligence supersedes evolution I don't mean that humans have stopped "evolving" (in the sense of reproducing with variability). However, intelligence allows us to take more powerful, faster actions to alter our way of living than natural selection.

It's the difference between erosion and a bulldozer.

Just look at the fact that in less than 500 generations we went from an environment where humans spent 99% of their time interacting with the natural world, to an environment where 99% of the time we are completely surrounded by an artificial world that solely exists as the product of human intelligence and labor.

Why do you think girls go for the guys with money or guys go for 'hot' girls.

Is that what brought on this rant? Haha.

Well, maybe you can be more attractive to girls when you get more money for your extremely socially productive job of sitting on a url.

 

[emzie]

Define what you mean by social darwinism, for that's what shapes my answer.

There's obviously a truth in that not all humans are equal, at least when we talk about individuals; hence, those traits will be favoured by natural selection when they refer to reproductive fitness. You would be very very hard pressed to find anyone in scientific fields to disagree with that.

However social darwinism is a distinctly separate concept from natural selection. In a strict sense, social darwinism would be a system of favouring traits that give rise to power, not to reproductive success -- an autocatalyst of power begetting power. I don't see why that's objectively better than anything else.

 

[carlosMM]

No, I am not. My first post suggested that its foolish to think all people are born with equal value -- because they are not.

There's more in the first post - you now pick one aspect, then claim I am wrong, Why ignore the others?

You claimed that if ToE is correct, social darwinism is also correct. You showed that this is wrong. Contradiction.

Variations simply makes some individuals worth more than others.

WRONG - it may make them more successful, but not worth more.

Remember, from a scientific standpoint, there is no such thing as "intrinsic worth".

Indeed. See above.

 

[Archbob]

However social darwinism is a distinctly separate concept from natural selection. In a strict sense, social darwinism would be a system of favouring traits that give rise to power, not to reproductive success -- an autocatalyst of power begetting power. I don't see why that's objectively better than anything else.

But see, in our society, power allows one to reproduce more successfully. A person with a lot of power has a better chance at reproduction than a person that doesn't have power.

For instance Gheghis Khan is believed to have around 16,000,000 present day decendents. Even today, powerful men tend to attract more women.

Obviously power for an individuals has a strong positive correlation with reproductive success.

WRONG - it may make them more successful, but not worth more.

In nature success is worth. Success begats power which helps in passing on your genes.

You claimed that if ToE is correct, social darwinism is also correct. You showed that this is wrong. Contradiction.

How did I show this was wrong? ToE states that natural selection will favors the genes that are most likely to survive and pass on. Social Darwinism basically favors those than gain power. Power has a lot to do with reproductive success.