How can you believe in evolution but no social darwinism

[GenMarshall]

No one in their right MIND would think that money = skill.

Who in blue hades believes this???

Apperently FAL.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Apperently FAL.

Fail?

 

[Cutlass]

Fail?

IIRC, that was used last year, but people were told to cut it out.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

IIRC, that was used last year, but people were told to cut it out.

oh, F-A-L.

Like ATPG. Got it.

 

[Verbose]

As a biological term, race denotes genetically divergent human populations that can be marked by common phenotypic traits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(classification_of_humans)

Wikipedia... Excellent!

Apart from the problem of humanity's notorious genetic sameness, compared to other species, and the problem of lack of radical breaks, as in how the genetics continuously changes between populations, how do you assume any of this to apply on the individual level?

These are, at best, statistical samplings (possible relevant on the aggregate level, extremely problematic on the individual) taken on populations defined by arbitrary historical and cultural categories. It's still the same problem the 19th c. had in defining "races" without appealing to history, language or some other human-made concept onto which biological data gets projected.

As biological race should be possible to define by genetic factors alone to hold up here. Considering the lack of diversification, the problem of continuous blending (we get more or less perceptible breaks when we know recent history has shuffled populations about in recent centuries, but why that should mean race can be constituted under such conditions if it can't when something like that hasn't happened is unclear), odd things like how malaria causes changes in the genome of such an order we might need to deal with a "post-malarian race of man", and recent come-back kids like epigenetics, I don't think a prescriptive analytical definition quite cuts the mustard. Even if it's underpinned by Wikipedia.

The main problem you have is still to answer is: What races are there exactly? How are they defined, but this time with the rider, in such a fashion that it has relevance on an individual level, not just on an aggregate level of population statistics (which has its own problems).

 

[Archbob]

Apperently FAL.

Obvisouly people who don't have money aren't going to believe in it. Middle class is where a lot of social mobility happens. 2 kids are born into the middle class with similar social-economic conditions and upbringings. One succeeds in school and goes on to become a millinaire, one drops out and becomes poor. Its like not this is that uncommon. The one kid probably had better natural traits than the other.

Evolution has nothing to do with discovering oil or winning the lottery.


If this is seriously the argument he's using, I lost all respect for the intelligence level of this discussion.

Those aren't the only methods to being rich and most people who are rich did not do so by discovering oil or winning the lottery. A lot of lottery winners end up poorer than they were before they won the lottery anyways. This is a strawman argument.

Most all the arguments I've seen against the argument that humans are not inherently equal on an individual level and some are superior to others(even in this thread) are not really founded in science, but founded in member's own morality or beliefs which actually have little to do with science. Its the same thing they would chide us to avoid when creationists use believes in arguments in creationism vs evolution.

About Bonobos and Chimps:

Humans are equally close to both. The genetic ancestor of all three split about 6-7 million years ago. Bonobos and chimps again split around 3 million or so years ago -- at least from the last report I've read. We're about 98.3% similar in terms of DNA.


And Bill3000, these are not fallacies, they are facts. They are how historically humanity has acted. The are in fact, what is -- I don't care about what you think they should be or what you want them to be, those are irrelevent to science. Morality is in the realm of beliefs and religion and does not belong in this thread.

You cannot draw a extrapolation of what will happen in the future based on what you believe to be right, because other people don't believe in it.

The best extrapolation of what would happen in the future and how things actually work, not how you want them to work, comes from reading the past. Not creating your make-believe future.

Differing levels of social status does not necessarily imply a hierarchy; in most primitive societies, higher social status lends greater influence in decision making, rather than any formal superiority. Primitive societies tend to be cooperative, rather than authoritarian. The closest thing to formal superiority tends to lie in individuals occupying religious or spiritual positions within the tribe- shamans, in essence- and that kind of status has little to do with the sort of biological advantages suggested by FAL.

No, this is actually not accurate. Social status back in hunter-gather society was an indicator of who got to mate with the most female -- a direct relation to evolutionary success. That is evolutionary success in every form of the word. Primitive societies may have shared resources, but there was no mistaking who was the leader, who got the choiciest cuts of meat when the kill was brought home, and who got the sleep with the most females. Having high rank is a direct precursor evolutionary success on a biological level, much more than it is now in modern western society.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I'm pretty sure I could beat most people in the top 1% to death with my bare hands. How does social darwinism explain this terrible unfitness of our wealthiest top 1%?

 

[Archbob]

I'm pretty sure I could beat most people in the top 1% to death with my bare hands. How does social darwinism explain this terrible unfitness of our wealthiest top 1%?

I'm pretty sure you couldn't, seeing that quite a few of those people are former pro athletes or sports stars. Alot of people in the top 1% are actually really fit.

Physical attractiveness, mental capabilities, the ability to gain and maintain power, and several others contribute. Many people in the top 1% simply have a good combination of these attributes or are extremely well versed in one. Most of the rich today are not inherited rich. They're bill like Mark Zuckerberg or Warren Buffet who made their own riches. This also includes alot of sports stars, many of which were born poor.

 

[Dachs]

I'm pretty sure I could beat most people in the top 1% to death with my bare hands. How does social darwinism explain this terrible unfitness of our wealthiest top 1%?

Ah, but you haven't! If you had done so, that would have proved they were unfit - but you haven't, so they aren't.

EDIT: Oh, wow, FAL mocked that better than I possibly could have.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I'm pretty sure you couldn't, seeing that quite a few of those people are former pro athletes or sports stars. Alot of people in the top 1% are actually really fit.

So lets see.... .51% of the population...1.5 Million Professional athletes in the United States.

Ah, but you haven't! If you had done so, that would have proved they were unfit - but you haven't, so they aren't.

Only because the current society acts on unscientific notions, and fails to see that humans are just like any other species of animal and react as if it was "Murder."

 

[Dachs]

Only because the current society acts on unscientific notions, and fails to see that humans are just like any other species of animal and react as if it was "Murder."

Oh, the "wuss excuse". Murder, oh I see. Shouldn't stop a proper übermensch like yourself, presuming you in fact are one.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Oh, the "wuss excuse". Murder, oh I see. Shouldn't stop a proper übermensch like yourself, presuming you in fact are one.

I never said I hadn't.

 

[Archbob]

So lets see.... .51% of the population...1.5 Million Professional athletes in the United States.

First of all, you'd have to cut that number in half as the kids of rich parents are considered rich even though they may in the future, not be rich(as in Gates's kids when he donates his entire fortune to charity).

Secondly there are many movie stars and actors who are actually really buff. And I'm willing to bet that its not only those people who can beat you into a pulp. Rich people on the whole are more fit than poor people because of nutrition and awareness of physical fitness.

Also, as I sad, physical fitness is only one of many characteristics that we look at today. It is not the only way to provide for a family. A lot of people who are in the top 1% are actually dentists, doctors, or lawyers who may be smarter than you or have a better work ethic. Or they made better life choices regarding majors in college and such.

Recent studies between Identical twins and other studies show that genetics effects most everything you do in life, including which decision your going to make when your put before two major paths. The recent studies show that in most circumstances nature will trump nurture.

 

[ParkCungHee]

First of all, you'd have to cut that number in half as the kids of rich parents are considered rich even though they may in the future, not be rich(as in Gates's kids when he donates his entire fortune to charity).

Children without parents tend to be an evolutionary dead end as far as humans go.

[quote[Secondly there are many movie stars and actors who are actually really buff.[/quote]
You know, for someone who criticizes others for having a simplistic view of the top 1% the idea that it consists mainly of movie stars and professional athletes.

It is not the only way to provide for a family. A lot of people who are in the top 1% are actually dentists, doctors, or lawyers who may be smarter than you or have a better work ethic. Or they made better life choices regarding majors in college and such.

Yes, but that doesn't mean they're more evolutionarily fit. I think you should look into what it means.

 

[Archbob]

Yes, but that doesn't mean they're more evolutionarily fit. I think you should look into what it means.

No, I think you need to go study what evolution is. Evolution doesn't have a goal or any specific trait it tries to achieve. It simply selects those traits that are the most conducive to survive and thrive in whatever environment you are in. Being really smart or having a good work ethic in today's society is just as important as physical fitness.

The top 1% in stats usually refers only to people who have earnings/salary(IE: Adults), kids usually are not included in the statistic. Its not only athletes and movie stars that are in shape. Overall the upper class are more in shape than lower class due to a variety of factors.

And your focusing solely on a physical trait, thats not the only one that matters.

 

[Behind The Mask]

We must also consider what it takes to be considered amongst the 'actual' rich...

In one fashion people often lob anyone with a generous amount of money into this group while in fact their wealth is probably fluctuating; meaning that even these rich people are not there because of good decisions, they just came into their wealth for a period of time.

One could argue that to be successfully rich, you must disregard the actual amount of wealth amassed and instead focus upon their ability to keep their wealth and their decisions to expand it and maintain it.

A 'Rich' Kid is in no way rich unless they demonstrate the ability to responsibly handle their wealth.

A Buisness Owner who has a good track record of decision makings and has maintained his wealth through hard times could in fact be more wealthy then the rich kid even if the kid had more money.

This is just my opinion and the way I look at it.

Success should be measured in decisions, not dollar values.

 

[ParkCungHee]

No, I think you need to go study what evolution is. Evolution doesn't have a goal or any specific trait it tries to achieve. It simply selects those traits that are the most conducive to survive and thrive in whatever environment you are in. Being really smart or having a good work ethic in today's society is just as important as physical fitness.

Oh yeah. But if you're going to acknowledge that, what's the point of being a social darwinist?
I mean, from that perspective getting rich IS a bad trait. Getting rich requires long term planning and expectation of survival which is bad for having lots of kids. I know some extremely darwinian-fit young men who had more then the average number of kids before they were through high school. Now THERES a darwinian superman.

 

[Verbose]

No, this is actually not accurate. Social status back in hunter-gather society was an indicator of who got to mate with the most female -- a direct relation to evolutionary success. That is evolutionary success in every form of the word. Primitive societies may have shared resources, but there was no mistaking who was the leader, who got the choiciest cuts of meat when the kill was brought home, and who got the sleep with the most females. Having high rank is a direct precursor evolutionary success on a biological level, much more than it is now in modern western society.

Which hunter-gatherer society is this?

Your problem here is that humans, even hunter-gatherers (maybe even the H-G gang more than most) are damn inventive people. They get up to all kinds of tricks not covered here.

And social status effects under such conditions... Well, it might not be quite what you think. A very famous example from the Khoi-San (in non-PC "bushmen") is how the best hunter does NOT get the choiciest cuts of meat if he brings down a prey. It's divided up according to strict rules which actually maximises his usefulness as superb hunter to the GROUP. (Iirc he gets the head, not the choice cuts of meat.) But since the group is a pretty tightly knit family entity, genetically speaking it might still work out fine. Just not in such a way that this presumed über-hunter-gatherer necessarily profits the most. (And as you said, they have some wacky ideas about private property as well.)

The thing is, human envy is a powerful emotion and needs to be checked. Well, if you're this über-hunter, general smarty-pants, super-strong and tough guy in this kind of society, and then start demanding everyone subject themselves to you as and effect, chances are it's going to get someone's goat eventually, and you will end up with a spear through your ribs in a "hunting accident". It's the same reason if you have something extra nice, and someone admires it, you give it to him. Eventually someone else will make the same observation, and the thing gets passed on, so eventually everyone takes turns owning the nice stuff. This is what tends to happen in that kind of acephalic, non-stratified society. If you're this über-hunter in an already stratified society things will tend to work out more like you have described them.

The second problem here is that in the H-G societies we know of, the actual survival tends to depend not on the occasional game the men bring home, but the continuous daily scrounging the females are engaged in. The group usually could survive on that alone, making these hunters a bit of decoration at times...

And on top of that we get sexual selection. I.e. the wimmien tend to chose whether and what kind of rumpy-pumpy there's going to be...

 

[antidrocefalo]

because leftism is not about science but about "feeling good"

So they support Darwin because most of them are atheists but they don't support the conseguences of darwinism because most of them really hate capitalism

So they reject Economics Science because is a "bourgoise science" calling economics fraud and then support "Global Warming" Al-Gore's agenda because "the world is meeeelting"

 

[Behind The Mask]

because leftism is not about science but about "feeling good"

So they support Darwin because most of them are atheists but they don't support the conseguences of darwinism because most of them really hate capitalism

So they reject Economics Science because is a "bourgoise science" calling economics fraud and then support "Global Warming" Al-Gore's agenda because "the world is meeeelting"

What are you babbling about now?