How can you believe in evolution but no social darwinism

[Tacitusitis]

To state that all humans are remotely equal on an individual basis is complete folly.

You are arguing against a straw man here.

One can advocate that people are equal under the law, should be given equal opportunity for economic success, and are equally deserving of human rights without arguing that human beings are interchangeable and equivalent.

 

[sophie]

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.

The sort of selection you are referring to already happens in society and is naturally a part of evolution, and in fact is paramount to evolution as a theory. What I am of course referring to is the selection process involved in choosing mates. All humans, and for that matter all sexual life selects for certain attributes which it considers valuable to that species. For example the female walrus will mate with the biggest male on the block, or the female lemurs on Madagascar select the male with the most arousing scent. Likewise, humans perform similar selections. Females will choose the most attractive, or most successful, or most intelligent, most funny, or the best combination of these attributes, and males do likewise. This is a naturally occurring process by which the most beneficial or successful humans pass on their genes while the least successful do not. Therefore I say to you, why should we have to artificially implant something which already occurs naturally (and would in all likelihood occur far better than anything we could hope to do)?

 

[FriendlyFire]

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

Cause 1 in 5 people on the face of the earth are decendents of GengishKhan ?
The greatest conqueror and oat sower in the history of humanity.

 

[Archbob]

The sort of selection you are referring to already happens in society and is naturally a part of evolution, and in fact is paramount to evolution as a theory. What I am of course referring to is the selection process involved in choosing mates. All humans, and for that matter all sexual life selects for certain attributes which it considers valuable to that species. For example the female walrus will mate with the biggest male on the block, or the female lemurs on Madagascar select the male with the most arousing scent. Likewise, humans perform similar selections. Females will choose the most attractive, or most successful, or most intelligent, most funny, or the best combination of these attributes, and males do likewise. This is a naturally occurring process by which the most beneficial or successful humans pass on their genes while the least successful do not. Therefore I say to you, why should we have to artificially implant something which already occurs naturally (and would in all likelihood occur far better than anything we could hope to do)?

We don't artificially implement something. But people seem to think that we are obligated to hinder this process by providing equality.

We don't implement artificial constructs more than any other species in nature. There are many many species where being the offspring of a high-ranking mother/father confers high rank upon yourself.

A lot of arguments against this I can see are going to be based on "intrinsic worth" of human beings and how that is equal. But thats really just BS when it comes to science. There is not such thing as "intrinsic worth" or "value" when speaking in scientific terms.

God, Jesus, and that stuff tells us to treat other people fairly. Natural selection and science does not.

 

[Tacitusitis]

But people seem to think that we are obligated to hinder this process by providing equality.

Before this conversation goes further you need to define "providing equality." (and read what I wrote)

We don't implement artificial constructs more than any other species in nature.

This is obviously not true. We are surrounded by the material and immaterial (social) artifacts of our own intelligence.

 

[Tacitusitis]

God, Jesus, and that stuff tells us to treat other people fairly. Natural selection and science does not.

First of all "science" does not make prescriptive or proscriptive statements about how we "should" behave.

Neither does natural selection or the theory of evolution. The theory can only explain how and why systems of altruistic behavior have arisen naturally (without making a statement about whether altruism "should" exist or not).

In any case altruism is easy to explain. Empathy flows from kin selection (sacrificing your own life/reproductive potential in order to advance that of your relatives). Your genes have a stake in the genes of other people, in direct proportion to your degree of relatedness, thus it is evolutionarily advantageous for related animals to exhibit altruism towards each other.

 

[carlosMM]

In nature success is worth.

Please define "worth".
Please show how your claim is correct (hint: it is wrong)

Success begats power which helps in passing on your genes.

or not - many powerful people have to work so hard for their power that their reproductive success is diminished.

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.

Yep.

Social Darwinism basically favors those than gain power. Power has a lot to do with reproductive success.

So you say - but you have already admitted that power is not equal to reproductive success: "has a lot to do with" is not "equals".

Also, social darwinism calls for actively selecting - where does the ToE say humans should do active selecting?


I guess you have no clue what social darwinism really is, nor what evolution really is.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Evolution is about who gets laid and who gets dead. You can still see this in society. Why do humans get taller over the ages, because taller people are more likely to breed than smaller people.

However Evolution also has the element of care for members of your tribe. If your peers are well taken care of, your survival is also more certain.

Social Darwinism is not about the first bit, and ignores the second.

This is why it's ridiculously easy to believe in Evolution while rejecting Social Darwinism as abhorrent.

 

[Gigaz]

How can you believe that men and women are different but still believe that they should be treated equally?

 

[Krepps]

God, Jesus, and that stuff tells us to treat other people fairly. Natural selection and science does not.

How ironic, then, that societies have progressed towards fairness as reason took over from religion.

 

[Tacitusitis]

How can you believe that men and women are different but still believe that they should be treated equally?

Difference in one area does not erase equality of competence in other areas

 

[emzie]

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.



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



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.

The issue isn't, "does power mean more children?" but, "does power mean more children who are also powerful?" I don't think it does. Power is passed on, if at all, in a linear fashion, not branching. Gheghis Khan doesn't have 16 million people running around with his level of power.

 

[Winston Hughes]

Do the rich and powerful have more children?

And are the richer and more powerful 'races' growing in population, as compared to the poorer and less powerful ones?

Is social darwinism a laughable misreading of science used only to justify racism and selfishness?

 

[Archbob]

Please define "worth".
Please show how your claim is correct (hint: it is wrong)

or not - many powerful people have to work so hard for their power that their reproductive success is diminished.

Yep.
So you say - but you have already admitted that power is not equal to reproductive success: "has a lot to do with" is not "equals".

Also, social darwinism calls for actively selecting - where does the ToE say humans should do active selecting?


I guess you have no clue what social darwinism really is, nor what evolution really is.

No, I think your the one thats confused about what evolution really implies, or maybe you don't want to believe it because it doesn't fit your moral beliefs. Evolution selects those traits that are most likely to be successful in reproducing. There is no guarantee that each individual that it select will be successful at doing so. A trait that tends to gain a lot of power in humans is more successful in general than a trait that does not gain power. Therefore evolution and natural selection is going to pick that trait. That trait is in essence 'superior' to a trait that does not begat power.

Your nitpicking at my post while ignoring the overall point.

Power and reproductive success are strongly positively correlated and it is a casual relationship, its not a coincidence. You'd have to be blind to say otherwise. Power makes it more likely that your genes will be passed on. It is not equals, but its pretty darn close. Looks at Kings, emperor, nobles. They generally slept with more women and sired more kids than your average peasant.

Humans are actively selecting every day. I don't agree that a government should put more pressure for them to do so. But to promote that humans are equal or even close to being equal on the individual level is also ludicris. Government should not go either way, it should not force them to select what is "genetically superior" but it also should not be encouraging integration either. In this matter, government should stay out and let things take their natural course. Same thing with hereditary wealth and such. You should not be trying to promote a class of elites nor should you be trying to promote equality. You should just let things play out as they are.

Do the rich and powerful have more children?

Actually yes, in the long run. Gheghis Khan has 16 million decendents. Your average person from the 12th century does not. Their children are more likely to survive at least and be in positions of power. Kings, emperors, and rulers, generally tend to father more offspring than your average Joe. Its not quite as true in western society today because we've made rules to prevent whats natural from happening out of feelings of "fairness". But you can easily look to other areas of the world where leaders like Bin Laden for instance have far more wives and offspring than the average person. The powerful also control all the resources and in times of crunch are the ones most likely to survive.

Not all 16 million have his level of power obviously button they don't need to. Having that many descendents is quite good insurance that his line will continue to be passed on.

How ironic, then, that societies have progressed towards fairness as reason took over from religion.

No, it was actually religion that drove forward the first sets of laws that made order. Religion is basically the center of all our cultral advancements. Without it, we've still be in the stone age.

 

[Tacitusitis]

You seem to like to ignore this.

You seem to like replying to carlos only, I guess because he's easier to argue against? Gnight

 

[Lone Wolf]

Looks at Kings, emperor, nobles. They generally slept with more women and sired more kids than your average peasant.

That's a dubious demographic statement.

 

[emzie]

Actually yes, in the long run. Gheghis Khan has 16 million decendents. Your average person from the 12th century does not. Their children are more likely to survive at least and be in positions of power. Kings, emperors, and rulers, generally tend to father more offspring than your average Joe. Its not quite as true in western society today because we've made rules to prevent whats natural from happening out of feelings of "fairness". But you can easily look to other areas of the world where leaders like Bin Laden for instance have far more wives and offspring than the average person. The powerful also control all the resources and in times of crunch are the ones most likely to survive.

Yes, there's a linear fashion to power inheritance. But it doesn't follow evolutionary laws. People rarely become more powerful than their fathers, and if they do, the trend does not hold for many generations. It decays.

Yes, Gheghis Khan has a lot of descendants. But I'd not be so quick to assume that's not true of many other people from the 12th century. Indeed, there becomes a point in the future where you will be an ancestor to every living person on earth, or no living people on earth. That doesn't mean there's anything special about you, that's just math. Dawkins' does some great popular science writing, I recommend you find a copy of The Ancestor's Tale and read the passage on Tasmanians.

 

[Dachs]

Looks at Kings, emperor, nobles. They generally slept with more women and sired more kids than your average peasant.

This is complete nonsense. It can only be even sort of said to be true in one country (England) for a relatively short period of time (the pre-modern period). And even that's extremely sketchy, as any of Greg Clark's critics will tell you.

 

[Fr8monkey]

No, it was actually religion that drove forward the first sets of laws that made order. Religion is basically the center of all our cultral advancements. Without it, we've still be in the stone age.

However, religion has stagnated tecnological advancement. Without it we would be exploriong the stars by now.

 

[Verbose]

Evolution is about who gets laid and who gets dead. You can still see this in society. Why do humans get taller over the ages, because taller people are more likely to breed than smaller people.

If that kind of extravagance can be afforded. Get a period of scarcity, and it should be the smaller, lower-maintenance guys who get to live and breed more often. It's best adapted to the current situation after all.