How can you believe in evolution but no social darwinism
- Thread starter Archbob
- Start date
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
I guess I titled this thread wrong then. I am talking about evolution within our human race from a scientific perspective and that on a individual level some humans are superior to others. I do not see how you can believe in ToE and not believe in that.
This has no racial implication as can only be considered on an individual level.
As for Neandrathals, it depends. Some scientists would consider them a different species, others a sub-species. It depends who you ask.
cubsfan6506
Got u
Well duh, but that's not what Social Darwinism is.
edit: oops late
edit: oops late
PredatorFett
steam user
I think I speak for those of us who believe in evolution (and yes, I do consider myself a Christian) when I tell you that my answer is : with tangible evidence that makes sense.
The concept of Creation as it is understood by most Christians is FLAWED. I hope I don't get excommunicated for saying that.......
The concept of Creation as it is understood by most Christians is FLAWED. I hope I don't get excommunicated for saying that.......
I believe in social darwinism to a certain extent. And certainly, NOT everyone is where they are because of it. A rich kid growing up in Orange County, California is more likely to live a successful life not because of his traits but because he never has to face so many obstacles that people growing up in, let's say Youngstown, Ohio. The one thing that I can believe is that poor people who grow up to start corporate empires are probably superior to everyone else. But, if you got where you were because daddy got his best friend to hire you, social darwinism, yeah right.
Even athletics. A lot of success with athletics is having people around you that motivates and believe in you. For all we know what could have been the greatest athlete in the world is a random guy who never had that.
Even athletics. A lot of success with athletics is having people around you that motivates and believe in you. For all we know what could have been the greatest athlete in the world is a random guy who never had that.
PredatorFett
steam user
Scratch my last post, I'm not Catholic.
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
Even with what I'm explaining, scientifically for our species it implies that social stratification is inevitable and that social equality is not possible nor should be it strived towards from a purely scientific basis because certain individuals are simply superior to others. Once again, it is not based on race but based on individuals.
We've been stratified as a society since the invention of agriculture. Even before then in hunter-gather society, there was clear definition of rank and dominance.
What I don't get is how some people can so easily follow ToE and still say that equality in humans is inevitable and must be achieved in the future, when scientifically, quite the opposite is true.
Humans have never been egalitarian and were not made by nature to be egalitarian.
No dude, I could try as hard as I could to be as good at Basketball as LeBron James and he'd whoop me in basketball. I would say same holds true for anyone in this forum.
Falling out of high circles is pretty easy in today's society too. If your truly suck and your kids take after you then after a few generations, there's a good chance you won't be upper class anymore.
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
There is some merit to that idea. However, by natural laws and through observations within other species is that birthright holds quite a bit of weight in many species in the animal kingdom, including our own. There I cannot say it is "unnatural" for inequality of opportunity as well.
Sure, sounds like a good idea to me but from a purely scientific and natural standpoint. It was no more merit than not having equality of opportunity.
Well, guess what? I agree! And I agreed with those statements before you even posted them!
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Actually, most primitive societies are largely egalitarian. Inequality, at least as understood in this context, demands a sufficient material surplus, rather than being an inevitable product of our biology.
civver_764
Deity
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
No, actually if you watched any documentaries, they all say that as soon as humans invented agriculture and began to live in sedentary communities, social stratification quickly occurred.
Only in our hunter-gather days did we resemble any kind of egalitarian society. Even then, there was strict social hierarchy. There was nothing to accumulate but the strongest members of a clan got first picking during harvest and when an animal was butched. Basically what rankings they could produce they did.
Social stratification is inherently in our biology and in the biology of most other great apes(with Bonobos being the one sole exception I can think of), and thats because out of all the great Ape societies, Bonobo society is female dominated and not male-dominated.
I think you still fail to realize that pure science doesn't care about morality or whats "right". Those are purely man-made constructions and are not relevent when we are talking about scientific facts. What is "right" is largely a conception of our society and actually depends a lot on who you ask, it has nothing to do with science. Morality in respect to science has about as much bearing as God or other divine being(whichever you believe in).
Much our initial foundation for morality has a lot to do with religion and spiritual beliefs.
Murky
Deity
OK. So if we're talking "cladistic signficance" why are Polar Bears classified as a different species from Kodiaks? If there is a "cladistic significance" there then why wouldn't there be a "cladistic significance" between an Eskimo and an African?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bear
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodiak_bear
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
And seriously with your appeal to nature argument.
What is so inherently moral about making 2 unequal people equal?
There's no moral basis for that.
What is so inherently moral about making 2 unequal people equal?
There's no moral basis for that.
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
I would imagine that the bears are reproductively isolated, while the two humans are not.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Well, yes, I know; what did you think I meant by "sufficient material surplus"?
That is not universally true. There is not, as you seem to assume, a "basic" model for human society, and there is great variety between primitive societies. Most, in fact, tend to distribute goods on an as-need basis, rather than in accordance with status; essentially a form of communism. High social status tends to take the form of prestige and influence, rather than the formalised hierarchy you suggest. Those groups in which hierarchy does begin to emerge are typically those who have been able to adopt a more sedentary lifestyle, and so allow a material surplus to develop,
Bonobos are, however, our closest relatives, so that rather suggests that referencing Great Apes may be a rather fruitless task.
Because the Polar and Kodiak bears are distinct species, which is to say that they have undergone speciation. Eskimos and "Africans" have not, and not least because the latter does not refer to any one ethnic group or "race". (In fact, even if we are to take it as a reference to Sub-Saharan or "Black" Africans, they still represent a great many ethnic groups; there is more genetic diversity, in fact, in Sub-Saharan African than in the rest of the human species put together. If your Racialism was accurate, most humans would be a sub-set of a sub-set of African, rather than a set of equal level.)
Nature is irrelevant. What matters is fairness. Fairness dictates that everyone should have equality of opportunity. It may be "unnatural" but it is socially progressive.
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
No, actually Chimps and Bonobos are equally as close and out society more resembles chimps than Bonobos. Much like chimps out society is male-dominated.
No, your equating "socially progressive" as "right". Which is your political view, not everyone's.
Sorry, I was a bit lax in the evaluation of my terminology.
I'm equating "fair" and "right" as "right". Do you say that the Caste System is not necessarily "wrong" from a social perspective, and to say it's wrong is a political view?
Do you believe that certain positions being given to members of society by basis of birth and not merit - is not necessarily wrong, and that viewing it as wrong is a "political view"?
Similar threads
- Poll
