Cheetah
Deity
I think, technically, FAL is correct. Evolution does continue in humans, and the offspring of tall people have a greater likelihood of being tall, the offspring of musicians have a greater likelihood of having musical talents, the offspring of athletes to be athletic, of smart people to be smart, etc.
And technically, we could breed humans to improve certain specific traits that were desirable. The traditional way of breeding would only allow for some very narrow goals however. and while bioengineering can allow us to be more precise at selecting favorable traits, we would still have to decide which traits are favorable and which aren't.
And I think an argument that wealthy people have been evolutionary more successful can be had: If I understand correctly, until the modern age, a great deal of poor people died from starvation, illnesses and environmental hazards that the richer people were protected from. I'm afraid I can't remember the source of the following claim, but it might be that large numbers of poor people died off without procreating. Their ranks were soon filled however, with the less successful offspring of richer people. Only a few of the rich peoples offspring were able to remain rich as the generations passed, and thus great-grandsons of rich people became the poor people as the old poor people died, etc.
However, because our intelligence and opposable thumbs have a much greater effect on our surroundings than our mere bodies, and coupled with out social groups, it is hard to say if any specific selection has taken place in humanity in the last tens of hundreds of thousands of years.
But to approach FAL's question more directly: Arguing for Social Darwinism - even if it only means individual differences - necessarily implies that one can deem which traits are favorable, and which aren't. This becomes especially hard if one can only accept our refuse each potential individual as a package, and not put together just selected traits for a human being (think "designer babies").
For instance, I reckon a case could be made to choose away me because of my physical defects: near-sightedness, asthma and allergies. But on the other hand, I seem to be quite intelligent and economically productive: At least private companies are willing to exchange a fair amount of money for my services. Should a person like me be chosen in or chosen out?
And technically, we could breed humans to improve certain specific traits that were desirable. The traditional way of breeding would only allow for some very narrow goals however. and while bioengineering can allow us to be more precise at selecting favorable traits, we would still have to decide which traits are favorable and which aren't.
And I think an argument that wealthy people have been evolutionary more successful can be had: If I understand correctly, until the modern age, a great deal of poor people died from starvation, illnesses and environmental hazards that the richer people were protected from. I'm afraid I can't remember the source of the following claim, but it might be that large numbers of poor people died off without procreating. Their ranks were soon filled however, with the less successful offspring of richer people. Only a few of the rich peoples offspring were able to remain rich as the generations passed, and thus great-grandsons of rich people became the poor people as the old poor people died, etc.
However, because our intelligence and opposable thumbs have a much greater effect on our surroundings than our mere bodies, and coupled with out social groups, it is hard to say if any specific selection has taken place in humanity in the last tens of hundreds of thousands of years.
But to approach FAL's question more directly: Arguing for Social Darwinism - even if it only means individual differences - necessarily implies that one can deem which traits are favorable, and which aren't. This becomes especially hard if one can only accept our refuse each potential individual as a package, and not put together just selected traits for a human being (think "designer babies").
For instance, I reckon a case could be made to choose away me because of my physical defects: near-sightedness, asthma and allergies. But on the other hand, I seem to be quite intelligent and economically productive: At least private companies are willing to exchange a fair amount of money for my services. Should a person like me be chosen in or chosen out?
Humans were more egalitarian before we had lots of material possessions, of course, but there were still differences in status, social standing, attractiveness, strength and beauty. There is no reason to believe that nomadic people generally treats all their individuals the same way. That we became less egalitarian with material possessions is simply an effect from having another dimension to develop differences in.
I'm not aware how the differences pan out here. How much more closer are bonobos than chimps to humans?
Err... Kodiaks and Polars have mated recently, and I haven't heard anything about their offspring being infertile?
But this argument ignores the generality of the idea. It could just as well be used against evolution itself, couldn't it?
(Um, no pun intended. 
)
