A thought RE: Darwinism

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by pikatore, May 18, 2007.

  1. pikatore

    pikatore Registered Member

    I just realised something.

    I've been learning about Darwinism, how Charles Darwin's theory of evolution has been placed in a social context.

    That is, if one is to be totally heartless and act purely for the good of evolution/our future, poor and ill people shouldn't be given welfare, and allowed to easily pass thier genes down the line. And the fittest person isn't the one that is the hottest or the smartest, but the one that has the most children, and is able to send those children out into the world to succesfully find thier own mates and have more children.

    We all joke about people who win the Darwin award for killing themselves in the most idiotic and pathetic fashion, but we don't stop to consider that this idea, if it is to be adopted, must be held on the living as well to make sense.

    Anyway. It is put a lot of things in a different light.

    For example. You think that Hollywood actors/actresses have it all, right? But, they are famous not just for thier movies/songs, but for the crapfights and screwed up situations they may find themselves in, and how thier extreme emotional sensitivity and instability prevents them from having meaningful and lasting relationships with each other. Fine, they are good looking, but we all know that at the end of the day, in society, looks only get you so far.

    Anyway, thier glamour is enviable, but at the end of the day, how many of them are having multiple children, and how are these children able to assimilate back into society easily?

    High profile celebrities are unknowingly UNFAVOURED by evolution, because thier walk of life excludes them from the main gene pool, and lessens thier chances of having and supporting offspring. Just a thought.

  2. MrCarolina77

    MrCarolina77 Guest

    Very interesting. Looks only get you so far. Lets also not forget the media tracks them like blood hounds and puts any movie star on newspapers just because their are people who look up to people like this *it makes you feel sorry for these kind of people doesn't it?*. Yeah they don't help society.
  3. Nosferatu_Alucard

    Nosferatu_Alucard Undead Intellectual

    Yes that is all true. It isn't natural selection anymore, it's artificial selection. The reason why our populations are so and and continuing to increase so expontentially is because of our advancements in technology and medicine. The number of people being cured/saved etc. from illness and the average years lived has increased highly.

    I mean this all good and stuff, but looking at this in a "big picture" kind of sense, we really shouldn't be doing this. If we keep poping out the babies, we will jump over our carrying capacity very soon. The huge problem about this that is really scary is that no one knows what out carrying capacity is (how many people our world can support). Once we overshoot that line, what will happen to us is what happens to all other species it happened to; tons will die and our overall carrying capacity will be drastically lower than usual and might not even return to normal.
  4. ExpectantlyIronic

    ExpectantlyIronic e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑


    I honostly don't think most folks who are ill and/or poor are that way due to a genetic disadvantage. Furthermore, many highly successful people do have signifigantly harmful genes. Take for instance the "royal disease" haemophilia. I realize that your not advocating for social Darwinism, but you do seem to think it makes sense. It doesn't. The whole idea's a crock of shit.

    Nosferatu Alucard,

    I don't think there's much danger of that happening anytime soon. With more people on the planet, there are more people to work or produce technology to increase the carrying capacity. Furthermore, it's not like there's a shortage of food or anything. We could provide food and water to about ten times the current worlds population. Of course, that doesn't seem to be the case given that many people go lacking, but that's mainly due to the fact that there isn't much interest in spending money so that everyone in Africa could have water (for example). We could certainly do it if we felt so inclined.
  5. Nosferatu_Alucard

    Nosferatu_Alucard Undead Intellectual

    Anytime soon on what kind of timeline? In a human lifetime it seems it will never happen, but on a larger scale, for us as a species, it will happen a lot sooner than you think.

    What fact do you have behind proving that we have enough food and water to supply ten times more the population? Do you even know what the worlds population is now, and the amount of resources we waste on it now? Take that, times ten, I doubt we're any where near what we need. And on top of all that, only 1, I repeat 1% of the water on earth is available for us to drink. With pollution, global warming etc., we would not be able to support ten times the world population. World population times ten equals world pollution times ten.
  6. pikatore

    pikatore Registered Member

    No, I think it makes perfect sense.

    Haemophilia isn't 'good' or 'bad', because it's quite managable without reducing a person's social fitness. Not to mention that the royalty adheres to a very strict and isolated genetic line, so they will be royal for as long as they are considered royal.

    Also, don't think that a condition is always bad. Instead of thinking about it related to the norm, think about it in evolutionary terms.

    Sickle cell anemia is quite common in Black Africans. At first, you might say, that's real bad, but when you realise that the condition makes the 'sufferer' incredibly resistant to malaria, you'll understand why it is so common in that part of the world.

    There are outliers, such as royalty being guarenteed top notch welfare because of thier unique circumstances. But social Darwinism surely applies in a general fashion.
  7. ExpectantlyIronic

    ExpectantlyIronic e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑

    Nosferatu Alucard,

    I'm saying we can produce enough. They way things are set up currently, those who live in the areas that go lacking don't produce nearly as much food as they could, but rather produce goods that are used in wealthier nations. India is a good example of a nation which prioritized growing enough food for domestic consumption, and is thus now on a strongly positive economic upswing. Furthermore, technologies that help improve crop yield aren't as widely distributed, or as easily available to farmers as they could be.

    I actually looked up the worlds population just the other day for some odd reason. Regardless, you're basically ignoring my point about how more people result in more manpower, and thus more resource production.

    If the population were to jump so drastically all at once. That's an unrealistic scenario though. We humans are a clever lot, and tend to innovate and regulate when it becomes absolutely needed. We couldn't have supported todays population with only the technology and know-how available a couple hundred years ago, and it's unrealistic to think that we won't have more advanced technology available a couple hundred years from now.


    What genes would you single out as rendering one socially unfit? The simple fact of the matter is that no current human society that I'm aware of is a strict meritocracy where genetic factors play the major role in selecting who succeeds. Your right that my mention of a hemophilia as a bad thing was quite arbitrary. Nevertheless, any attempt to single out positive or negative genetic traits is ultimately arbitrary. Thus, I don't see how one can make the claim that inferior genes are being promoted by providing for those incapable of surviving without such help. Humans are social animals, and none of us get by without the help of others.
  8. Nosferatu_Alucard

    Nosferatu_Alucard Undead Intellectual

    How in the world could we produce enough?

    I'm not ignoring your point, I've been acknowledging it. Yes, more people result in more man power, but that's if we could handle more men. Just because there are more men doesn't mean we can magically make more resources. If anything, we would have to come up with some miracle way to produce need resources for the increased population.

    Yeah so are other species as well, but species still over-shoot carrying capacity and almost die off, if not completely become extinct.
  9. ExpectantlyIronic

    ExpectantlyIronic e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑

    Nosferatu Alucard,

    Like the miracle of planting more crops, breeding more animals, or increasing the efficiency of distribution?

    I'm afraid that those other animals must just not have had enough visionaries when they discussed how to handle matters at whatever meetings they had to determine how to deal with the problem. Or, perhaps, those other species aren't quite as clever as us. I'm not saying that the human race can't become overpopulated, but rather that there is no reason to suspect it happening anytime soon. If more people are born it's not like their entire lives are going to be spent sitting around eating. They're going to help produce all those fantastic goods that we all love and enjoy.
  10. pikatore

    pikatore Registered Member

    Genes play a major role in EVERYTHING we do, and EVERYTHING we ARE. It's what we are made of. The illusion that they don't play that much of a role is because the overwhelming majority of the human genome is shared amongst us all. Yet they dictate what our personalities are likely to be like, how well we respond to certain kinds of psychological conditioning, or in other words, how well we socially meld.

    Actors and actressess are usually emotionally unstable and sensitive. They aren't like that because of thier chosen career path. They chose thier career path because of how they are naturally drawn to something that encourages them to project convincing emotional charades to other people, and be able to do this so well that when they act, they actually BECOME another person.

    It's this continual need for emotional stimulation and change that shows thier inherent emotional instability. And a natural tendency to be like that is undeniably gene linked.

    Sure, environemental factors have a major effect as well, but if you look at the general trends, you see the more fundamental cause of the trend. And it's not just acting.

    For example, many mothers who have identical twins will notice many behavioural similarities in thier early age, and then they evetually develop thier own personas based on thier environment. Yet, there is still that genetic undercurrent that will unknowingly shape all of thier behavioural patterns.

    On the subject of helping others, notice how even though you may cry at seeing a child die of starvation in Africa, you will be even more distraught at your mother or sister's death. Why? The simplest answer is actually the most revealing answer. It's because you are both (closely) related. That is why many animals will lay down thier lives for thier offspring. 'Love' is what people may call it, but it's the inherited altuistic behaviour that will increase the chances of that organism's genes of surviving.

    We are a socially oriented organism, therefore socially inept or dysfunctional (in the weakest sense of the word) people have a lesser chance of settling down with a mate and having children, and just as importantly, having kids that in turn have a good chance of being socially successful. Kids that are liked by the community, kids that contribute yet take thier share, kids that are successful in every aspect of life, not just financially. That's why so many actors are so unhappy - they've placed too much emphasis on asthetics and image and money, and forgetten about the other little things.

    We try to help those who aren't in a decent place in society out of pure altruistic purposes, that is, a general need to keep the whole species in as varied a state as possible, but our true purposes and colours show when we show more care to our relatives and close friends, as this is a more favourable social situation evolution-wise. It exists in much more basic forms in other organisms as well.

    Sure, money can buy love, but it doesn't buy happiness, and it definietely doesn't buy you decent children. It does make sense in the end.

Share This Page