Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,825
Social Darwinism
    #27055994 - 11/24/20 06:42 PM (3 years, 2 months ago)

Social Darwinism has been thoroughly debunked in academia, and common sense rather condemns it as well. Those with the best jobs and highest popularity are not biologically superior to everyone else, or superior in any other way, necessarily. The picture is way too complex for such simple thinking to adequately address this, from genetics to early upbringing and environment to level of education to exposure to stimuli like books, etc.

Do you agree or disagree? Do you feel social Darwinism is dead, or is there some validity to it?


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,247
Re: Social Darwinism [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #27056025 - 11/24/20 06:58 PM (3 years, 2 months ago)

I think there's some validity to it, but when it justifies something like forced sterilization it prevents nature from taking it's course.

I agree the picture is way to complex to suggest it's a prime driver but it makes sense that it would play a part. At the same time, having money no longer produces wives with 13 children and birth control in general throws a monkey wrench into the system.


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace


"You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,825
Re: Social Darwinism [Re: Rahz]
    #27056063 - 11/24/20 07:16 PM (3 years, 2 months ago)

Good point. Affluence these days tends to result in a sharp decrease of offspring compared with those in lower tax brackets. This is actually one argument for accelerating the prosperity of developing nations so that their populations will level off and start to decline. Italy for example actually has a negative growth rate. But that's a bit of a digression.

Anyway, yes, the Darwinian argument starts to falter when we consider that the best specimens have fewer to no offspring. It is also my understanding that academics can find no causal link between genetics and social and economic status, although I am not familiar with the details of this. As much as it would seem that genetics and intelligence and moneymaking should all be tied together, the scientific consensus seems to be that they're not.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGrapefruit
Freak in the forest
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/09/08
Posts: 5,744
Last seen: 3 years, 1 month
Re: Social Darwinism [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #27056083 - 11/24/20 07:29 PM (3 years, 2 months ago)

I think that social competitiveness might take us to the stars and back but in the mean time we will destroy the earth and the virtue in our psyche in the process if too much energy is given to it.

That said I do believe in some kind of hierarchy of respect and recognition of one's own limitations and powers, but it should emerge as naturally as possible and be encouraged in the individual, not forced upon them via sorting machines.


--------------------
Little left in the way of energy; or the way of love, yet happy to entertain myself playing mental games with the rest of you freaks until the rivers run backwards. 

"Chat your fraff
Chat your fraff
Just chat your fraff
Chat your fraff"


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,829
Re: Social Darwinism [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #27056098 - 11/24/20 07:35 PM (3 years, 2 months ago)

.  As we all know some kids inherit some of their parents' talents, but it seems to be rather random. And other kids seemingly from out of nowhere may have talents their parents don't. The same may be true of "IQ" generally. And alternatively many kids do not inherit the genius of their parent or parents.
.  So if the effects of good genetics, only survive the recombinations of sexual reproduction, on a very random basis - then quick easy to see results would seem unlikely.
.  And in any case what we think of as genius (or desirable traits) may be a very complex combination of factors, that is different from individual to individual.
.  So we know just from breeding dogs, without even discussing evolution, that inheritance, selection, adaptation etc. do have effects. But we also know that to accomplish this took thousands of years of directed interference ie. directed mating, and killing of unwanted dogs ( or of the animal being breed), not exactly a program we want to inflict on humans.


Edited by laughingdog (11/24/20 07:47 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,247
Re: Social Darwinism [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #27056340 - 11/24/20 09:58 PM (3 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
Good point. Affluence these days tends to result in a sharp decrease of offspring compared with those in lower tax brackets. This is actually one argument for accelerating the prosperity of developing nations so that their populations will level off and start to decline. Italy for example actually has a negative growth rate. But that's a bit of a digression.

Anyway, yes, the Darwinian argument starts to falter when we consider that the best specimens have fewer to no offspring. It is also my understanding that academics can find no causal link between genetics and social and economic status, although I am not familiar with the details of this. As much as it would seem that genetics and intelligence and moneymaking should all be tied together, the scientific consensus seems to be that they're not.




Well, I'm sure that to some degree they are. I mean, I don't suspect the 70 level IQ crowd is making the same money as the 130 IQ crowd. But beyond that's it's also about cunning and risk taking and other negative/neutral qualities, along with some positive qualities as well. While IQ probably isn't the only indicator I suppose there must be something abnormal that separates the rich from the non.

I mean, sometimes luck, but not all luck right? And I don't suspect eugenics and brain science has the knowledge to speak authoritatively one the subject, but we can wax philosophical about it.


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace


"You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,829
Re: Social Darwinism [Re: Rahz]
    #27056444 - 11/24/20 11:55 PM (3 years, 2 months ago)

.    The differences in IQ, & mathematical ability seem both trivial, and enormous.

1) trivial because when we look at the state of the world, no one or no group has ever been able to really change things at a fundamental level. War, the pursuit of power, and lack of foresight have ruled the human condition for thousands of years. No one has ever been smart enough to change this for long, on any significant scale. So as a species, the range of IQ/abilities is within a small range.

2) On the other hand: there are enormous differences in individual abilities, talents, character, IQ, as we all know from personal experience, and observation.

3) so it seems to me, it just depends on how one looks at the issue.

.    Not only do the smarter folks reproduce less, but they also tend to have less interest in accumulating influence & power. Such mundane piggy stuff bores them. But the piggy stuff is how the kids of politicians, get to hobnob with those in the old boys clubs and join the ranks. So among humans just as in a cesspool, shit rises to top.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLoaded Shaman
Psychophysiologist
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/02/15
Posts: 8,006
Loc: Now O'Clock
Last seen: 1 month, 15 days
Re: Social Darwinism [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #27056490 - 11/25/20 01:04 AM (3 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
Social Darwinism has been thoroughly debunked in academia, and common sense rather condemns it as well. Those with the best jobs and highest popularity are not biologically superior to everyone else, or superior in any other way, necessarily. The picture is way too complex for such simple thinking to adequately address this, from genetics to early upbringing and environment to level of education to exposure to stimuli like books, etc.

Do you agree or disagree? Do you feel social Darwinism is dead, or is there some validity to it?





What's the actual argument? I'm having a hard time understanding. Less intelligent people doing stupid shit and ruining their careers? LOL.


--------------------



"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance." — Confucius


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,703
Re: Social Darwinism [Re: Loaded Shaman]
    #27056599 - 11/25/20 05:34 AM (3 years, 2 months ago)

is gaming an addiction like gambling?
is financial or social status an addiction
gathering a base of followers on instagram or twitter?

is addiction itself an adaptive advantage for a cultural niche?
how does procreation relate to addiction?


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleYellow Pants
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/14/17
Posts: 1,386
Loc: Flag
Re: Social Darwinism [Re: redgreenvines]
    #27056704 - 11/25/20 08:01 AM (3 years, 2 months ago)

Who is the judge of what is valuable socially?  Yeah idk it isn’t a straightforward game of person a survives and b dies.  A may rise to the top of wealth prosperity have just 1 kid where b is content with his finances in a middle bracket.  But with a preconceived value compass I think social Darwinism is accurate because the strong tend to rise to the top of a given framework that functions as its own game.  It would be a bad idea for a monk to attempt the US political game where he would not be fit and thus socially die.  Why would he take it seriously?  But if he was kicked out of the monastery he might evaluate why he didn’t succeed.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,825
Re: Social Darwinism [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #27056777 - 11/25/20 08:57 AM (3 years, 2 months ago)

I think one other way to look at it is to consider the concept of meritocracy. In a meritocracy, each person exists in their particular position based on objective worth. (How one determines objective worth is another question entirely). So, in such a system, the best people are at the top, the laziest and dumbest with the least initiative at the bottom, and everyone is more or less where they should be.

Now, I don't think there is a single pure meritocracy existing anywhere in the world, and I think (perhaps I'm wrong) that this concept, and the concept of social Darwinism, go hand in hand. If you look at American society, I don't think we would say that the best people are at or really anywhere near the "top." As Rahz pointed out, this requires cunning and, I would add, opportunism and deceit more than being any sort of objectively worthy person.

The whole dynamic of social Darwinism may be analogous.

As a bit of an aside, in terms of American society, I would say the best people all around are probably the science and math community. They are the smartest, and from my experience, most essentially decent and balanced sort of people. I would add that there are very, very few rich and famous physicists and mathematicians. So this just underscores my point about the absence of true meritocracy, and possibly also the utility of social Darwinism.

Now, in terms of the objective worth I am talking about, I'm not sure how on Earth anyone would determine it. And that is perhaps why there are no true meritocracies.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleYellow Pants
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/14/17
Posts: 1,386
Loc: Flag
Re: Social Darwinism [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #27056852 - 11/25/20 09:57 AM (3 years, 2 months ago)

Well certainly within the physics community there are those physicists that have risen to the top of their field with probably relatively more money and fame wouldn’t you say? 

But you would refer to American society as a whole where the physics community is less valued overall.  Yeah idk what to say about that.  :shrug:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,703
Re: Social Darwinism [Re: Yellow Pants]
    #27056906 - 11/25/20 10:30 AM (3 years, 2 months ago)

I think maybe 20% of our workforce are code-smiths (STEM - type workers and Adobe artists) at this point in some way or another they are working at the historical level of apprenticeship and paid like traditional office workers.

I guess it is the middle of the middle class which is less flamboyant than the middle class of the 1950's and 60's. (fewer own property or have jobs with retirement plans) It is a bit uncertain also due to AI being adapted to the same work.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,825
Re: Social Darwinism [Re: Yellow Pants] * 1
    #27056972 - 11/25/20 11:09 AM (3 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Yellow Pants said:
Well certainly within the physics community there are those physicists that have risen to the top of their field with probably relatively more money and fame wouldn’t you say? 

But you would refer to American society as a whole where the physics community is less valued overall.  Yeah idk what to say about that.  :shrug:





Yes, I think that within physics, for example, there are professors who have attained a high level of prestige. But they still don't have that much money, usually just their research or university salary, and maybe a modest pension when they retire. These are, as I have argued, some of the very best people we have to offer, and as you point out, they are not highly valued by society. I think actually a lot of Americans feel science spending is a waste of money. So it all just highlights how far we seem to be from an actual meritocracy, which the U.S. disingenuously pretends to be.

And so then we must say that the essence of social Darwinism, if true to some degree, is also false to a high degree as well.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineskOsH
Functionally dysfunctional
 User Gallery


Registered: 07/03/19
Posts: 1,377
Loc: the PNW
Last seen: 5 days, 8 hours
Re: Social Darwinism [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #27056975 - 11/25/20 11:13 AM (3 years, 2 months ago)

Social Darwinism is perhaps, one of the dumbest concepts ever...just my not so humble opinion

For one reason and one reason only: if/when society collapses

Then everyone will not know how to survive...then it's just survival of the fittest

And them those who survived will not know how to rebuild society because all they did was make money from society, not build it.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,829
Re: Social Darwinism [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #27057276 - 11/25/20 03:26 PM (3 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
Social Darwinism has been thoroughly debunked in academia, and common sense rather condemns it as well. Those with the best jobs and highest popularity are not biologically superior to everyone else, or superior in any other way, necessarily.




Funny to measure people by their jobs.

Also ignored (by those who endorse social Darwinism)

is that both
cleverness (for example Elon Musk)
and
wealth (Bezos)
and
power (Putin)
are all no measure of freedom from ego, and compassion...
and genetics is no guarantee of enlightenment.

...But society runs due to those with wealth, power, cleverness, and influence, and of course whatever is perceived as attractiveness especially sexual, by the culture in question.
...Unfortunately history shows brutality to also often be a path to the top.
...So yeah measure folks by how close their position is to the top, if you want to find the corrupt scum.
...This just the basics that the Taoists taught long ago (a few hundred years BC). Its all in the very short book "Tao Teh Ching", just 81 short verses.


Edited by laughingdog (11/25/20 03:34 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,825
Re: Social Darwinism [Re: laughingdog]
    #27057381 - 11/25/20 04:21 PM (3 years, 2 months ago)

Couldn't agree more, well said. :thumbup:


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDarwin23
INFJ
Male User Gallery


Registered: 10/08/10
Posts: 3,279
Loc: United States Flag
Last seen: 16 days, 13 minutes
Re: Social Darwinism [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #27058265 - 11/26/20 08:23 AM (3 years, 2 months ago)

If we lived in a pure meritocracy, it wouldn't be such a problem. Because we do not live in a true meritocracy, any suggestion of Social Darwinism is BS. We cannot determine one sect to be weaker than the other unless we start with a level playing field.


--------------------

Take a look at my journal


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBrendanFlock
Stranger
Male

Registered: 06/01/13
Posts: 4,224
Last seen: 23 hours, 48 minutes
Re: Social Darwinism [Re: Darwin23] * 1
    #27062239 - 11/28/20 10:25 PM (3 years, 2 months ago)

Social Darwinism is natural selection necessarily..

Why people bond and have social interaction is usually based on similar interests.. forming a group bond and taking it to the highest level..

People become leaders because of the way they relate to the masses.. the social republic.. good or bad..


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleFerdinando
Male

Registered: 11/15/09
Posts: 3,677
Re: Social Darwinism [Re: BrendanFlock]
    #27065768 - 12/01/20 04:48 AM (3 years, 2 months ago)

yes gaming is an addiction
it is almost as bad as substance abuse


--------------------
with our love with our love we could save the world


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Social Darwinism? vigilant_mind 679 5 02/10/08 08:03 PM
by MushmanTheManic
* Darwins Missing Links
( 1 2 all )
cosmicchic 5,828 32 05/06/04 08:42 PM
by TheShroomHermit
* Fags against Darwin Moonshoe 1,332 15 10/20/06 11:37 AM
by thatiAM
* Darwinism and Racism Zahid 1,048 7 08/24/04 07:50 PM
by Huehuecoyotl
* Evolution of Mental Abilities - Child Geniuses vs. Darwinism....
( 1 2 all )
PhanTomCat 2,598 24 09/01/05 10:05 PM
by psychomime
* Who misappropriated what? Viveka 358 0 05/23/06 09:30 PM
by Viveka
* Thinking in Darwinian Lockstep
( 1 2 all )
Evolving 3,452 33 12/31/04 03:54 PM
by Sclorch
* Social Interaction
( 1 2 3 4 all )
mushroomplume 4,358 72 11/26/07 08:38 PM
by machination

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
1,564 topic views. 0 members, 5 guests and 6 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.025 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 16 queries.