|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


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
|
Rahz
Alive Again



Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,247
|
|
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
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


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
|
Grapefruit
Freak in the forest


Registered: 05/09/08
Posts: 5,744
Last seen: 3 years, 1 month
|
|
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"
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,829
|
|
. 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)
|
Rahz
Alive Again



Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,247
|
|
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
|
laughingdog
Stranger

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.
|
Loaded Shaman
Psychophysiologist



Registered: 03/02/15
Posts: 8,006
Loc: Now O'Clock
Last seen: 1 month, 15 days
|
|
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
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,703
|
|
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?
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Yellow Pants


Registered: 05/14/17
Posts: 1,386
Loc:
|
|
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.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,825
|
|
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
|
Yellow Pants


Registered: 05/14/17
Posts: 1,386
Loc:
|
|
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.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,703
|
|
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.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,825
|
|
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. 
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
|
skOsH
Functionally dysfunctional



Registered: 07/03/19
Posts: 1,377
Loc: the PNW
Last seen: 5 days, 8 hours
|
|
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.
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,829
|
|
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)
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,825
|
|
Couldn't agree more, well said.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
Darwin23
INFJ



Registered: 10/08/10
Posts: 3,279
Loc: United States
Last seen: 16 days, 13 minutes
|
|
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
|
BrendanFlock
Stranger


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..
|
Ferdinando


Registered: 11/15/09
Posts: 3,677
|
|
yes gaming is an addiction it is almost as bad as substance abuse
-------------------- with our love with our love we could save the world
|
|