|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,818
|
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: 9,230
|
|
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: 9,818
|
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: 4,828
|
|
. 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: 9,230
|
|
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: 4,828
|
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: 28 days, 6 hours
|
|
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: 37,532
|
|
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: 9,818
|
|
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: 37,532
|
|
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: 9,818
|
|
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: 1,372
Loc: the PNW
Last seen: 1 day, 17 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: 4,828
|
|
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: 9,818
|
|
Couldn't agree more, well said.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
Darwin23
INFJ



Registered: 10/08/10
Posts: 3,277
Loc: United States
Last seen: 1 day, 17 hours
|
|
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: 4,216
Last seen: 6 hours, 44 minutes
|
Re: Social Darwinism [Re: Darwin23] 1
#27062239 - 11/28/20 10:25 PM (3 years, 1 month 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: 3,664
|
|
yes gaming is an addiction it is almost as bad as substance abuse
-------------------- with our love with our love we could save the world
|
Grapefruit
Freak in the forest


Registered: 05/09/08
Posts: 5,744
Last seen: 3 years, 1 month
|
|
Sometimes it's not an addiction, it can just be fun, and there's value in fun. Depends mostly on whether you have compulsive tendencies, and how well you can keep them in check.
-------------------- 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"
|
RJ Tubs 202



Registered: 09/20/08
Posts: 6,016
Loc: USA
Last seen: 1 hour, 12 minutes
|
|
Quote:
BrendanFlock said:
Social Darwinism is natural selection necessarily.
It's challenging for me to adopt the theory individuals, groups, and peoples are not subject to the same Darwinian laws of natural selection as plants and animals. I'm unsure how societies could avoid natural selection. Populations, like individuals, vary in many adaptive traits. How could this variation not be subject to some level of natural selection?
Is what some call "social Darwinism" related to the subject of sociobiology? That's the idea that certain genes or gene combinations can influence particular behavioral traits can be inherited from generation to generation - such as when newly dominant male lions often kill cubs in the pride that they did not sire.
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
|
the idea is used to justify white privilege, and other such notions. that is the crux of the objection that you seem to have missed, that is the main issue with it. Also used to justify abuses of eugenics, if you look up the history of eugenics, which by the way the Nazi's in Germany copied from the USA - interesting bit of history...
|
RJ Tubs 202



Registered: 09/20/08
Posts: 6,016
Loc: USA
Last seen: 1 hour, 12 minutes
|
|
Using the concept of social Darwinism to justify eugenics is one thing - but DQ opened the thread with a statement challenging the validity of the idea ("Social Darwinism has been thoroughly debunked in academia, and common sense rather condemns it as well."). I was voicing an objection to the idea that natural selection acts on individuals but not on groups.
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
|
The problem with the idea itself is that when breeding plants or animals enormous control of all variables is managed, by only allowing certain individuals to breed in controlled conditions. This never happens with humans in natural conditions.
In nature what is selected for is the most offspring that survive within a certain niche - thus the cockroach and shark have been around for something like millions of years longer than humans. So in nature it is not only a very amoral game of poker that is played: but also a game that does not particularly favor either greater awareness or conscious intelligence. Not a good model for what anyone would desire among humans, I think.
Never the less, humans now wear glasses, whereas nature allowed no Eskimos to survive with weak eyes. So again an answer is perhaps not so simple.
|
RJ Tubs 202



Registered: 09/20/08
Posts: 6,016
Loc: USA
Last seen: 1 hour, 12 minutes
|
|
I'm interested in hearing how social Darwinism is used to justify "white privilege".
Quote:
laughingdog said:
The problem with the idea itself is that when breeding plants or animals enormous control of all variables is managed, by only allowing certain individuals to breed in controlled conditions. This never happens with humans in natural conditions.
A pandemic is very similar to disease screening in breeding. The one and only variable is being infected with the pathogen. I do agree natural selection lacks moral intent - as my example of newly dominant male lions killing cubs in the pride they didn't father.
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
|
RJ Tubs 202 said: I'm interested in hearing how social Darwinism is used to justify "white privilege".
"Those who are on top deserve to be there because they work harder, and are generally superior, while those on the bottom of the heap are lazy good for nothings", is the justification - which of course ignores that those in power, keep it in the family, or within groups of similar people that owe each other favors. This sort of behavior in most human societies is at least partly why DQ said what he said. We even have a word for it within governments: "nepotism".
Incidentally eskimos do sometimes wear glasses - but they are sunglasses - there has not been enough evolutionary time for their retinas to adapt to the blinding white of, sun on snow. Unlike Africans & skin color, and 'whites' & skin color.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=eskimo+sungleasses&t=h_&iax=images&ia=images
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
|
. As regards intent, its not just that evolution is amoral, it also places no premium on the other human values of conscious intelligence or awareness of self, aka awareness of awareness. As far as evolution "is concerned" these factors are just tools, like claws, or swimming ability that may or may not give an advantage to genes when it comes to reproducing. . Humans in terms of species' lifetimes before extinction are a very young experiment, that has yet to prove itself. At present it appears humans are like a disease organism that is too virulent and so kills the host before it can spread. . As we know, successful disease organisms strike a balance between contagion abilities and the amount of damage they inflict. Rabies which actually kills, as part of the disease process causes the victim to bite others, to make sure it spreads, although it is ultimately fatal. . It appears humans like the cancer process are about to take down the ecosystem of the planet with themselves, at which point the evolutionary experiment with a large frontal cortex ends.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,818
|
|
Yes, and I think this highlights the difference between social Darwinism, and the theory of evolution itself. They are not really analogous. This is the point of attack many critics seem to take, although of course there are others, some of which have been discussed.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
|
. Also of note in terms of biological function; humans are not as smart as they think they are, or in other words not as sophisticated as other species.
. I mentioned Rabies, and of course, in this case, to cause the host to bite, it must mean that a micro-organism is controlling the human or the host's nervous system and/or brain. . A search for the terms: " mind controlling parasites ", on youtube will turn up many videos, with fascinating examples, of all sorts of species than can do what humans can't, namely control other species brains and nervous systems. There are many example of both fungi and wasps that do this, and who knows what else may be found. . In the case of Rabies it is of course a disease and not a parasite, as it kills quite rapidly.
. On these grounds perhaps one could fault the idea of social darwinism, as just another example of human arrogance. We're all pretty unsophisticated compared to what the wasps do to cockroaches; which involves an injection or 2 into a specific brain area of the "host", resulting in total control by the wasp. The case of fungi and ants, and snails ( & the green banded broodsac) are also amazing.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=snail+parasite
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=snail+infected+with+green+banded+broodsac+
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,532
|
|
I think that this shows poor understanding of rabies and other behavior changing diseases. there is no mind control, there is systemic disruption and the mind goes defensive maniacally. biting happens to anything in range, but is not actually under control of an invasive controlling infectious agent.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Loaded Shaman
Psychophysiologist



Registered: 03/02/15
Posts: 8,006
Loc: Now O'Clock
Last seen: 28 days, 6 hours
|
|
I think the only thing that offsets this is there is actually a large portion of the population below 100 IQ, which we can all argue doesn't matter, blah, blah, blah, but it's certainly a measurement of SOME capacity of mental capability. The army won't take anyone below 80 IQ for example.
--------------------
  "Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance." — Confucius
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,532
|
|
"sit" "stay" "fetch" "eat" "kill" below 80 they still can be trained and operated remotely. they just don't want the label "moron" to lower morale.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
mycot
Crazy as fuck


Registered: 05/31/06
Posts: 1,112
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 1 month, 5 days
|
|
Darwinism itself has been discredited. Social darwinism is a complete BS fabrication. Einstien never became a millionaire. Neither did Nicola Tesla. Many of our greatest artists, thinkers, visionaries and philosophers died penniless. Some wouldn't even have been able to continue their work had they not had patrons. Who knows what Fadiman may have accomplished had his work not been cut shot. Then there is the enormous destruction and waste of human talent and lives through the drug war. None of this can be considered evolutionary progress and fitness.
Being able to adapt to evolutionary dead ends is no indication of fitness. Would we consider a criminal gang leader as an example of evolutionary fitness because he's making a lot of money regardless of consequences. If a person can adapt to a lunatic asylum does that show evolutionary fitness ?
Social darwinism is just a political narrative as in work yourself into an early grave and you too may make it.(regardless of consequences) I agree with the OP. Social darwinism is well and truly dead.
Edited by mycot (12/04/20 05:05 AM)
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,532
|
Re: Social Darwinism [Re: mycot]
#27069859 - 12/03/20 11:19 AM (3 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
the gangster only has fitness in certain niches, in other environments, like the native healing circle, he will atone, and cease to dominate.
Someone like Ghengis Khan, however, the biggest gangster, managed to sire a very large number of children in his raping conquests, and that has had some impact.
it comes down to the genes that are preserved. it's not even personal. and money may not figure into it at all.
for evolution, surviving progeny is all.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
mycot
Crazy as fuck


Registered: 05/31/06
Posts: 1,112
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 1 month, 5 days
|
|
Not only the criminal but also people in general only have fitness in niches. The average american would die in a very short amount of time if they had to survive in the wild. The hunter-gatherer would have a nervous breakdown adapting to a modern city. Success at evolutionary dead ends is not success. It's only there a very short time. There is no future in it. Not sustainable. Suicide is not fitness by any measure.
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said: I think that this shows poor understanding of rabies and other behavior changing diseases. there is no mind control, there is systemic disruption and the mind goes defensive maniacally. biting happens to anything in range, but is not actually under control of an invasive controlling infectious agent.
. No one who bothers to watch, the interesting links provided, and referred to, would indulge in such a dismissive attitude. But of course anyone and everyone is free to spout all the dogmatic opinions , they wish to, and to fish out examples out of context, as well as avoid the main point; (perhaps in hopes that others will play the same game, and so keep a thread going, where there is constantly an opportunity to keep such a game going, with like minded individuals).
. In this case the data that has been filmed seems of far more interest, than apparently anyone suspects. So be it.
. In the odd event anyone is just bored, or actually curious:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=mind+controlling+parasites
. Rabies is only one example of a virus (which is not even alive) that ultimately effects behavior. The mechanisms are detailed here "How rabies 'hijacks' neurons to attack brain" https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141006133424.htm
. Next a single celled parasite Toxoplasmosis which also results in a specific behavior of advantage to the parasite. This is obviously no accident. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=toxoplasma+gondii
. With fungi of course we have more cells, but still the parasite has no brain, yet the results are remarkable. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=fungi+controlling+ants
. When we get to the wasps it all becomes glaringly obvious that very directed brain control is happening. In fact the events are so amazing probably almost no one would believe it who hasn't seen it. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=wasp+cockroach+parasite+
. The most extremely colorful example, is seen in snails: "A type of parasitic flatworm, called the green banded broodsac, is capable of invading a snail's body and controlling its behavior."
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=snail+parasite scroll down to this one, "ALIEN MIND CONTROLLED SNAILS" for something concise & accurate, if you like, or enjoy some of the others, again a very surprising display...
...way beyond anything a human can do to any another organism, purely through its own organism.
. The one special adaptation humans have (other than endurance running on 2 legs) has in a very short period of evolutionary time shown itself, to be a 2 edged sword that may very well prove to be its own undoing, as the mechanism of foresight, really didn't evolve to be of sufficient power, to balance other aspects of brain and/or mind. And the power of reason, also did not evolve sufficiently to balance out the instinctual/emotional aspects of mind, body & brain.
. Many evolutionary experiments before have proved short lived, due to a poor balance of parts - the Irish elk comes to mind first, but you may think of others. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=the+irish+elk
. So again, it seems one way of looking at Social Darwinism, is that it is just another example of human arrogance, (of which there are many). Arrogance in assuming the species is superior, and arrogance in assuming one's own group deserves to be at the top in terms of privilege, opportunity, power, wealth and so on in society. As such, its very existence is an example, of what is wrong with the concept.
|
Loaded Shaman
Psychophysiologist



Registered: 03/02/15
Posts: 8,006
Loc: Now O'Clock
Last seen: 28 days, 6 hours
|
Re: Social Darwinism [Re: mycot]
#27071012 - 12/04/20 12:35 AM (3 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
mycot said: Darwinism itself has been discredited. Social darwinism is a complete BS fabrication. Einstien never became a millionaire. Neither did Nicola Tesla. Many of our greatest artists, thinkers, visionaries and philosophers died penniless. Some wouldn't even have been able to continue their work had they not had patrons. Who knows what Fadiman may have accomplished his work not been cut shot. Then there is the enormous destruction and waste of human talent and lives through the drug war. None of this can be considered evolutionary progress and fitness.
Being able to adapt to evolutionary dead ends is no indication of fitness. Would we consider a criminal gang leader as an example of evolutionary fitness because he's making a lot of money regardless of consequences. If a person can adapt to a lunatic asylum does that show evolutionary fitness ?
Social darwinism is just a political narrative as in work yourself into an early grave and you too may make it.(regardless of consequences) I agree with the OP. Social darwinism is well and truly dead.
A lot to unpack here and I'm not disagreeing with you, I just want to establish a consistency here: are you saying darwinism, as in natural selection, has been proven incorrect? If so, where is this source? Genuinely curious here!
By logical extension that would make social darwinism moot, but this thread appears to go back and forth on what that definition may or may not actually be, and just adds to the ambiguity here.
--------------------
  "Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance." — Confucius
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,798
|
|
Up biological superiority..
The true social Darwinism is billionaires vs the rest.
The Panama files and everything to do with American legislation in favor of corporate entities.
Social Darwinism is economic, not biological.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
mycot
Crazy as fuck


Registered: 05/31/06
Posts: 1,112
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 1 month, 5 days
|
|
Quote:
Loaded Shaman said:
Quote:
mycot said: Darwinism itself has been discredited. Social darwinism is a complete BS fabrication. Einstien never became a millionaire. Neither did Nicola Tesla. Many of our greatest artists, thinkers, visionaries and philosophers died penniless. Some wouldn't even have been able to continue their work had they not had patrons. Who knows what Fadiman may have accomplished his work not been cut shot. Then there is the enormous destruction and waste of human talent and lives through the drug war. None of this can be considered evolutionary progress and fitness.
Being able to adapt to evolutionary dead ends is no indication of fitness. Would we consider a criminal gang leader as an example of evolutionary fitness because he's making a lot of money regardless of consequences. If a person can adapt to a lunatic asylum does that show evolutionary fitness ?
Social darwinism is just a political narrative as in work yourself into an early grave and you too may make it.(regardless of consequences) I agree with the OP. Social darwinism is well and truly dead.
A lot to unpack here and I'm not disagreeing with you, I just want to establish a consistency here: are you saying darwinism, as in natural selection, has been proven incorrect? If so, where is this source? Genuinely curious here!
By logical extension that would make social darwinism moot, but this thread appears to go back and forth on what that definition may or may not actually be, and just adds to the ambiguity here.
The problem of with darwinism is it's emphasis on competition and struggle and conflict in the matter of survival as in "survival of the fittest". It does so at the cost of ignoring how much a role co-operation plays in the survival of life. Even the human organism itself is made up of many non-human cells. Symbiotic relationships occur all throughout nature. Human co-operation enables human survival. Life relies upon life. In this sense Darwinism is indeed discredited. That's Darwinism as philosophy and more because of it's reflection on theory. Evolution theory itself would be outside the subject matter of this thread.
Edited by mycot (12/04/20 03:32 PM)
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,798
|
Re: Social Darwinism [Re: mycot]
#27071234 - 12/04/20 05:41 AM (3 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Someone with a billion dollars can knock down a grass roots organisation with smear campaigns.
It's an unfortunate happening, but groups do prevail and get up again and grow and continue the fight for equality among hew-mens.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
RJ Tubs 202



Registered: 09/20/08
Posts: 6,016
Loc: USA
Last seen: 1 hour, 12 minutes
|
Re: Social Darwinism [Re: mycot]
#27072322 - 12/04/20 05:43 PM (3 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
mycot said:
The problem of with darwinism is it's emphasis on competition and struggle and conflict in the matter of survival as in "survival of the fittest". It does so at the cost of ignoring how much a role co-operation plays in the survival of life. Even the human organism itself is made up of many non-human cells. Symbiotic relationships occur all throughout nature. Human co-operation enables human survival. Life relies upon life. In this sense Darwinism is indeed discredited.
The conceptual framework of natural selection ignores or denies cooperation? You state "Human co-operation enables human survival" as evidence the idea is discredited?
Although I'd hesitate to refer to bigot groups (such as the KKK) or terrorist organizations as being successful, such groups are certainly subject to selection pressures, because in order to survive, these groups must recruit new members. Not doing so would mean the group would cease to exist. We don't have to support the ideals and values of these groups to appreciate how they were created and how some survive and some thrive.
|
RJ Tubs 202



Registered: 09/20/08
Posts: 6,016
Loc: USA
Last seen: 1 hour, 12 minutes
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said:
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.
I've re-read some posts on this thread a couple of times. Various things I find of interest. I know I've pulled this out of the bigger post, but I'm puzzled and unsure of your point. The best people work in math and science? . . . "decent and balanced sort of people"?
|
Rahz
Alive Again



Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
|
|
I think some are holding social Darwinism up against something it isn't. It posits that the strong will grow wealthier. Strong in a social sense would mean the ability of social manipulation. It's not something that should be held up as an ideal, but it does rather describe a reasonable corollary.
-------------------- 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: 9,818
|
|
Quote:
RJ Tubs 202 said:
Quote:
DividedQuantum said:
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.
I've re-read some posts on this thread a couple of times. Various things I find of interest. I know I've pulled this out of the bigger post, but I'm puzzled and unsure of your point. The best people work in math and science? . . . "decent and balanced sort of people"?
They are the smartest and best, in my experience. They do not tend to engage in manipulation and the sorts of behaviors that enable, say, billionaires to climb to positions of power over others. And they are excellent, competent, often quite compassionate, and clear thinking. Compared to many other coherent groups one could name, I find them superior. This has been my personal experience.
That they are not in the position of billionaires indicates to me that both social Darwinism and meritocracy are not present.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
Loaded Shaman
Psychophysiologist



Registered: 03/02/15
Posts: 8,006
Loc: Now O'Clock
Last seen: 28 days, 6 hours
|
|
Someone fill me in on what this thread is trying to say/accomplish LOL; I can't tell if people are arguing Darwinism is legit, but social Darwinism isn't, both are legit, or both are shit...?
What are we saying here, guys/gals?
--------------------
  "Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance." — Confucius
|
mycot
Crazy as fuck


Registered: 05/31/06
Posts: 1,112
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 1 month, 5 days
|
Re: Social Darwinism [Re: mycot]
#27072824 - 12/05/20 12:53 AM (3 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
mycot said: That's Darwinism as philosophy and more because of it's reflection on theory.
I should have added, "and unfortunately it's influence on social behavior".
|
mycot
Crazy as fuck


Registered: 05/31/06
Posts: 1,112
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 1 month, 5 days
|
|
Quote:
Loaded Shaman said: Someone fill me in on what this thread is trying to say/accomplish LOL; I can't tell if people are arguing Darwinism is legit, but social Darwinism isn't, both are legit, or both are shit...?
What are we saying here, guys/gals?
Check out comic on page 23.  Coming from "The World's Greatest Neurozine".
https://archive.org/details/bOING.bOING.Issue.03
Edited by mycot (12/05/20 01:58 AM)
|
Yellow Pants


Registered: 05/14/17
Posts: 1,386
Loc:
|
Re: Social Darwinism [Re: mycot]
#27073693 - 12/05/20 02:46 PM (3 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I think the art world gets screwed over pretty good too. I don’t think the government really supports the arts at all like they do the scientific community. Art is denigrated to a side show “for fun”, “in your free time”
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,818
|
|
Most definitely, good point. And we know that "quality" and "profitability" do not necessarily equate when it comes to fine art, or art in general. We also know that many of the greatest artists were not rich or well-known during their lifetimes, like Edgar Allan Poe. So if there is social Darwinism in the art world, I guess you'd have to say the "strongest" are those on Madison Ave. doing TV commercials. It doesn't fly.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
mycot
Crazy as fuck


Registered: 05/31/06
Posts: 1,112
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 1 month, 5 days
|
|
Quote:
Yellow Pants said: I think the art world gets screwed over pretty good too. I don’t think the government really supports the arts at all like they do the scientific community. Art is denigrated to a side show “for fun”, “in your free time”
I don't think that science is well supported. Scientist's are generally not thought of as wealthy persons. Amateur chemistry is a relic of past centuries. I've got no idea why children should even bother learning chemistry at school. Because once they leave school and become adults, they are no longer allowed to practice chemistry. What a mindfuck for the kid who enjoyed chemistry. Corporate science flourishes, where results are brought and paid for. Independent science ?  That's a quick way to kill your career.
Edited by mycot (12/05/20 05:49 PM)
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,532
|
Re: Social Darwinism [Re: mycot]
#27074303 - 12/05/20 10:08 PM (3 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
How can the govt. better support artists. Those who fill out many grant applications get plenty more grants than those who don't.
is there another approach.
University grants in science are usually pursuant to product development or process patents. That's only good for a tiny bit of science.
The corollary would be corporate funding of commercial art, and that is not the most inspiring kind.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Loaded Shaman
Psychophysiologist



Registered: 03/02/15
Posts: 8,006
Loc: Now O'Clock
Last seen: 28 days, 6 hours
|
|
The government doesn't give a flying fuck about the arts, artists, or anything which can't be co-opted by an already over-reaching corporate entity lol.
--------------------
  "Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance." — Confucius
|
Rahz
Alive Again



Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
|
|
It shouldn't be the government's job to support the arts.
-------------------- 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
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,532
|
Re: Social Darwinism [Re: Rahz]
#27074779 - 12/06/20 08:25 AM (3 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
while government is not nature or god it is there for social health and order. it always follows the committee (from elected members or appointees) - but sometimes gets hoodwinked into leading an important art activity initiative that requires wider coordination and support - usually this is related to some other initiative in the purview of governing.
art is mostly a personal journey unless it is channeled into a performance or exposition, and that social activity is valid for a government stake.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Rahz
Alive Again



Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
|
|
Well okay, as long at it doesn't cost money. More government spending = less private spending, and community efforts can always coordinate with local government.
-------------------- 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
|
Yellow Pants


Registered: 05/14/17
Posts: 1,386
Loc:
|
Re: Social Darwinism [Re: Rahz]
#27074939 - 12/06/20 10:11 AM (3 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
So like the military gets whatever it is 900B a year and a bit of support for an artistic festivity at a cost of say 50,000 that would contribute to well being is an absurd proposition. Our well being is better served else where.
|
Rahz
Alive Again



Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
|
|
Again, I would prefer for citizens of a community to decide how to spend their money. As for military spending, I'm not fond of the idea of being invaded by a foreign country. Despite the government generally being the least cost effective way to get something done in this case it's the only way to get it done. And of course, how and how much should be spent can be debated but war hawks and special interests generally have the louder voice. It can work the same at the local level which is again a good reason for less government involvement.
-------------------- 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
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,532
|
Re: Social Darwinism [Re: Rahz]
#27075488 - 12/06/20 03:12 PM (3 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
art is the first to be defunded, then anything to do with children, then women, then vets, then old people.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Rahz
Alive Again



Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
|
|
As far as that list, I'm okay with art being defunded first FWIW.
-------------------- 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
|
RJ Tubs 202



Registered: 09/20/08
Posts: 6,016
Loc: USA
Last seen: 1 hour, 12 minutes
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said:
Quote:
RJ Tubs 202 said:
Quote:
DividedQuantum said:
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.
I've re-read some posts on this thread a couple of times. Various things I find of interest. I know I've pulled this out of the bigger post, but I'm puzzled and unsure of your point. The best people work in math and science? . . . "decent and balanced sort of people"?
They are the smartest and best, in my experience. They do not tend to engage in manipulation and the sorts of behaviors that enable, say, billionaires to climb to positions of power over others. And they are excellent, competent, often quite compassionate, and clear thinking. Compared to many other coherent groups one could name, I find them superior. This has been my personal experience.
That they are not in the position of billionaires indicates to me that both social Darwinism and meritocracy are not present.
Is Darwinian success always related to financial success?
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,532
|
|
no, but money has a life of it's own, it's parasitic: the host always dies - then the money goes into family members. after they are infected they do stupid things but feel justified.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Pinkerton
Ultrasentient

Registered: 02/26/19
Posts: 3,127
|
|
Orgy told me some sort of 'person' (whoever that may be?) will become the richest 'person' on planet Earf.
I'm so tired of depression and intrusive thoughts, you have no idea. Or do you?
|
mycot
Crazy as fuck


Registered: 05/31/06
Posts: 1,112
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 1 month, 5 days
|
|
Yes, because in today's world, money represents ( as Robert Anton Wilson points out) survival tickets.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,818
|
|
Quote:
RJ Tubs 202 said: Is Darwinian success always related to financial success?
Well money is a relatively new human phenomenon, so I would say it's related more to cultural evolution than biological evolution. Of course, it is widely accepted that to some extent the rules of Darwinism apply to both, but not always exactly or directly.
I would say that the ability to make money probably has nothing to do with success at surviving in the natural world. Conversely, most hunter-gatherers would not make very good stock brokers. Whether we can say that the super-rich have objective personal advantages over others is the subject of this thread, but I think overall doubt has been cast upon the notion. I guess it depends on what can be said for "success," but that is a whole different topic.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
mycot
Crazy as fuck


Registered: 05/31/06
Posts: 1,112
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 1 month, 5 days
|
|
The super-rich operate in a niche. They are good Monopoly players, Who have managed to rob the tribe of it's wealth. Makes any ordinary criminal look petty.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,532
|
Re: Social Darwinism [Re: mycot]
#27077257 - 12/07/20 02:31 PM (3 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
mafias
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said:
Quote:
RJ Tubs 202 said: Is Darwinian success always related to financial success?
Well money is a relatively new human phenomenon, so I would say it's related more to cultural evolution than biological evolution. Of course, it is widely accepted that to some extent the rules of Darwinism apply to both, but not always exactly or directly.
I would say that the ability to make money probably has nothing to do with success at surviving in the natural world. Conversely, most hunter-gatherers would not make very good stock brokers. Whether we can say that the super-rich have objective personal advantages over others is the subject of this thread, but I think overall doubt has been cast upon the notion. I guess it depends on what can be said for "success," but that is a whole different topic.
. Indeed part of the joy experienced, by parents, at the birth of their child, is actually (unconscious?) relief at not seeing a hairlip or other random disfigurement. . But some anxiety continues for years as to how the genetic lottery, will play out with each child. Women's instinct seems to largely propel reproduction, in spite of 'birth control'. Otherwise reason and caution, in societies that criminalize euthanasia, would probably slow down, the (absurd?) need to fill the world with more progeny, now that they're not needed on the family farm anymore. . So yes evolution, now both Darwinian & epigenetic, are at play long term, observably at the population level; but individually chance also plays a merciless game.
|
Loaded Shaman
Psychophysiologist



Registered: 03/02/15
Posts: 8,006
Loc: Now O'Clock
Last seen: 28 days, 6 hours
|
Re: Social Darwinism [Re: mycot]
#27078017 - 12/08/20 12:01 AM (3 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
mycot said: The super-rich operate in a niche. They are good Monopoly players, Who have managed to rob the tribe of it's wealth. Makes any ordinary criminal look petty.
The worst is when these groups control governments, and divide populations against one another/misappropriate whom the true string-pullers are.
Quote:
redgreenvines said: mafias
I'd argue cartels in this instance, especially in reference to the above user's quote.
I will also make the unpopular opinion that money is a reflection of he/she whom possesses it and has a taste of unchecked power (at least for purchasing, which our consumerist society is founded upon) for a moment or two.
Those that have a hard time managing their own willpower, will then also usually project that same shortcoming onto others and vilify them in the process.
We are what we resist!
Money is the biggest symbol, and lesson, for many IMHO.
--------------------
  "Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance." — Confucius
|
BrendanFlock
Stranger


Registered: 06/01/13
Posts: 4,216
Last seen: 6 hours, 44 minutes
|
|
So social Darwinism is communication between different people.
Sharing ideas and establishing or reestablishing culture..
Through habit and novelty..
Order and chaos.. necesarily the most brightest and great..
Lemonosa of the hitchhikers state.
|
|