|
sudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,943
|
Re: Social Darwinism [Re: mycot]
#27071234 - 12/04/20 05:41 AM (3 years, 2 months 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: 6,029
Loc: USA
Last seen: 5 days, 14 hours
|
Re: Social Darwinism [Re: mycot]
#27072322 - 12/04/20 05:43 PM (3 years, 2 months 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: 6,029
Loc: USA
Last seen: 5 days, 14 hours
|
|
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: 9,247
|
|
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: 9,825
|
|
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: 1 month, 15 days
|
|
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: 5 days, 21 hours
|
Re: Social Darwinism [Re: mycot]
#27072824 - 12/05/20 12:53 AM (3 years, 2 months 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: 5 days, 21 hours
|
|
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, 2 months 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: 9,825
|
|
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: 5 days, 21 hours
|
|
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: 37,703
|
Re: Social Darwinism [Re: mycot]
#27074303 - 12/05/20 10:08 PM (3 years, 2 months 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: 1 month, 15 days
|
|
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: 9,247
|
|
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: 37,703
|
Re: Social Darwinism [Re: Rahz]
#27074779 - 12/06/20 08:25 AM (3 years, 2 months 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: 9,247
|
|
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, 2 months 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: 9,247
|
|
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: 37,703
|
Re: Social Darwinism [Re: Rahz]
#27075488 - 12/06/20 03:12 PM (3 years, 2 months 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: 9,247
|
|
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
|
|