• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

How Mankind Lives By The DARWINIST PHILOSOPHY

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I have always believed that mankind lives by a Darwinist philosophy no matter how many written laws are instituted in society. Written laws in alot of cases are twisted in such a way as to prey on the niave, the innocent and the weak. In our society, the strong will have the best lives economically, socially and emotionally and will be able to choose the best mates. The Darwinist theory of evolution demands that only the strong be allowed the privelege to live and to have a good life. It is in the nature of the human species to survive, but sometimes survival demands doing bad things. So it is my view that human beings do not live by principles or sound moral judgement, rather they live by the scientific Darwinist theory. Do you agree that humans live by this philosophy? Why or why not?
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Actually, you have it backwards.

Stephen J. Gould contends that Darwin was significantly influenced by Adam Smith, author of "The Wealth of Nations" One of Smith's concepts is that inefficient businesses fail and are replaced by those capable of meeting the challenges of the marketplace.
 

nkgupta80

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
1,720
Reaction score
59
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
so in the end, the idea of natural selection is what hes really talkin about anyways, whether from darwin or adam smith...
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yes, exactly. Whether most human beings like to admit it or not, we are animals and we are hardwired to survive naturally and instinctively. Females generally will mate with males that offer a strong survival potential. This is determined in a variety of ways and how strong the Darwinist traits are in a particular male for a female. For example, in the human species, how a male interacts with people, how he appears physically, how confident he is, how intelligent he is, how much money he makes, these are all traits that a female looks for in a male mate whether she realizes it or not. These are all traits important in increasing one's survival potential. If a male exhibits positively in these particular areas I discussed, a female will choose him as a mate because it increases her own survival potential. But Darwinism doesn't apply necessarily to the process of natural selection for females or males looking for mates.

Darwinism also applies to companies, where only the strongest and most efficient survive or the most cunning. Another good example was a scientific study done on fat people. Fat people do not do as well in life because the fatty appearance exhibits weak darwinist traits and tell people this person who is fat has a lower survival potential. So, because of that, fat people generally get less respect, not as good service in grocery stores, picked on school, talked about behind their backs, not taken seriously even when their ideas are good, have harder times finding jobs. When you go into a job interview or deal with people, people size you up without them even realize that they are doing so. If you are fat, and you go into a job interview, the interviewer might be thinking to himself without even realizing it "Gee this dude is fat, he doesn't even take care of himself, why would I trust him to take care of my business?" Scientific studies support the notion that fat people have a harder time in life and socially. And it is because their appearance exhibits weak survival potential in the minds of people without people realizing it. Fatness does not garner respect. Now, do not misunderstand me. I am not making fun of fat folks. I have little bit of a belly myself, of course I exercise and I try to stay in shape, but even so, I do have a belly.

You look at school kids and you got some kids who are popular and some kids who are picked on. Everywhere you turn, no matter how many written laws their are, based on good sound moral principle, the fact of the matter is, human societies really live the law of the jungle rather than the law of the land. The law of the land can at times be used to strengthen the law of the jungle and to give the law of the jungle some sort of face of legitimacy. The way laws are supposed to be applied and the way they really are applied are two different things. Kinda like Orwell's world of doublethink.
 

George_Washington

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
1,962
Reaction score
0
Location
United States of America and proud of it!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I see what you guys mean and you have made some valid points. However, I don't think humans actually live by the darwinist philosophy, at least not absolutely. It's true that the best and most successful companies thrive over the smaller ones. It's also true that certain individuals possess traits and talents that allow them to succeed into perhaps a greater level than the masses.

But see, I think success is all just relative and just because a person or company or whatever isn't, "succeeding" at the moment doesn't mean he won't ten years from now. For example, suppose a student flunks out of high school. According to Darwin, he has just majorly hurt his chances of survival and he isn't as worthy to survive as some of his peers. BUT through hard work, dedication, and possibly a little bit of luck, that person can rebound and become even more successful than many of his peers. There have been many millionares that have dropped out of high school.

So I think it's never too late for a person to succeed and that we should never truly count anyone out of the game until the fat lady has sung.
 

nkgupta80

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
1,720
Reaction score
59
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
George_Washington said:
I see what you guys mean and you have made some valid points. However, I don't think humans actually live by the darwinist philosophy, at least not absolutely. It's true that the best and most successful companies thrive over the smaller ones. It's also true that certain individuals possess traits and talents that allow them to succeed into perhaps a greater level than the masses.

But see, I think success is all just relative and just because a person or company or whatever isn't, "succeeding" at the moment doesn't mean he won't ten years from now. For example, suppose a student flunks out of high school. According to Darwin, he has just majorly hurt his chances of survival and he isn't as worthy to survive as some of his peers. BUT through hard work, dedication, and possibly a little bit of luck, that person can rebound and become even more successful than many of his peers. There have been many millionares that have dropped out of high school.

So I think it's never too late for a person to succeed and that we should never truly count anyone out of the game until the fat lady has sung.
yes.. and again what you described is survival of the fittest. Those people, who worked hard even after dropping out of highschool, and became millionares, increased their "chances of survival" by acting on their talents and motivations. At the base of things, its all about survival of the fittest.

However, where the human race does differ, is our collective nature, much like packs of wolves or a colony of ants. Although not to the extreme of ants, we do sacrifice some freedoms for the betterment of the whole human race. Laws and morals, all keep us in line, ensuring that we all survive to a certain level. I guess there are certain feelings engrained within human beings, of compassion and sympathy, that keep us inline. Of course when pushed to the limits of survival, such feelings usually disappear.
 

George_Washington

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
1,962
Reaction score
0
Location
United States of America and proud of it!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
nkgupta80 said:
yes.. and again what you described is survival of the fittest. Those people, who worked hard even after dropping out of highschool, and became millionares, increased their "chances of survival" by acting on their talents and motivations. At the base of things, its all about survival of the fittest.
I am not sure what I described was actually survival of the fittest because according to Darwin, wouldn't you have described the dropout as being unfit? If not, than what would be your definition of someone who is unfit to survive and be successful in life? See, there's really no one way to label it. Because in theory a person could be a common truck driver until he is 90 years old but then write a best selling novel and become a millionare. And then again, who's to say being a truck driver isn't a worthy profession? So success is relative.


However, where the human race does differ, is our collective nature, much like packs of wolves or a colony of ants. Although not to the extreme of ants, we do sacrifice some freedoms for the betterment of the whole human race. Laws and morals, all keep us in line, ensuring that we all survive to a certain level. I guess there are certain feelings engrained within human beings, of compassion and sympathy, that keep us inline. Of course when pushed to the limits of survival, such feelings usually disappear.
Well true, we all would do things we wouldn't normally do if it meant saving our lives and we do have a collective nature unlike that of wolves or ants. But I am of the belief that it's our sense of morality that actually allows us to survive, not through the darwinist sense of things. Because like I said, who can truly measure success?

On another note- I am still not convinced that pure darwinism exists in nature, at least not absolutely.
 

robin

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
TimmyBoy said:
I have always believed that mankind lives by a Darwinist philosophy no matter how many written laws are instituted in society. Written laws in alot of cases are twisted in such a way as to prey on the niave, the innocent and the weak. In our society, the strong will have the best lives economically, socially and emotionally and will be able to choose the best mates.
How do you define 'the best mates' ?
Most attractive & most desirable aren't always the best in terms of gene serving, which is a numbers game. The most successful are the ones that have the most offspring. To think the lazy fat people on welfare & with large families are some of the most successful in that case.
I believe there should be a welfare state for those that genuinely need it & I accept some people aren't able to work, but there also some that abuse the welfare system. Their children are also slightly more inclined to inherit that parasitic lazy tendency. Sounds harsh I know, but I suspect it's true.
But hey... that's all part of the numbers game.
Humans are unique as a species, in as much we now have societies that allow if not, actually encourage poor stock to breed !
So to get back on topic... It's not always the survival of the fittest... In some cases it's the survival of the fattest :lol:
 
Last edited:

George_Washington

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
1,962
Reaction score
0
Location
United States of America and proud of it!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
robin said:
How do you define 'the best mates' ?
Most attractive & most desirable aren't always the best in terms of gene serving, which is a numbers game. The most successful are the ones that have the most offspring. To think the lazy fat people on welfare & with large families are some of the most successful in that case.
I believe there should be a welfare state for those that genuinely need it & I accept some people aren't able to work, but there also some that abuse the welfare system. Their children are also slightly more inclined to inherit that parasitic lazy tendency. Sounds harsh I know, but I suspect it's true.
But hey... that's all part of the numbers game.
Humans are unique as a species, in as much we now have societies that allow if not, actually encourage poor stock to breed !
So to get back on topic... It's not always the survival of the fittest... In some cases it's the survival of the fattest :lol:
I agree. That's why I think Darwinism is a load of crap. It's impossible to define the, "best mate." Some people are good at one thing, others at another. Bill Gates is a brillant computer scientist and business man but he could never realistically become a professional wrestler or an actor or whatever. I'm a firm believer that everybody can ad something productive to society, whether it be filipping burgers or working for NASA.
 

robin

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
George_Washington said:
I agree. That's why I think Darwinism is a load of crap. It's impossible to define the, "best mate." Some people are good at one thing, others at another. Bill Gates is a brillant computer scientist and business man but he could never realistically become a professional wrestler or an actor or whatever. I'm a firm believer that everybody can ad something productive to society, whether it be filipping burgers or working for NASA.
By asking how one should define the 'best mate' I certainly was not dissing Darwin. Sorry if I gave that impression.
To define the 'best mate' as being the one that will lead to the most progeny, is pure Darwinism.
Incidently what is it that Bill Gates has given us to be so.&8 848487^%440- thankfull for ?
Sorry about that... My computer crashed mid sentence :lol:
 
Last edited:

nkgupta80

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
1,720
Reaction score
59
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I agree. That's why I think Darwinism is a load of crap. It's impossible to define the, "best mate."
actually, you would agree that in all marriages, the woman ideally marries the man not only because of love, but security in the relationship. I doubt many couples in love get married, if the prospects of a secure, settled, long-term relationship seems a bit hazy. It is that which defines "best mate." As very complex social creatures, humans are a lot lot hardre to define and characterize.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
George_Washington said:
I am not sure what I described was actually survival of the fittest because according to Darwin, wouldn't you have described the dropout as being unfit? If not, than what would be your definition of someone who is unfit to survive and be successful in life?
Darwinian "fitness" is defined as being able to create viable offspring. Welfare momma's getting their baby-factory subsidies are very fit indeed. It doesn't matter if they weigh 400 lbs and couldn't waddle out of a burning building, they're "fit".

The rapist that dodged the draft and became president is more fit than the unlucky man from his high school that got drafted in his place and then was killed in 'Nam without siring any kids. That is, if that Chelsea poodle is Bill's and not Web Hubble's.

Though that "fitness" may be limited, since Chelsea has to pay boys to go out with her. She may not be able to get pregnant, and she my turn out to be like Reno.
 

George_Washington

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
1,962
Reaction score
0
Location
United States of America and proud of it!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
nkgupta80 said:
actually, you would agree that in all marriages, the woman ideally marries the man not only because of love, but security in the relationship. I doubt many couples in love get married, if the prospects of a secure, settled, long-term relationship seems a bit hazy. It is that which defines "best mate." As very complex social creatures, humans are a lot lot hardre to define and characterize.
But you see, the ideal mate is different from person to person. What one person wants in a wife/husband isn't the same for another.
 

robin

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
There 'best mate' defined purely as in a numbers game in terms of max number of healthy fertile progeny that mate will produce.
There's also 'best mate' in terms of choice or preference.
It's interesting that people tend to pick mates with similiar features to themselves.
Also generally men tend prefer the hour glass shape synonymous
with child bearing hips & nice boobs. That can't be a coincidence surely ?
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
robin said:
lso generally men tend prefer the hour glass shape synonymous
with child bearing hips & nice boobs. That can't be a coincidence surely ?
Generally speaking, it's easier to lift an hourglass than a bowling ball....

Then again, the grossly fat woman is a regular subject for neolithic carvings. Perhaps our culture's preference for healthy women is unhealthy?
 

OdgenTugbyGlub

Active member
Joined
Sep 29, 2005
Messages
292
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
In old cultures the fact that you were fat meant that you had lots of power (didn't have to work for your food, hence you gained lots of weight). Its merely the aesthetics that have changed, replace fat with nice clothes, a hot car, and a big house and it's the same.
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
People cannot choose who they are attracted to. Attraction is not a choice. Attraction at it's core is based upon Darwinian principles. A man who exhibits confidence, maintains eye contact with a woman without looking away, has money to be a provider, physically fit, very intelligent, emotionally stable, his attitude towards life in general (has a positive outlook and nothing brings him down), how well he interacts with other people; the fittest women, will want this man. Beautiful women know they are beautiful and thus know they can be choosy. The same goes with confident men who seem to have all these traits, they can be more choosy as well. Humans choose mates based on the mate's survival potential. The traits that I listed above factor in on human's survival potential. It determines, not only what sort of mate you will have, but what sort of children, what sort of success in business, life and your social life. The weak minded, those with poor attitudes, little self confidence, don't take care of themselves, they generally do not get to choose from the best in the mating pool nor do they have as much success in life.

Like, take for example, a fat person who goes for a job interview. The person that is interviewing the fat person will think, without even realizing they are thinking this, "hmmm, this guy doesn't even take care of himself, why would I trust him to take care of my business?" Automatically, without any words being said or neither person knowing each other, the fat person is not getting respect because the mere fact he is fat demonstrates an appitude for low survival potential in the minds of people. Heck, scientific studies have proven that fat people generally don't get good service while shopping, have social problems, harder times finding jobs, make less money generally speaking. It is because humans are thinking, without even realizing they are thinking, that fat people exhibit low survival traits and it does not garner much respect. It's the law of the jungle out in the world, the law of DARWINISM.
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
OdgenTugbyGlub said:
In old cultures the fact that you were fat meant that you had lots of power (didn't have to work for your food, hence you gained lots of weight). Its merely the aesthetics that have changed, replace fat with nice clothes, a hot car, and a big house and it's the same.
It's very true, in Roman culture, if you were fat, you were considered attractive. Fatness back in those days was considered exhibiting a good trait (rather than a bad trait as it is today) for survival, because only the richest could afford to be fat.
 
Last edited:

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
In today's American society, only the richer elements of society can afford to eat the healthiest food, be slim and well taken care of physically. Where the poor eat more junk food, food that is less expensive but also less healthy, thus causing poorer people to have more health problems and problems with obseity.
 

Canuck

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
849
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Bill Gates
the allAmerican Hero
his windows inventoin er robbry
has allowed american CIA and nsa operatives to spy on anyone's computer any where in the world
the secret codes they use are built right in at the factory

you don't want a mate like that dear, trust me!

_________________________________________________________________

yeah big macs $ 1.00 a pound
I feel sorry for the folks eating that
the battle of the bulge
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Canuck said:
Bill Gates
the allAmerican Hero
his windows inventoin er robbry
has allowed american CIA and nsa operatives to spy on anyone's computer any where in the world
the secret codes they use are built right in at the factory

you don't want a mate like that dear, trust me!
He is an all American Hero because he exhibits good survival traits. He has won at what he does. He has success and thus demonstrated good survival traits. People admire him for it, even though he might not necessarily be an angel. Unsavory characters can be attractive to the opposite sex because they exhibit good survival traits.
 

nkgupta80

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
1,720
Reaction score
59
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
TimmyBoy said:
He is an all American Hero because he exhibits good survival traits. He has won at what he does. He has success and thus demonstrated good survival traits. People admire him for it, even though he might not necessarily be an angel. Unsavory characters can be attractive to the opposite sex because they exhibit good survival traits.
very true, american capitalism at its heart is based on darwinist principles, natural selection, survival of the fittest. The most successful men in the world have beaten the odds, maybe with a little luck, but mainly by using thier skills and talents to their max potential.
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
nkgupta80 said:
very true, american capitalism at its heart is based on darwinist principles, natural selection, survival of the fittest. The most successful men in the world have beaten the odds, maybe with a little luck, but mainly by using thier skills and talents to their max potential.
Yes it is, american capitalism is based upon darwinist principles. But even when you examine a country like the Soviet Union which tried to cheat principles of Darwinism and tried to change human nature, we saw that it ultimately failed, because even in the Soviet socialist system you had the strong preying on the weak, you had an elite class and a system where only the strong survive by either corruption or dirty dealing. Darwinism is apart of human nature and I don't think any system can change essiential human nature. The Soviet Union was an attempt to do this, but the experiment backfired and failed.
 

George_Washington

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
1,962
Reaction score
0
Location
United States of America and proud of it!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
nkgupta80 said:
very true, american capitalism at its heart is based on darwinist principles, natural selection, survival of the fittest. The most successful men in the world have beaten the odds, maybe with a little luck, but mainly by using thier skills and talents to their max potential.
You know, I don't really look at capitalism and the American culture that way. It isn't actually survival of the fittest because look all the enormously successful capitalists that have dropped out of school. Going strictly by Darwinism, they were inferior. I think people that succeed, it isn't because they oppressed people or they proved to be the toughest. I think it's just cause they had high morals, faith, and a strong desire to achieve things.
 

OdgenTugbyGlub

Active member
Joined
Sep 29, 2005
Messages
292
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You know, I don't really look at capitalism and the American culture that way. It isn't actually survival of the fittest because look all the enormously successful capitalists that have dropped out of school. Going strictly by Darwinism, they were inferior. I think people that succeed, it isn't because they oppressed people or they proved to be the toughest. I think it's just cause they had high morals, faith, and a strong desire to achieve things.
The phrase "the fitest" doesn't have to mean "the best educated". "the fitest" in a capitalist system simply means those who were clever enough to grasp a trend and cash in on it, or possesed the drive and creativity to create a new trend. (trend being a general term meaning market niche in this case). While I can't see how possesin "high morals" and "faith" would help you get by in a capitalist system, I certainly agree with you one the desire point.
 
Top Bottom