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.
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.
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.
How do you define 'the best mates' ?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.
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:
By asking how one should define the 'best mate' I certainly was not dissing Darwin. Sorry if I gave that impression.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.
I agree. That's why I think Darwinism is a load of crap. It's impossible to define the, "best mate."
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?
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.
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 ?
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?