Hypocritical Darwinists (1 Viewer)

[The Real McCoy]

I certainly can't speak for all advocates of the "Survival of the fittest" mentality but why do most of them cry foul over the European conquest of Native Americans? Is that not survival of the fittest in it's true form?

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

I certainly can't speak for all advocates of the "Survival of the fittest" mentality but why do most of them cry foul over the European conquest of Native Americans? Is that not survival of the fittest in it's true form?

Let me ask first: before anyone starts discussing this. What do YOU think survival of the fittest means in terms of evolution and darwin's theory? Don't look it up: tell me from your own perspective.

***
I will give you a hint: SoF is a consequence of natural selection: it is neither "ethical" nor does deal with the fittest being the biggest, baddest mofuka on the block. It has to do with....duction success only. The fill in the blanks.

What you describe is social darwinism, which isn't the same thing as evolution or darwin's theory. It is an unethical application of a distorted mechanism. Survival of the Fittest deals with population genetics. Certain genes prevail in a population becaues the organisms that have those genes are fit enough (they are able to survive to reproduction and contribute to the gene pool). The more you contribute, the more fit you generally are, since that increases the genes in the gene pool.

 

[The Real McCoy]

Let me ask first: before anyone starts discussing this. What do YOU think survival of the fittest means in terms of evolution and darwin's theory? Don't look it up: tell me from your own perspective.

***
I will give you a hint: SoF is a consequence of natural selection: it is neither "ethical" nor does deal with the fittest being the biggest, baddest mofuka on the block. It has to do with....duction success only. The fill in the blanks.

I see no difference in SoF whether it be the extinction of a species at the hands of environmental change or the extinction of the Aztecs at the hands of superior conquistador technology, it's still survival of the fittest.

What you describe is social darwinism, which isn't the same thing as evolution or darwin's theory. It is an unethical application of a distorted mechanism.

But since the human race is a product of evolution just like any other animal (according to Darwinists) then is the rise and fall of peoples not a result of natural selection? In my eyes, Social Darwinism is Darwin's theory with regards to the anomaly of humans in the animal kingdom.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

I see no difference in SoF whether it be the extinction of a species at the hands of environmental change or the extinction of the Aztecs at the hands of superior conquistador technology, it's still survival of the fittest.

You didn't answer the question: what is SoF?

But since the human race is a product of evolution just like any other animal (according to Darwinists) then is the rise and fall of peoples not a result of natural selection? In my eyes, Social Darwinism is Darwin's theory with regards to the anomaly of humans in the animal kingdom.

Yes. Humans are a product of evolution like any other animal. However, the rise and fall of "people's is a misnomer, since we are all the same "people." There is only one race: the human race. This race is made up of various populations.

Natural Selection, and thus "SoF" deals with population genetics and the primacy of one gene WITHIN a population. It also deals with biological factosr that influence reproductive success according to the environment.

Losing a war has nothing to do with the qualify of your genes making it so that you can survive to reproduction and perpetuate those genes.

 

[The Real McCoy]

You didn't answer the question: what is SoF?

I think the term is self explanatory.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

Then you should have no problem answering it: do it.

 

[The Real McCoy]

Yes. Humans are a product of evolution like any other animal. However, the rise and fall of "people's is a misnomer, since we are all the same "people." There is only one race: the human race. This race is made up of various populations.

What about when 2 males of the same species fight to the death for the right to mate with the female? I see this as a parallel to war in human history and another example of SoF.

 

[The Real McCoy]

Then you should have no problem answering it: do it.

I"m really not sure how to explain it any better. Survival of the fittest is the survival of the most fit? Seriously, what are you looking for?

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

I"m really not sure how to explain it any better. Survival of the fittest is the survival of the most fit? Seriously, what are you looking for?

Survival of the fittest deals with population genetics. It specifically deals with members of a population being able to successfully reproduce. It has nothing to do with the organism being the strongest, biggest, or baddesst. You can be weak, small, and pathetic compared to other species or creatures, but if you contribute genes tothe gene pool, you are fit. Survival of the fittest is best renamed "survival of the fit enough." You don't have to be the "fittest" at all--you need only reproduce.

Those individuals that are fit are those which survive to reproduce: it doesn't even mean survive entirely: you can die right after you reproduce and still be "fit." This also applies to the intrinsic biological traits that help you reproduce in relation to your environment.

Survival of the Fittest is actually a term coined by social darwinists long after Darwin: it isn't even a term biologists frequently used.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

What about when 2 males of the same species fight to the death for the right to mate with the female? I see this as a parallel to war in human history and another example of SoF.

SoF deals specifically with population genetics. A species as a whole is not a population, but a collection of populations or one population.

If 2 males of the species are competing against one another in a population for females, that is an example of sexual selection. They will use their natural traits to try to woo mates or they will use their traits to fight off or trick other males. These are traits granted to them via natural selection. IF it is their biology that is making them able to reproduce (behavior included), and one is consistantly unable to reproduce, then that individual is unfit. If that individual does reproduce successfully, it is fit.

You must not also confuse morality with mechanisms. Natural Selection as well as the consequence survival of the fittest are not, by "darwinists" as you call it, ethical constructs, but biological mechanisms.

 

[OnionCollection]

I certainly can't speak for all advocates of the "Survival of the fittest" mentality but why do most of them cry foul over the European conquest of Native Americans? Is that not survival of the fittest in it's true form?

Why do most advocates of gravity refrain from jumping off cliffs? Is that not gravity in it's true form?

 

[The Real McCoy]

Then perhaps I should direct my initial question to "Social Darwinists" rather than simply "Darwinists."

 

[The Real McCoy]

Why do most advocates of gravity refrain from jumping off cliffs? Is that not gravity in it's true form?

That's a terrible analogy.

 

[HU-210]

First and foremost, my social darwinism and libertarianism does not find its origin in darwinism. I do not seek the extension of freedom because I believe individuals should sort each other out, and those who can reproduce survive. I believe in social darwinism and libertarianism because in the limited time we spend here on this Earth, I do not believe I, or anyone else has any right telling you what to do. Thus, I believe people should be left to their peace, and they can than form their own institutions with which they choose to deal with problems.

Now, the indians being murdered on a massive scale, in some perspective can be seen as the darwinism, but merely because it is an extension of darwinistic instinct. In that view, everything is an extension, and everything is darwinistic. Darwin believed man created a compassionate society to ensure his own protection.

Now, when a nation first murders a whole lotta people, and than established that nation with principles of "You shall not murder", with principles of christian compassion, that's a bid odd. Frankly, one might even speak of hypocrisy if you want to stretch the word. What is certain, is that it is a touchy subject, worthy of discussion, not stigmatising each other as hypocrites, I would think.

Mr U

 

[The Real McCoy]

First and foremost, my social darwinism and libertarianism does not find its origin in darwinism. I do not seek the extension of freedom because I believe individuals should sort each other out, and those who can reproduce survive. I believe in social darwinism and libertarianism because in the limited time we spend here on this Earth, I do not believe I, or anyone else has any right telling you what to do. Thus, I believe people should be left to their peace, and they can than form their own institutions with which they choose to deal with problems.

Now, the indians being murdered on a massive scale, in some perspective can be seen as the darwinism, but merely because it is an extension of darwinistic instinct. In that view, everything is an extension, and everything is darwinistic. Darwin believed man created a compassionate society to ensure his own protection.

Now, when a nation first murders a whole lotta people, and than established that nation with principles of "You shall not murder", with principles of christian compassion, that's a bid odd. Frankly, one might even speak of hypocrisy if you want to stretch the word. What is certain, is that it is a touchy subject, worthy of discussion, not stigmatising each other as hypocrites, I would think.

Mr U

Point taken.

 

[steen]

Then perhaps I should direct my initial question to "Social Darwinists" rather than simply "Darwinists."

Particularly since "Darwinists" is a downright silly term. As best I can imagine, it woudl refer to epople who look to Darwin's orginal hypothesis rather than the actual Scientific Theory of Evolution.

Almost as if you didn't know the difference?