Is This What Natural Selection Means?

[Sunstone]

Does the following make any sense:

1) We should do what nature entails.

2) Natural selection entails the survival of the fittest.

Therefore, we should leave the least fit among us to survive as best they can while putting our resources into helping only the fittest among us to live.

Is this a fair assessment of what natural selection implies or entails? Why or why not?



Just for reference, here's an overview of what is meant by "natural selection" (with thanks to Michael Shermer):


Natural selection is the process of evolutionary change, co-discovered by Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace, which operates in the following manner:

1) Populations tend to increase indefinitely in a geometric ratio: 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024…

2) In a natural environment, however, population numbers stabilize at a certain level.

3) Therefore, there must be a “struggle for existence” because not all of the organisms produced can survive.

4) There is variation in every species.

5) In the struggle for existence, those individuals with variations that are better adapted to the environment leave behind more offspring than individuals that are less well adapted. This is known as differential reproductive success.

 

[PureX]

Does the following make any sense:

1) We should do what nature entails.

2) Natural selection entails the survival of the fittest.

Therefore, we should leave the least fit among us to survive as best they can while putting our resources into helping only the fittest among us to live.

Is this a fair assessment of what natural selection means? Why or why not?

No. Natural selection refers to idea that the healthier (or fittest) life forms of any species will have a better chance at reproducing. Thus, the genetic attributes that helped that particular life form reproduce successfully, will be passed on to succeeding generations. It's nature's way of taking advantage of it's advantages.

Natural selection is no more a foundation for a philosophical or moral proposition than is gravity.

 

[Valjean]

What PureX said.
Natural selection is more like reproduction of the fittest, and "fittest' is a deceptive term. It has nothing to do with physical fitness. It has to do with environmental fit. Accidental features that improve an individual's ability to wrest food, safety and mates from its particular environmental niche or even to expand its niche, tend to raise more offspring to reproductive age, increasing the incidence of a particular selective trait in the general population.

 

[James the Persian]

Sunstone,

What you've just described is pretty much Social Darwinism, as advocated by the Nazis and even pre-WWII US governments with their Eugenics programs (anyone who isn't aware should look into some of the horrendous Eugenics programs supposedly civilised countries espoused in the inter-war years, prior to Nazism basically ending them). It is certainly a possible political/social intrepretation of Darwinism, and was once very popular, but it isn't actually natural selection.

James

 

[*Paul*]

What PureX said.
It has nothing to do with physical fitness. It has to do with environmental fit.

This is my understanding of the theory too. Why do some species then become extinct in certain areas? Is it not because they are no longer fitted to live in that enviroment therfore they have to evolve quickly to keep up or die out.
Is this incorrect?

 

[Sunstone]

It is certainly a possible political/social intrepretation of Darwinism, and was once very popular, but it isn't actually natural selection.

I'm not sure what you mean by "...a possible...interpretation of Darwinism...", James. By "possible" do you mean logically sound or legitimate? Or, do you only mean that such an interpretation can and has been made?

 

[Sunstone]

Why do some species then become extinct in certain areas? Is it not because they are no longer fitted to live in that enviroment therfore they have to evolve quickly to keep up or die out. Is this incorrect?

That's roughly correct.

 

[James the Persian]

I'm not sure what you mean by "...a possible...interpretation of Darwinism...", James. By "possible" do you mean logically sound or legitimate? Or, do you only mean that such an interpretation can and has been made?

I'd say it is a logical, if distasteful and amoral, attempt to apply Darwinism to the socio-political realm. Of course it relies in part on a value judgement (which clearly is less rational) that allowing or, in the case of modern human society where the effects of natural selection are negligible, encouraging the process of survival of the fittest is of greater good than society protecting the weak. I happen to reject that value judgement and so for me the interpretation is illegitimate, but were I to accept it it would not only be a legitimate and logical interpretation, it would probably be the only possible legitimate one.

James

 

[Sunstone]

I'd say it is a logical, if distasteful and amoral, attempt to apply Darwinism to the socio-political realm. Of course it relies in part on a value judgement (which clearly is less rational) that allowing or, in the case of modern human society where the effects of natural selection are negligible, encouraging the process of survival of the fittest is of greater good than society protecting the weak. I happen to reject that value judgement and so for me the interpretation is illegitimate, but were I to accept it it would not only be a legitimate and logical interpretation, it would probably be the only possible legitimate one.

James

I disagree, James. Humans are a social animal. That we live in cooperative societies and take care of one another is among the most obvious of our evolutionary adaptations. Natural selection no more implies that we give up our social nature than it implies a leopard give up its claws. That is, just as a leopards claws are a successful adaptation to its environment, the human tendency to care for one another is a successful adaptation to our environments. Social Darwinism was based on a naive view of human nature as essentially anti-social.

 

[James the Persian]

I disagree, James. Humans are a social animal. That we live in cooperative societies and take care of one another is among the most obvious of our evolutionary adaptations. Natural selection no more implies that we give up our social nature than it implies a leopard give up its claws. That is, just as a leopards claws are a successful adaptation to its environment, the human tendency to care for one another is a successful adaptation to our environments. Social Darwinism was based on a naive view of human nature as essentially anti-social.

I don't disagree with you much, and I'm surprised that you seem to think I do. Maybe I wasn't particularly clear, but the only difference I see between what I wrote and what you wrote is that I used the greater good where you talked of what is natural for humans. I think that they're, at least in this case, rather closely related. However, I think you've rather exagerated the anti-society attitude of Social Darwinism. They aren't saying there should be no society, just that society's protection of the weak is harmful rather than helpful to that society, which is where the value judgement comes in. I agree with you that the Social Darwinist view tends to deemphasise what you and I consider to be an essential part of our nature as a social species but I don't see this as being down to naivety at all.

What Social Darwinism does, in fact, is to elevate the importance of society as a whole above that of the individual such that any number of individuals may, and should, be sacrificed to benefit the group. This is achieved by cynically using society to artifically select those the society believes would be the fittest were natural selection more of a factor in human life. The only naivety displayed, in my opinion, is that anyone in society is actually placed to make such a judgement. I still contend that if you accept as one of your premises, which I certainly do not, the value judgement that weeding out the weak is the greatest good for society, then Social Darwinism is the only logical option. In other words, I believe it is perfectly logical but built on a faulty, and highly distasteful, premise. I do also think that said premise is contrary to human nature (being rather sociopathic) but I see it as cynical rather than naive.

James

 

[Sunstone]

I don't disagree with you much, and I'm surprised that you seem to think I do. Maybe I wasn't particularly clear, but the only difference I see between what I wrote and what you wrote is that I used the greater good where you talked of what is natural for humans. I think that they're, at least in this case, rather closely related. However, I think you've rather exagerated the anti-society attitude of Social Darwinism. They aren't saying there should be no society, just that society's protection of the weak is harmful rather than helpful to that society, which is where the value judgement comes in. I agree with you that the Social Darwinist view tends to deemphasise what you and I consider to be an essential part of our nature as a social species but I don't see this as being down to naivety at all.

What Social Darwinism does, in fact, is to elevate the importance of society as a whole above that of the individual such that any number of individuals may, and should, be sacrificed to benefit the group. This is achieved by cynically using society to artifically select those the society believes would be the fittest were natural selection more of a factor in human life. The only naivety displayed, in my opinion, is that anyone in society is actually placed to make such a judgement. I still contend that if you accept as one of your premises, which I certainly do not, the value judgement that weeding out the weak is the greatest good for society, then Social Darwinism is the only logical option. In other words, I believe it is perfectly logical but built on a faulty, and highly distasteful, premise. I do also think that said premise is contrary to human nature (being rather sociopathic) but I see it as cynical rather than naive.

James

We're in substantial agreement then, James.

Perhaps another way to look at this issue: Since a genetically diverse species is less suceptible to extinction than a less diverse species, the Social Darwinists were wrong in their belief that the human gene pool should be "weeded". In fact, to guard against extinction, humans should do just the opposite and promote genetic diversity by working together to preserve each other's genes.

 

[James the Persian]

We're in substantial agreement then, James.

Perhaps another way to look at this issue: Since a genetically diverse species is less suceptible to extinction than a less diverse species, the Social Darwinists were wrong in their belief that the human gene pool should be "weeded". In fact, to guard against extinction, humans should do just the opposite and promote genetic diversity by working together to preserve each other's genes.

Now I don't disagree with you at all. As I said, the only naivety I see in Social Darwinism is the idea that anybody is actually in the position to be able to determine who should or should not be weeded out to greatest benefit society. That truly is naive for even were it quite apparent what traits are maladaptive at present (and it isn't), there is no way of seeing how the future situation may develop and hence what traits might be adapative in future. Artificial selection as proposed by Social Darwinism is at least as likely to cause harm as good, even taking their rather amoral criteria as to what constitutes societal harm.

James

 

[DeepShadow]

Social Darwinism is a self-serving and, in the end, unscientific offshoot of natural selection theory. The error lies in assuming that the world will always remain the same as it is now. The fact that we don't know what traits will be beneficial ten, twenty, or forty years from now, as our environment changes and we expand into previously uninhabited territory.

As an example of a genetic trait being both beneficial and detrimental under different circumstances, consider sickle-cell anemia. It's a very serious form of anemia brough about by a recessive gene. You have to have a recessive gene from both of your parents to get it, though, and people with only one gene are resistant to malaria. In areas where malaria is a problem, having one gene is beneficial, and with modern technology we can minimize the impact of having both.

And that's just physical environmental changes. Overpopulation, the internet, and other systemic interactions are selecting for other traits that were detrimental (or at least not beneficial) less than twenty years ago.

And dont' get me started on meme theory.

Suffice it to say, natural selection theory would suggest we need to keep our gene pool as wide as possible, and not allow genes that are currently inferior to die off completely.

 

[Rough_ER]

Absolutely not.

"We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators" - Richard Dawkins

 

[DeepShadow]

Please explain the term "selfish replicators."

 

[Rough_ER]

The quote is from "The Selfish Gene". The word "selfish" is not used in the obvious sense. Dawkins doesn't imply that genes want to be passed on or anything like that. You really need to read the book but for the sake of convenience, "selfish replicator" can be taken to mean "gene".

 

[DeepShadow]

Gotcha. I'm familiar with the term "selfish" in the genetic sense. Just wanted that clarified.

 

[Quiddity]

Is this a fair assessment of what natural selection implies or entails? Why or why not?

Fair? No...But I can see as James has noted how it can be applied in socio-political issues and/or societies in general. Although Natural Selection is not intended to be a building block for a philosophical world view, if you were to inform me that I am no different then an animal as it relates to this topic, I would wallow in my ignorance and extend it in my everyday life. How? I would let loose my ego and puff up in my pride to convince myself that I am more likely to survive that way. I may even mistreat those of lower intelligence.

 

[Halcyon]

I'm not sure natural selection has that much of an impact on humans anymore, sexual selection does - and in third world countries i imagine it still holds some wait.
But in the west where even the most dibilitating diseases, for example diabetes, that would kill a wild animal are treatable, and often can be passed on to the next generation, i think it's power is much reduced.

As to the question of whether we should let the least fit to fend for themselves and support the fittest, that's not natural selection - it's more akin to selective breeding. In wild animals the onus is pretty much on the individual to survive as best it can. The less fit individuals don't succeed as well as the fitter ones.
For example, the runt of a litter isn't usually ignored by its mother, it often doesn't survive because it cannot compete with it's fitter siblings. Also, a zebra born with a deformed leg isn't shunned by the herd, but it is picked out by predators.

Humans deciding who they should support and who they should ignore is not natural selection, as it doesn't rely on environmental factors to pick out the weaklings, but on an intelligent force.

 

[fantome profane]

Does the following make any sense:

1) We should do what nature entails.

2) Natural selection entails the survival of the fittest.

Therefore, we should leave the least fit among us to survive as best they can while putting our resources into helping only the fittest among us to live.

Is this a fair assessment of what natural selection implies or entails? Why or why not?

:no:

Natural Selection is a scientific theory that attempts to explain the way things are. It says absolutely nothing about the way things should be (or the way the ought to be). The theory of gravity does not suggest that we ought to jump of tall buildings; it merely predicts what the results would be. Likewise the concept of Natural Selection indicates that that those specific genes that are better able to replicate themselves will be selected. It makes no value judgments as to whether these genes ought to survive.

I can see no reason to conclude that we should necessarily “do what nature entails”. There are some cases where we should, and some cases where we shouldn’t. Human beings are capable of making this kind of conscious determination. I think it is a mistake to assume that we can use nature as a moral guide to determine what we should do. And neither can we use a theory that attempt do describe nature to guide our moral actions.