uberrobonomicon4000
Active Member
If you agree with evolution, are you a supporter of Social Darwinism as well?
If not then why?
If not then why?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
If you agree with evolution, are you a supporter of Social Darwinism as well?
If not then why?
It shouldn't matter how I define them. But the answer probably boils down to how you define or view evolution.Tell us just how you're defining it, so we're all on the same page.
If you agree with evolution, are you a supporter of Social Darwinism as well?
If not then why?
If you agree with Bernoulli's laws, are you a supporter of campaigns to pump water downhill?
"Social Darwinism" violates several important tenets of evolutionary theory:
- the fitness of a population is a function of its genetic variation: the more varied it is, the more adaptable it is. Deliberately reducing genetic variation (e.g. through eugenics) makes a population less fit, evolutionarily speaking.
- the theory of evolution predicts that evolution will happen on its own without intervention. "Social Darwinism" implies that the outcomes of evolution (or rather, what a set of people think the outcomes of evolution are) need to be helped in order to happen. This is contradictory.
Exactly right, yet these bottlenecks are supposed to have happened many many times in our ancestory. There is supposed to have been a catastrophic bottleneck fairly recently, down to 100 individuals (I think).If you agree with Bernoulli's laws, are you a supporter of campaigns to pump water downhill?
"Social Darwinism" violates several important tenets of evolutionary theory:
- the fitness of a population is a function of its genetic variation: the more varied it is, the more adaptable it is. Deliberately reducing genetic variation (e.g. through eugenics) makes a population less fit, evolutionarily speaking.
No it doesn't, social Darwinism is about increasing the pace of evolution. And why shouldn't we? Seriously. Assuming that evolution is true, what is wrong with it?- the theory of evolution predicts that evolution will happen on its own without intervention. "Social Darwinism" implies that the outcomes of evolution (or rather, what a set of people think the outcomes of evolution are) need to be helped in order to happen. This is contradictory.
Survival of the fittest isn't just dependent upon the bodily constitution, but the particular environmental circumstances it arises within. Adaptability, or ability to change in effect to alternating circumstances, is paramount to any continuing survival. This is the reason why I believe the meek shall inherit the earth because they're more adapted to changing circumstances without the comfort of a wealthy conditioning. Common sense and street smarts constribute more to evolutionary advantage than any intellectually abstract construct. Social status is mostly arbitrary and a worthless pursuit if someone seeks genuine contentment and peace of mind.
...social Darwinism is about increasing the pace of evolution...
Evolution is about reproductive fitness, not personal fitness. The meek may be more adaptable personally, but it doesn't mean they have more offspring. Rapeists and sperm donors have more offspring, not meek people.
No. Just as you would not model a society after gravity, you would not model it after evolution. But most importantly... social darwinism is exactly what I do NOT want in a society.If you agree with evolution, are you a supporter of Social Darwinism as well?
If not then why?
If you agree with evolution, are you a supporter of Social Darwinism as well?
If not then why?
This is an agenda-driven post that lacks the courage of transparency. Having you define your terms is a first step in making the thread a bit more honest.It shouldn't matter how I define them.
No, they don't. Actually, those considered 'meek' or poor tend to reproduce more often than those considered 'educated' or rich.
Balderdash. In order to "increase the pace of evolution", as you put it, you would need to know where evolution is going. Evolution is non-progressive and circumstantial: Predicting its ultimate course is a fantasy.
I would have to agree with the first part of this statement. Any excuse for slaughter and genocide will seem logical to those who promote it for their own ends. Thank goodness it does not seem quite so logical to those who are contaminating the genepool with their weakness otherwise walking under high buildings would be problematic given the amount of bodies that would be dropping from them as they did their bit for evolution. Of course, genocide and mass slaughter have always been the way of it long before any ideas of evolution were suggested and indeed it is still carried out today by people seeking dominance who have no interest or understanding of Darwinism, social or otherwise. Using interpretations of evolutionary theory to justify killing those you want to eradicate is no different than using the bible to burn a witch. Neither idea negates the place they were born.Thus, social Dawinism is yet another terrible (but logical) fruitage of this baseless doctrine of evolution, in my opinion.
So? That doesn't mean it was good for us, evolutionarily speaking. Many, many species have been rendered extinct after "catastrophic bottlenecks".Exactly right, yet these bottlenecks are supposed to have happened many many times in our ancestory. There is supposed to have been a catastrophic bottleneck fairly recently, down to 100 individuals (I think).
"This tremendously bad event wasn't as bad as other historic events our species has gone through" does not translate to "this tremendously bad event isn't anything to worry about."If this happened we have survived it, and wipeing out a few million jews is hardly on the same scale.
Which is where eugenics has its fatal flaw: removing genes from the gene pool never improves it. Even if you could identify "inferior" genes that code for traits that are poorly adapted for the current situation (which you can't, IMO, but for argument's sake), any trait that's poorly adapted now might be well adapted to some future environment. Multiple "inferior" traits might end up being "superior" when combined. You just don't know.Paticularly if they are genetically inferior, as the Nazis would have had you beleived. Eugenics is about improving our gene pool by removing the inferior genes.
No it doesn't, social Darwinism is about increasing the pace of evolution. And why shouldn't we? Seriously. Assuming that evolution is true, what is wrong with it?