Social Darwinism

[freethinker44]

This is just a question for anyone thinks social darwinism or eugenics are good ideas. If you are identified as being a member of the so-called "inferior gene-pool", would you willing accept being murdered, or perhaps even volunteer for it, if your death means that another group will be "stronger" for it or more fit? And I am not saying your death will save many people, both groups can survive equally, this isn't about survival, this is just about removing you from society for no other reason accept that you were born the way you were. Would you kill yourself if you were identified as genetically inferior?

 

[Falvlun]

No, you misunderstand the point. We are talking about social Darwinism here; evolution goes wherever we choose to make it go. Predicting its ultimate course is not fantasy if there is a person actively deciding where evolution is going.

That's not evolution, though. That's selective breeding, like what we do with animals or plants to make them more useful to us.

 

[Kerr]

No, you misunderstand the point. We are talking about social Darwinism here; evolution goes wherever we choose to make it go. Predicting its ultimate course is not fantasy if there is a person actively deciding where evolution is going.

To put it bluntly... we humans dont have the wisdom and knowledge to try and guide evolution. Nor can we ignore the fact that many people who has had a huge influence on humanity has had medical conditions and other weaknesses.

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

That's not evolution, though. That's selective breeding, like what we do with animals or plants to make them more useful to us.

That is a good point. However, do you think selective breeding can create better breads to prevent extinction of a species?

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

To put it bluntly... we humans dont have the wisdom and knowledge to try and guide evolution. Nor can we ignore the fact that many people who has had a huge influence on humanity has had medical conditions and other weaknesses.

Like someone else said, humans are social creatures, we are more than capable of controlling our own destiny.

 

[Drolefille]

Like someone else said, humans are social creatures, we are more than capable of controlling our own destiny.

We have no idea what eliminating certain genes from the gene pool would do. There was a virologist on NPR just recently who would not get rid of viruses if he could, because we don't know what most of them do. Most don't infect us, and some can be helpful. When it comes to genes eliminate sickle-cell anemia and you lose protection from malaria for example. We don't know what happens if a supervolcano blows and we lose sunlight and maybe somewhere in us we actually have some genes that will help us survive. We're very small beings in a very large universe.

But social darwinism wasn't just about genetics and eugenics, it was arguing that the people at the top were inherently superior by the fact that they were at the top. And that poor people were inherently inferior because obviously they were incapable of making it to the top.

We - should- know better now that this is related to education, SES, and dozens of other factors, not some inherent superiority or inferiority.

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

We have no idea what eliminating certain genes from the gene pool would do. There was a virologist on NPR just recently who would not get rid of viruses if he could, because we don't know what most of them do. Most don't infect us, and some can be helpful. When it comes to genes eliminate sickle-cell anemia and you lose protection from malaria for example.

But social darwinism wasn't just about genetics and eugenics, it was arguing that the people at the top were inherently superior by the fact that they were at the top. And that poor people were inherently inferior because obviously they were incapable of making it to the top.

We - should- know better now that this is related to education, SES, and dozens of other factors, not some inherent superiority or inferiority.

You could eliminate genes from one person and it wouldn't cause an entire race of human beings to go extinct. Social Darwinism can be viewed as the betterment of society where the rich don't control the lives of the working class. As in some employers can pay their employes much more because they are capable of doing so, but choose not too. Just because someone is financially well off doesn't mean they are more fit to survive.

 

[Storm]

You could eliminate genes from one person and it wouldn't cause an entire race of human beings to go extinct. Social Darwinism can be viewed as the betterment of society where the rich don't control the lives of the working class. As in some employers can pay their employes much more because they are capable of doing so, but choose not too. Just because someone is financially well off doesn't mean they are more fit to survive.

Well, then... you just answered your own question of social Darwinism.

 

[freethinker44]

You could eliminate genes from one person and it wouldn't cause an entire race of human beings to go extinct. Social Darwinism can be viewed as the betterment of society where the rich don't control the lives of the working class. As in some employers can pay their employes much more because they are capable of doing so, but choose not too. Just because someone is financially well off doesn't mean they are more fit to survive.

Wealthier people control society because we let them, not because they are genetically superior. If your goal is to make people socially more equal, than you will fail. All genetic modification will do is produce stronger, smarter, and faster people who do menial jobs for minimum wage.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You could eliminate genes from one person and it wouldn't cause an entire race of human beings to go extinct. Social Darwinism can be viewed as the betterment of society where the rich don't control the lives of the working class. As in some employers can pay their employes much more because they are capable of doing so, but choose not too. Just because someone is financially well off doesn't mean they are more fit to survive.

How do you think that fitness is defined in evolutionary terms?

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

How do you think that fitness is defined in evolutionary terms?

Nothing more than a species being able to adapt to their natural environment.

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

Well, then... you just answered your own question of social Darwinism.

Not really, because I'm not asking myself. I'm creating a topic for discussion.

 

[Tristesse]

If you agree with evolution, are you a supporter of Social Darwinism as well?
If not then why?

No, I think NATURAL selection seems to being just fine on it's own.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nothing more than a species being able to adapt to their natural environment.

At a population level, sure... though as I touched on before, adaptability is a function of genetic diversity.

At the level of an individual, "fitness" is the ability to pass on one's genes to future generations.

If a person has kids that survive to have kids of their own and so on, they're evolutionarily "fit". It doesn't matter what strategy they use to do it; by the only test that matters in evolutionary terms, the person is fit. A quadriplegic who has 10 kids through artificial insemination is more evolutionarily "fit" than someone in the 99th percentile for intelligence and physical ability who ends up dying before he can have kids.

If someone steps in and creates artificial restrictions on who can and can't breed, then they have changed what it means to be "fit" in that population.

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

At a population level, sure... though as I touched on before, adaptability is a function of genetic diversity.

At the level of an individual, "fitness" is the ability to pass on one's genes to future generations.

If a person has kids that survive to have kids of their own and so on, they're evolutionarily "fit". It doesn't matter what strategy they use to do it; by the only test that matters in evolutionary terms, the person is fit. A quadriplegic who has 10 kids through artificial insemination is more evolutionarily "fit" than someone in the 99th percentile for intelligence and physical ability who ends up dying before he can have kids.

If someone steps in and creates artificial restrictions on who can and can't breed, then they have changed what it means to be "fit" in that population.

Evolution isn't simply based on a species ability to reproduce though. That is why adaptation plays such a pivotal roll in evolution. There are social and economical barriers in place that may prevent or allow a species to succeed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Evolution isn't simply based on a species ability to reproduce though.

Yes, it is.

That is why adaptation plays such a pivotal roll in evolution. There are social and economical barriers in place that may prevent or allow a species to succeed.

What on Earth are you talking about?

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

Yes, it is.

No it isn't. If you think it is then you can take adaptation out of your formula for survival.

 

[Drolefille]

Evolution isn't simply based on a species ability to reproduce though. That is why adaptation plays such a pivotal roll in evolution. There are social and economical barriers in place that may prevent or allow a species to succeed.

No you're completely wrong here.

It's all about reproduction and survival. Some species may have more social approaches that sacrifice the success of an individual for the group, but none of that matters as long as there are surviving offspring.

 

[Drolefille]

No it isn't. If you think it is then you can take adaptation out of your formula for survival.

Individuals who adapt faster and better - primarily through mutations or success of existing natural variations will have more successful offspring. If the environment changes, another group or population may be more successful or the species may fail to adapt at all.

Economic and "social: reasons have nothing to do with any species other than humans. (I'm separating "social" in the lion pack sense from "social" in the human sense here for a reason.)

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

Individuals who adapt faster and better - primarily through mutations or success of existing natural variations will have more successful offspring. If the environment changes, another group or population may be more successful or the species may fail to adapt at all.

Economic and "social: reasons have nothing to do with any species other than humans. (I'm separating "social" in the lion pack sense from "social" in the human sense here for a reason.)

This is a topic on Social Darwinism and Evolution. Not Social Darwinism and Otters.