How do you figure? What do you think adaptation is?
Reproduction is even built into the metric you're using. Listen to yourself: "formula for survival".
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Social Darwinism
- Thread starter uberrobonomicon4000
- Start date
How do you figure? What do you think adaptation is?
Reproduction is even built into the metric you're using. Listen to yourself: "formula for survival".
uberrobonomicon4000
Active Member
Right, I said survival and you said reproduction, which are two entirely different things.
I asked you before, but you skipped over the question: What on Earth are you talking about?
Drolefille
PolyPanGeekGirl
You were discussing multiple species, so clearly you weren't only talking about humans.
Evolution is not just a human trait, and your definition is severely flawed.
Drolefille
PolyPanGeekGirl
If you survive and don't reproduce you have failed to be successful.
uberrobonomicon4000
Active Member
I feel sorry for anyone that thinks like this. Success is not based on reproduction, you are falling into the original ideology of Herbert Spencer and ignoring the fact that a race or species can survive by adapting to their natural environment. That is what survival is about, not reproduction. Reproduction only carries a species so far before other factors come into play to determine their success.
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
I accept evolution as a fact and a scientific theory.
I'm not sure what 'agree with' means in this context.
Nope.
Because the one has nothing to do with the other.
One is a fact (allele frequencies change over time) and a scientific theory (living things evolve).
The other is at best a complete misunderstanding of the former, and also, it is nonsense.
Last edited:
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
A species can survive without reproducing? If not then I would say that is a pretty important part of survival. Reproduction is the ultimate goal of evolution. It isn't survival of the fittest to live, it is survival of the fittest to reproduce. All that is required to bypass extinction is reproduction. If a species can reproduce, they are good to go. Anything else is extra.
You say survival is about adapting to natural environment, not reproduction. What is the point to survive now just to die out later? There is a reason the ability to reproduce in some way is innate in all life on Earth. They wouldn't have survived if they weren't able to reproduce. A species can survive anything nature can throw at them, but if they can't reproduce they are just delaying their extinction. They haven't really survived, they just haven't died yet.
If the passed has taught us anything, its that we are not capable of doing that.
And unless your specie is immortal, it will die out if it cannot reproduce.
uberrobonomicon4000
Active Member
I never said anything of the likes. I said it's not based solely on reproduction.
Not all species can handle anything nature can throw at them. Hence, the reason why so many species have gone extinct. Which is why I said reproduction can only carry a species so far before other factors come into play to determine its success.
Drolefille
PolyPanGeekGirl
The success reproduction is the mark of the survival of the species. If they do not reproduce they die. If they successfully continue to reproduce then they have successfully adapted to their environment. The giraffe didn't get a long neck because it stretched really hard. Individual adaptation doesn't guarantee species success, in fact it can only help in two ways: passing the genetic adaptation on, or passing a learned behavior on through species that can teach learned behavior.
Both are only relevant such as they make the species more likely to continue to reproduce indirectly or directly.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Anyone who thinks that "Social Darwinism" is valid doesn't understand evolution or Darwin.
I think that this is backed up by the bulk of this thread.
wa:do
I think that this is backed up by the bulk of this thread.
wa:do
Warren Clark
Informer
I don't necessarily support it like I support the legalization of weed. its just a part of life. we all have our means of living. were constantly evolving and manipulating those means.
I actually wrote an article about this...
http://warrenclark.hubpages.com/hub/Darwinism-in-the-Free-Market
I actually wrote an article about this...
http://warrenclark.hubpages.com/hub/Darwinism-in-the-Free-Market
Last edited:
uberrobonomicon4000
Active Member
Any living organism can reproduce. It is just a fact. I would not consider the cow a very successful species seeing how we prolong its death by breeding them for consumption. I would not consider the cat a very successful species, seeing how we use them as pets, etc. That is not to say they are not useful or beneficial to someone else.
So livestock is successful or have they just learned to accept the fact they will all be going to a giant slaughter house to be butchered and sold on the market?
Individual adaptation can too determine a species success. If farmer Jain were to teach a group of indigenous people cultivation, then she would have made her imprint on many generations to come.
The point is, just because a species can reproduce and survive doesn’t mean they are any better off.
Which is why Social Darwinism takes on socioeconomic aspects of survival and is given a bad rep because it’s based on finical success and superiority of one race over another. Some races are better at surviving than others. I’m not racist, but for instance, some races of humans are capable of civil wars and overcoming their difference for the betterment of society or the community. While others just fall apart. Now that is just one extreme end of the spectrum with Social Darwinism. Let’s say on the other side of the socioeconomic spectrum there is an ideology that is not so extreme. That actually looks out for the general welfare of a population or people within a certain community. Would that be bad? It is still about the survival… only take a less extreme approach for the betterment of society.
gnostic
The Lost One
uberrobonomicon4000 said:
I don't even know what Social Darwinism is.
And since I don't know what it is, I could say "yes" :yes:, "no":no:, "probably", "probably not" :sad:, "may be", "I don't know"
, "no comment" :foot:, "mind your own business" :tsk:, or "ask my mother". 
I think that about cover it.
You are confusing biological success with some other usage of success.
Evolutionarily, yes, they're successful.
I like how Dan Dennett put it in a TED Talk he did: "how clever it was of sheep to have acquired shepherds!"
I won't speak to whether YOU'RE racist, but that statement was.
Warren Clark
Informer
I don't even know what Social Darwinism is.
And since I don't know what it is, I could say "yes" :yes:, "no":no:, "probably", "probably not" :sad:, "may be", "I don't know"
I think that about cover it.
Social Darwinism is the idea that we socially behave like that of our primitive ancestor in our fight for survival. We are willing to kick people down in order to stay up the food chain. So to speak.
Now from wikipedia:
Social Darwinism is an ideology of society that seeks to apply biological concepts of Darwinism or of evolutionary theory to sociology and politics, often with the assumption that conflict between groups in society leads to social progress as superior groups outcompete inferior ones