Social Darwinism

[uberrobonomicon4000]

Congratulations you found an actual gene! :clap

Now, do you know what this gene does in humans? The report is only on mice. What is the human copy of the gene like? Is it expressed in the same places and in the same manner as in mice? Are there variant alleles of this gene and if so what if any difference in function to they promote?

You must also realize that this gene works in combination with other key protein signaling genes and that just removing it could well damage other systems in the brain of humans.


Here is the biggest flaw in your choice... Every single human has this gene... how do you propose to remove it from the entire human population? This gene isn't linked to stupidity in humans (again, WE ALL HAVE THIS GENE).

wa:do

If you would have read the article it answered most of those questions for you.

Aside from that, I don’t propose anything. You asked me what Social Darwinist think and I told you. It can be done through education or some other means available to help promote a better society.

This is also where you fail to make the distinction between societies and races.
You seem to think the entire human race deserves some form of treatment, and is affected by this just because everyone has the gene. It can be inactive in some people while active in others. If it’s active then it affects those people’s ability to learn and medication may be required for them to overcome their vulnerabilities of being effected by the gene. However, just like all treatment and medication, it isn’t mandatory as you seem to think. It is optional. This isn’t about saving the entire human race. The article I linked and others I have read say nothing about this affecting other parts of the brain either and just like the mice they used in this experiment they didn’t have an active RGS14 gene while others did.

 

[painted wolf]

If you would have read the article it answered most of those questions for you.

nope... doesn't answer those questions at all.

Aside from that, I don’t propose anything. You asked me what Social Darwinist think and I told you. It can be done through education or some other means available to help promote a better society.

What "other means" would that be?

This is also where you fail to make the distinction between societies and races.
You seem to think the entire human race deserves some form of treatment, and is affected by this just because everyone has the gene. It can be inactive in some people while active in others. If it’s active then it affects those people’s ability to learn and medication may be required for them to overcome their vulnerabilities of being effected by the gene. However, just like all treatment and medication, it isn’t mandatory as you seem to think. It is optional. This isn’t about saving the entire human race. The article I linked and others I have read say nothing about this affecting other parts of the brain either and just like the mice they used in this experiment they didn’t have an active RGS14 gene while others did.

All humans have an active RGS14 gene, it's used in protein signaling in the brain.

The article is clear that long term results of the knockout are not yet known... The mice that don't have a working copy were genetically engineered that way and haven't yet lived out a full life. Nor can we tell if there is some other problem with the brains of these mice... and the article is clear on this point. Other problems with the hippocampus could be present that we can't identify because mice aren't humans.

Are you suggesting that we genetically engineer children with a broken copy of this gene and hope for the best? What do you do if deactivating this gene causes other problems in the hippocampus like hallucinations?

Once you have your engineered generation, what do you do with a future child that is born with a mutation that re-activates the gene?

wa:do

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

If you don’t think it can be feasibly done then why did you ever ask me to begin with?

 

[painted wolf]

If you don’t think it can be feasibly done then why did you ever ask me to begin with?

Because it's the "social darwinist" position that it can/must be done.... granted these were men who didn't know about genetics... still, if you support their conclusions then you must think that it's possible.

Who chooses what genes are "beneficial" and which ones aren't... and what about all the alleles of those genes?

wa:do

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

Because it's the "social darwinist" position that it can/must be done.... granted these were men who didn't know about genetics... still, if you support their conclusions then you must think that it's possible.

Who chooses what genes are "beneficial" and which ones aren't... and what about all the alleles of those genes?

wa:do

To be fair, Charles Darwin didn’t know anything about genetics either.

So we can always throw the entire argument of genetics out the window.

When you say remove you are probably referring to taking the genetic scissors to a gene and completely removing it. I can agree that isn’t a logical stance to take, which is why medication could be used to suppress or turn off an active gene, by making it inactive and not impinge on someone’s ability to function at the top of the ability. There are different genetic disabilities that can be treated that don’t require the removal of a gene. That is what a lot of different programs, treatments and medications are design (setup) to do.

I’m not sure why you would suggest or assume something like that. It might work in a lab full of rats, but would be hard to implement in society. Unless people agree to it and its proven to be successful (effective).

 

[painted wolf]

To be fair, Charles Darwin didn’t know anything about genetics either.

So we can always throw the entire argument of genetics out the window.

No, it doesn't work like that.
Evolution is science because it doesn't matter that Darwin didn't know about genetics... we know about genetics and it's a cornerstone of modern evolution.
Science progresses as knowledge increases.

Pseudo-science doubles down and clings to cult-of-personality and dogma.

When you say remove you are probably referring to taking the genetic scissors to a gene and completely removing it. I can agree that isn’t a logical stance to take, which is why medication could be used to suppress or turn off an active gene, by making it inactive and not impinge on someone’s ability to function at the top of the ability. There are different genetic disabilities that can be treated that don’t require the removal of a gene. That is what a lot of different programs, treatments and medications are design (setup) to do.

Maybe in the world of science fiction... but in the real world such gene therapy is far from proven.

I’m not sure why you would suggest or assume something like that. It might work in a lab full of rats, but would be hard to implement in society. Unless people agree to it and its proven to be successful (effective).

So tell me the "social darwinist" solution then...

wa:do

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

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

What do you mean by social Darwinism? Animals help out each other for common good. That is the case in humans too.

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

What do you mean by social Darwinism? Animals help out each other for common good. That is the case in humans too.

Survival of the fittest.
Some animals do, but not all. There are also species that fight to the death over stupid things such as territory and mating rituals.

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

Painted wolf I cannot respond to your post right so I will try to respond to it later. =)

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Survival of the fittest.
Some animals do, but not all. There are also species that fight to the death over stupid things such as territory and mating rituals.

In our context, survival of the fittest may mean something else. We do not need to be strong or fast to be successful as humans.

What do you mean by 'fittest' ?

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

In our context, survival of the fittest may mean something else. We do not need to be strong or fast to be successful as humans.

What do you mean by 'fittest' ?

Yeah I agree. Care to add anything else?

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Yeah I agree. Care to add anything else?

I did, care to read the whole post? :sarcastic

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

No, it doesn't work like that.
Evolution is science because it doesn't matter that Darwin didn't know about genetics... we know about genetics and it's a cornerstone of modern evolution.
Science progresses as knowledge increases.

Yes it does! Although I will admit, I should have been a little clearer in the OP and said Charles Darwin’s Natural Selection and Herbert Spencer’s Survival of the fittest.

Maybe in the world of science fiction... but in the real world such gene therapy is far from proven.

Well I’m not real sure what world you are living in. It really depends on the gene and you are limiting your perspective to genetic engineering and think all problems are solved that way. That is a bit extreme, far more extreme than anything that has to do with Social Darwinism.

You are also agreeing to the fact that not everything can be fixed or cured with biology or genetic engineering. You are contradicting yourself quite a bit.

So tell me the "social darwinist" solution then...
wa:do

I have already given tons of examples, if you want to limit your perspective to genetics and genetic engineering that is your problem not mine.

 

[painted wolf]

Yes it does! Although I will admit, I should have been a little clearer in the OP and said Charles Darwin’s Natural Selection and Herbert Spencer’s Survival of the fittest.

Well then there is your problem... you can't just go by Darwin's natural selection because Darwin wasn't 100% correct. Nor was Spencer.

Natural Selection and "survival of the fittest" are better understood today than it was by Darwin or Spencer. They deserve tons of credit for coming up with ideas and getting much of it right... but they were wrong on some key parts and any social movement based only on Darwin's understanding of Natural Selection or Spencer's idea of "survival of the fittest" is going to be fatally flawed. Like debating physics while ignoring anyone who came after Newton.

Garbage in... Garbage out.

Well I’m not real sure what world you are living in. It really depends on the gene and you are limiting your perspective to genetic engineering and think all problems are solved that way. That is a bit extreme, far more extreme than anything that has to do with Social Darwinism.

You are the one saying there is a magical medicine that can switch off a gene.

You are also agreeing to the fact that not everything can be fixed or cured with biology or genetic engineering. You are contradicting yourself quite a bit.

NO I'm not contradicting myself... I'm not the one who said that Artificial Selection could fix humanity, which is the general idea of "social darwinism".

I have already given tons of examples, if you want to limit your perspective to genetics and genetic engineering that is your problem not mine.

Hmm... I don't seem to remember any examples. Could you refresh my memory?

Any discussion about natural selection has to account for genetics. Full stop.
Anyone who studies evolution must have a basic working knowledge of genetics to really understand what is going on.

All this is doing is reinforcing my main point... that "social darwinists" don't actually understand natural selection or survival of the fittest, which they claim to base their ideas on. The true premise of "social darwinism" is a quint but utterly false Victorian era egocentrism.

wa:do

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

Well then there is your problem... you can't just go by Darwin's natural selection because Darwin wasn't 100% correct. Nor was Spencer.

Natural Selection and "survival of the fittest" are better understood today than it was by Darwin or Spencer. They deserve tons of credit for coming up with ideas and getting much of it right... but they were wrong on some key parts and any social movement based only on Darwin's understanding of Natural Selection or Spencer's idea of "survival of the fittest" is going to be fatally flawed. Like debating physics while ignoring anyone who came after Newton.

Garbage in... Garbage out.

I agree for the most part, and to avoid getting too deep into this we can leave it at that.

You are the one saying there is a magical medicine that can switch off a gene.

There are medications and treatments to help suppress a genetic conditions and eventually nanomedicine and technology will take over. Nanotechnology and medicine has a promising future aside from regular medication. It has already been proven to be effective. You can research it if you haven't already.


A simple example besides suppressing cancer cells would be dyslexia.

NO I'm not contradicting myself... I'm not the one who said that Artificial Selection could fix humanity, which is the general idea of "social darwinism".

How is it considered artificial selection? If you are treating an impairment is that not artificial selection? I don't see how social adapts are artificial when they have been proven by behavioral sciences and history which has brought about great social changes for the betterment of society.

Hmm... I don't seem to remember any examples. Could you refresh my memory?

Any discussion about natural selection has to account for genetics. Full stop.
Anyone who studies evolution must have a basic working knowledge of genetics to really understand what is going on.

All this is doing is reinforcing my main point... that "social darwinists" don't actually understand natural selection or survival of the fittest, which they claim to base their ideas on. The true premise of "social darwinism" is a quint but utterly false Victorian era egocentrism.

wa:do

Which is why this argument is never going to end. You cannot totally rule out an organisms ability to interact with its environment and by interaction I’m including all cognitive abilities available to that organism even if it includes stimuli.

 

[painted wolf]

There are medications and treatments to help suppress a genetic conditions and eventually nanomedicine and technology will take over. Nanotechnology and medicine has a promising future aside from regular medication. It has already been proven to be effective. You can research it if you haven't already.

Suppresses the condition... not the gene.
For example, some bind to faulty enzymes that are produced by a mutant gene so that the enzymes don't damage cells.

Nanotechnology in medicine is being used to better target medications to specific cells and control dosage... not change genes.

A simple example besides suppressing cancer cells would be dyslexia.

Suppressing cancer cells is not done by switching off genes. Nor is treating dyslexia.
In fact both problems are not determined by any single gene but are caused by several different mutations on several different genes on multiple chromosomes.

How is it considered artificial selection? If you are treating an impairment is that not artificial selection? I don't see how social adapts are artificial when they have been proven by behavioral sciences and history which has brought about great social changes for the betterment of society.

One of the biggest names in "social darwinism" Francis Galton proposed eugenics most of his contemporaries and predecessors toyed with the idea, though never formalized it.

And no, treating disorders is not artificial selection. It almost never impacts evolutionary fitness. The exceptions being things like IVF.

Which is why this argument is never going to end. You cannot totally rule out an organisms ability to interact with its environment and by interaction I’m including all cognitive abilities available to that organism even if it includes stimuli.

The influence of cognition is already accounted for in evolution.

wa:do

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

It can turn off the genetic triggers that cause x problems, such as genetic mutations of cancer cells.

The reason why I mentioned Dyslexia is to give you an example of a genetic condition that can be treated, but without medicine or having it completely removed.

 

[painted wolf]

It can turn off the genetic triggers that cause x problems, such as genetic mutations of cancer cells.

If you can "turn off the genetic triggers" for cancer... then you just won yourself a Nobel Prize in medicine.

The reason why I mentioned Dyslexia is to give you an example of a genetic condition that can be treated, but without medicine or having it completely removed.

Dyslexia can be treated but it can not be cured... nor can the genes behind it be removed from the human population.

And again... treating a disorder is against the principles of "social darwinism".

The only recourse "social darwinism" proposes is trying to keep people with genetic variations that they disapprove of from reproducing.
Their only answer is eugenics or Malthusian callousness.

wa:do

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

If you can "turn off the genetic triggers" for cancer... then you just won yourself a Nobel Prize in medicine.

Dyslexia can be treated but it can not be cured... nor can the genes behind it be removed from the human population.

And again... treating a disorder is against the principles of "social darwinism".

The only recourse "social darwinism" proposes is trying to keep people with genetic variations that they disapprove of from reproducing.
Their only answer is eugenics or Malthusian callousness.

wa:do

1) Dyslexia, so far as we know, doesn't have any genetic basis insofar as it is a mostly symptomatically defined condition and we lack anything beyond the most basic understanding of the neuralogical causes of an actually more diverse set of deficits lumped under this categorization.
2) Malthus wasn't really callous, just pessimistic. For the most part, he predicted what was supposed to be the inevitable post-apocalyptic future that was bound to become the present any day now. It's the eugenicists (and, as you point out, their fundamental relationship to "social darwinisim") who are really scary.
3) How is it that a thread which concerns an issue of a bygone era and an OP which would find little support even among actual proponents of social darwinisim is still continuing?

 

[painted wolf]

1) Dyslexia, so far as we know, doesn't have any genetic basis insofar as it is a mostly symptomatically defined condition and we lack anything beyond the most basic understanding of the neuralogical causes of an actually more diverse set of deficits lumped under this categorization.

Not true... at least six genes on two chromosomes have been linked to dyslexia. Including DYX3, DCDC2 and DYX1C1.

2) Malthus wasn't really callous, just pessimistic. For the most part, he predicted what was supposed to be the inevitable post-apocalyptic future that was bound to become the present any day now. It's the eugenicists (and, as you point out, their fundamental relationship to "social darwinisim") who are really scary.

I didn't say he was... just that simply accepting Malthusian events as necessary for culling the weak is.

3) How is it that a thread which concerns an issue of a bygone era and an OP which would find little support even among actual proponents of social darwinisim is still continuing?

Are there any serious modern proponents of "social darwinism"?

wa:do