Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Survival of the fittest.

Page 4 of 6 [ 82 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,282
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

17 Aug 2011, 11:07 am

Fnord wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Fnord wrote:
marshall wrote:
... in primitive hunter/gatherer primate tribes, strongest hunter is discouraged from hoarding all his catch for himself.

Alpha Hunter would share with his chief, his hunting partners, and his mate. This would ensure that Alpha was not executed for disrespect, had strong partners for future hunts, and a warm mate to sleep with. He might also give a portion to his shaman to appease the gods and spirits.

You can bet that Alpha never shared with the weak, the crippled, or the sick, as these people would have been burdens on the tribe if they could not contribute to tribal welfare (aka, "earn their keep").

By depriving undesirables of sustenance, Alpha contributed to the Darwinic evolution of the species through Survival of the Fittest - those whom Alpha deemed would enhance his own chances of future survival and comfort.

Evolution favors the strong.

So do you suggest we treat the weak, crippled or sick the same way? See that is the issue when ... (blahblahblah)

I suggest no such thing. Darwinic evolution encourages survival of the fittest, thus ensuring that only the best qualities get passed along and our species' development progresses. Socialist evolution encourages everyone's survival (including the weak), thus our development as a species either stagnates our declines.

Which is why I wonder what is so "progressive" about Liberal / Progressive / Socialist thinking.


Well uhh socialist thinking kind of involves the idea that everyone in a society should have access to their basic needs, and that even those on the very bottom should be taken care of by those who are more capable....so what is not progressive about that.......I see that as more progressive than every man for himself because only one can make it to the top.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,959
Location:      

17 Aug 2011, 12:23 pm

It isn't so important to be the one person at the top as it is to not be one of the people at the bottom.


_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

17 Aug 2011, 12:27 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
So who honestly thinks anyone who cannot be successful on their own in this society or cannot be successful at all should be left to die so to speak?


Not I.

Sweetleaf wrote:
Yes not so easy to defend when I word it that way.


Who would want to defend a strawman?



androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

17 Aug 2011, 12:45 pm

What conservatives say is that losers must be at the mercy of voluntary charity and that taxes cannot be raised to help the poor.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

17 Aug 2011, 12:53 pm

androbot2084 wrote:
What conservatives say is that losers must be at the mercy of voluntary charity and that taxes cannot be raised to help the poor.


Really? Are you a conservative and is such your opinion?



androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

17 Aug 2011, 1:31 pm

That is why it is very dangerous to become wealthy. Some believe that when they become wealthy they will become philanthropers but you could just as easily turn into a miser.



AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

17 Aug 2011, 1:32 pm

androbot2084 wrote:
That is why it is very dangerous to become wealthy. Some believe that when they become wealthy they will become philanthropers but you could just as easily turn into a miser.
Cool, just don't project yourself onto us.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

17 Aug 2011, 1:40 pm

androbot2084 wrote:
That is why it is very dangerous to become wealthy. Some believe that when they become wealthy they will become philanthropers but you could just as easily turn into a miser.


Actually I see more and more reason to become generally misanthropic every day. So, if I ever were to become rich you can count on my not being a philanthropist. If I ever get out of the ghetto perhaps then I'll quit seeing more and more reasons to become generally misanthropic though and start being able to care more.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,282
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

17 Aug 2011, 2:04 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
So who honestly thinks anyone who cannot be successful on their own in this society or cannot be successful at all should be left to die so to speak?


Not I.

Sweetleaf wrote:
Yes not so easy to defend when I word it that way.


Who would want to defend a strawman?


I am not sure what you mean by that...



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,282
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

17 Aug 2011, 2:04 pm

androbot2084 wrote:
What conservatives say is that losers must be at the mercy of voluntary charity and that taxes cannot be raised to help the poor.


Yes it seems like some of them do, and I would be in that loser catagory.....lol



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,282
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

17 Aug 2011, 2:07 pm

Fnord wrote:
It isn't so important to be the one person at the top as it is to not be one of the people at the bottom.


Why is it so important not to be one of the people at the bottom, I guess some people cannot handle not having someone below them to feel superior to.......but even so those on the bottom should be taken care of. Some on the bottom can do quite a few things themselves and might just need help with food in the form of food stamps and some might have a severe disability that requires others completely take care of them.

A society is only as strong as its weakest member.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,959
Location:      

17 Aug 2011, 2:50 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
Fnord wrote:
It isn't so important to be the one person at the top as it is to not be one of the people at the bottom.

Why is it so important not to be one of the people at the bottom, I guess some people cannot handle not having someone below them to feel superior to.......but even so those on the bottom should be taken care of. Some on the bottom can do quite a few things themselves and might just need help with food in the form of food stamps and some might have a severe disability that requires others completely take care of them.

You miss the point entirely, which is that not being at the bottom means not having to fight for survival 24/7 or having to put up with all the bullsnot from those above.
Sweetleaf wrote:
A society is only as strong as its weakest member.

Now there is a scary thought! No wonder Darwinic evolution works so well!


_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

17 Aug 2011, 3:19 pm

Fnord wrote:
marshall wrote:
... in primitive hunter/gatherer primate tribes, strongest hunter is discouraged from hoarding all his catch for himself.

Alpha Hunter would share with his chief, his hunting partners, and his mate. This would ensure that Alpha was not executed for disrespect, had strong partners for future hunts, and a warm mate to sleep with. He might also give a portion to his shaman to appease the gods and spirits.

You can bet that Alpha never shared with the weak, the crippled, or the sick, as these people would have been burdens on the tribe if they could not contribute to tribal welfare (aka, "earn their keep").

By depriving undesirables of sustenance, Alpha contributed to the Darwinic evolution of the species through Survival of the Fittest - those whom Alpha deemed would enhance his own chances of future survival and comfort.

Evolution favors the strong by culling out the weak.

This is demonstrably false, even amongst wolves.



Last edited by LKL on 17 Aug 2011, 3:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

17 Aug 2011, 3:21 pm

ruveyn wrote:
marshall wrote:
No. Ethical principles themselves are a product of evolution. Concepts of altruism and justice helped humans evolve through cooperation and division of duties. Ethical principles are even visible in families of primates, to a lesser degree.


Most likely this is accidental. There is no a priori reason for thinking that ethical behavior is the only way to guarantee reproductive success. You will not that roaches, rats and fish reproduce successfully and there is no sign of ethics there.

It just happened to work out that way for primates. If we replayed reality it might not come out that way the second time around.

ruveyn

Reciprocal altruism has evolved in every social species that has been studied for it. Hell, even vampire bats behave altruistically to members of their roosting group. Such consistency would not be observed if there were no evolutionary advantage to it within social communities.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

17 Aug 2011, 3:25 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
A society is only as strong as its weakest member.


Isn't that an argument for social Darwinism? What could be more collectivist than putting the good of the group before the good of the individual and simply eliminating the deadweight that's dragging down the group? Note that I'm not actually making that argument, just pointing out that it could be made.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

17 Aug 2011, 5:24 pm

Dox47 wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
A society is only as strong as its weakest member.


Isn't that an argument for social Darwinism? What could be more collectivist than putting the good of the group before the good of the individual and simply eliminating the deadweight that's dragging down the group? Note that I'm not actually making that argument, just pointing out that it could be made.


I'd also like to point out that any and all notions of what constitutes "weakness" and/or "strength" are completely arbitrary.

I'd rather not have to kill Steven Hawking based on whatever concept of "strength" is currently fashionable in society.

Moreover, the theory of evolution has nothing to do with "strength" or "weakness." It explain how the different species on Earth came to exist and nothing more. It never ceases to amaze me when individuals attempt to hijack it and inject it with silly political fluff.


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)