Skip to comments.Eugenic Darwinism
Posted on 06/13/2007 11:59:38 AM PDT by LUMary
click here to read article
Amazing how life evolved to believe in God.. Those that don’t must be less evolved..
“If you believe that natural selection is a self-correcting mechanism, why interfere? Things will shake out as they should. As they have to. For people who believe in evolution, as I do, the only sane solution is to leave it the hell alone.”
The problem with this is that you are making a moral judgement - that “interfering” with natural selection is “wrong”. Why is it wrong?
Even if it could be demonstrated that Darwin was against eugenics, if there is no God, then so what if he was against it? Without God there are no moral absolutes - only personal preferences created by our own whims.
As to the original question, what does Darwin teach that would prohibit the practice of eugenics on human beings?
Is it simply because he says “natural” selection? Does that phrase eradicate the very idea of science utilizing this “natural” process themselves?
My point is that Darwinian theory lends itself to eugenics while violence and atrocities committed in the name of Jesus have no basis of support from anything He taught (or of any New Testament writers for that matter).
“Bad people take perfectly good ideas and screw them up, thats how you know theyre bad people. They do it with Darwin, they do it with the Constitution, they do it with the Bible, they do it with Wealth of Nations, they do it with mediocre Beatles songs, they just do it. Its not possible to take Darwins teachings as a WHOLE to get an excuse to commit atrocities either. Thats why the people that commit atrocities using Darwinism, or Jesus, as an excuse.”
I agree that people can take anything and turn it to their own uses. My point is that some ideas lend themselves to logical, moral consequences. You said that atrocities, like eugenics, could no more be blamed on Darwin than atrocities committed by Christians could be blamed on Jesus. I disagree with that statement.
Darwin’s ideas - taken as a whole - do lead one inexorably to naturalistic evolution. That is, the idea that human beings are just animals by another name. Successful organisms exist because of the idea of “survival of the fittest” or, put another way - only the strongest survive. Human beings are no “better” or “greater” than any other life organism. All that exists is by mindless, directionless, random chance. There is no need for an “Intelligent Designer”, there is no purpose, other than existence, for existence. We, as human beings, have no meaning, we are “flukes of nature”, there are no moral absolutes because there is no God to determine what moral standards are. Aren’t these the logical outcomes of Darwin’s beliefs? What does he teach that would contradict such beliefs? What does he teach that would prohibit the study and implementation of eugenics on human beings?
However, with Jesus - what does He teach that could remotely justify slaughtering Jews or “heretics”?
I never actually said Darwin couldn’t be any more accountable than Jesus, but I do agree with the sentiment.
No Darwin’s ideas, taken as a whole, do not inexorably lead to naturalistic evolution. There’s nothing “just” about humans or animals in Darwin’s ideas. Darwin’s ideas are that the world we have now, humans and animals included, is the “so far” result (not the end result because the theory is that it’s still continuing) of a truly amazing process, and humans are greater than the other animals because we developed a level of self awareness and situational curiousity not replicated by any other species. It doesn’t exist by random chance, it exists by a process of constant improvement as species make themselves more fit for their environment. It makes no direct statements on any designer, because like all scientific inquiry it’s unconcerned with prime motivators and entirely interested in mechanics. Much like how electrical engineers are unconcerned with who or what decided electrons should exist and and be able to move charge from one atom to another but instead study how this happens; Darwin and evolutionary scientists don’t care who or what caused a system of speciation to exist that would allow each generation of a species to be more fit than the previous, they only care about how. According to Darwin human’s aren’t flukes of nature, we are the current pinacle of nature, the most generally able species on the planet.
So no those aren’t the logical outcomes of Darwin’s beliefs. And by his teaching that it’s a natural force that’s far too complicated to be truly controled by man he prohibits the implementation of eugenics.
Doesn't though, this heirarchy of competency between the species, imply a heirarchy of competency within the species also...
“And by his teaching that its a natural force thats far too complicated to be truly controled by man he prohibits the implementation of eugenics.”
Where does Darwin say this statement you made? Again, whether or not Darwin promoted eugenics himself is irrelevant. Eugenics can be a logical argument from the ideas he set in motion.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that naturalistic evolutionists are all in favor of eugenics, I was just listing their commonly held belief that all that exists came about by a mindless natural process that had no guidance other than mechanical forces that just happen to exit (for no apparant reason).
When you say that the world we have now is the result of “a truly amazing process” you’re just using flowery language to say the same thing naturalistic evolutionists say. You said yourself that the process makes “no direct statments regarding any designer”, in fact, that scientific inquiry is “unconcerned” with “prime motivators” but only with mechanics.
Don’t you see how Darwin’s ideas are just a short step to naturalistic evolution - not only does the process make no statement about a designer, the process is the designer - there is no God. The idea of God is pointless. You said that humans are “greater than the other animals because we developed a level of self awareness and situational curiosity not replicated by any other species.” Why does this make us greater? And, haven’t you just admitted that we are just a higher level of animal?
I’m not arguing that I am in favor of that, I’m just trying to get you to see how Darwin’s ideas can lead logically to a place Darwin may not have wanted to go, or you, or me, but to others, who are not restricted by any moral compunctions (because if there is no “designer” - no god, moral absolutes do not exist), may proceed to eugenics form these ideas quite nicely.
Sure, but the question is how do you tell before evolution has progressed what was better? That’s the whole process of natural selection, that natural forces determine one variation within a species is better than another, but it’s generally not visible until after the selection has occured. Which is the failing of eugenics, they say “these kind of people (generally people like them, there’s a lot of ego eugenics) are better” but they don’t actually know, they can’t actually prove it, and wouldn’t be able to prove it without being in charge and forcing their value judgement for a couple of centuries.
I'm not going to continue arguing for arguments' sake, because, quite frankly, and again, you just don't seem to get it. This is one of the reasons why I don't debate at length on these issue anymore. People can't seem to follow their own reasoning, and defend it meaningfully. They waffle in and out of their own principles.
It's an exercise in futility and it's really quite frustrating.
And yes it IS relevant. Because it's demonstrated over and over in history that long before Darwin was even a glimmer in his parents eye people have practiced various forms of eugenics. If you're going to hang it on Darwin you have to show how his theory of evolution was different than the Spartans obsession with physical prowess and all of the other forms of eugenics that have existed for the entire length of recorded human history. Eugenics is NOT a logical progression from evolution, it commits a logical fallacy in deciding to attempt to steer a natural process we don't actually understand.
The problem you’re having is that you're trying to assign morality to a scientific theory. Scientific theories aren't about morality, their about understanding what happens. There's no morality in the theory of gravity, there's no morality in the thermodynamic laws, they're just attempts to describe how things work. And there never has been, nor ever will be, room for crediting God in scientific theories. God is, scientifically speaking, a fuzzy concept without definable aspects or actions, scientific theories are about definable things with definable aspects doing definable things.
Your definition of naturalistic evolution is simply NOT how the reasonable people that believe in evolution think. It's just not there. Darwin himself objected to the people who tried to use his theory that way. It makes no more sense than how Medieval Europe treated the Jews based largely on the money lenders incident in the Gnostic Gospels, it's a gross misinterpretation based on a need by one group to define themselves as better than another.
The chain you're showing isn't logical. Its a build up of logical fallacies, one that many wrong headed people have used, but their logic sucks. They take what Darwin said add some demagogy fallacious definitions and cognitive bias (among other things) and arrive at a conclusion that anybody that's taken an introductory course in philosophical logic would scoff at. By saying their beliefs follow logically from anything you're giving these scumsuckers and racists (which is really what eugenicists are) and undeserved legitimacy.
And again my answer is the same. It doesn’t MATTER if it’s natural or not. Because there’s no possible way we can know now which traits held by which groups of humanity are good and deserve to be perpetuated any attempt to steer our own evolution is doomed to failure.
If you’re trying to clue me in on something you should start by reading what I wrote and ONLY what I wrote and not iserting other things into it that I’m not saying.
There’s nothing to get, you’re trying to assign to me a position I did not take, have never taken, and will never take. I will not defend a position that is not mine, and you’re repeated attempts to say I’m saying something I’m not shows YOU’RE the one that needs to get it. I haven’t waffled on anything, I am following my own reasoning, and I am defending it meaningfully. What I’m not doing is following your deliberate misinterpretation of my position and defending the strawman you have erected on my behalf.
I’m glad it’s frustrating you. People that try to assign people positions they didn’t take and whine when they won’t defend them deserve to be frustrated.
“The problem youre having is that you’re trying to assign morality to a scientific theory. Scientific theories aren’t about morality, their (they are) about understanding what happens.”
“There’s no morality in the theory of gravity, there’s no morality in the thermodynamic laws, they’re just attempts to describe how things work. And there never has been, nor ever will be, room for crediting God in scientific theories. God is, scientifically speaking, a fuzzy concept without definable aspects or actions, scientific theories are about definable things with definable aspects doing definable things.”
I think the problem you are having is that you are trying to have it both ways. On the one hand you want to say that eugenics is “immoral”, “racist”, etc. and a perversion of Darwinian theory. Yet, on the other hand you keep saying that “scientific theory” is outside the realm of morality. It is, as you say, about “understanding what happens”.
But, I’m kind of confused by some of your previous statments. When I described naturalistic evolution as the idea that the universe came about by purely naturalistic process that was purposeless, mindless, random chance, and unguided - you stated,
“It (the universe) doesnt exist by random chance, it
exists by a process of constant improvement as species
make themselves more fit for their environment.”
So, are you saying that although the evolutionary process does not work by random chance, are you also saying that this process has purpose and is “guided” somehow?
The answer to the question is the whole point of my taking issue with the statment that Darwinian theory cannot be blamed for eugenics any more than Jesus being blamed for atrocities committed in his name.
Does Darwinian theory teach that the mechanism or process of natural selection is “designed” or not? If not, then how the universe came to be is by pure chance, and without purpose (other than survival). Should someone want to, based on this Darwinian worldview, they could, without any logical contradiction, by default, rule out the existence of God or moral absolutes - since the idea of God or a creator is outside of science.
The proponent of eugenics would agree that science and scientific theory has nothing to do with morality and that if a purposeless, naturalistic process could maniuplate human development - then why could we not also, through the “scientific” process - use experimentation and obsevation to produce “better” human beings. I think they would accuse you of imposing your own version of morality on their scientific freedom.
I do agree with you that morality is not involved in the idea of gravity or the law of thermodynamics. That’s because their existence really does have no bearing on the existence of God. However Darwinism does have a definite bearing on morality. It very obviously can and does allow for the removal of God (and by inference - all moral absolutes). I would agree that it doesn’t have to imply that, but it certainly allows for it philosophically.
Again, I’m not advocating eugenics in any way, I’m just demonstrating how Darwinian theory opens itself up to this type of eugenic logic when it removes the designer (creator) from the process of scientific inquiry. Darwinism, by definition, removes any possibility of supernatural influence in the design of the universe. Therefore, it leaves open the door to all kinds of moral interpretations and actions.
Jesus, on the other hand, in none of His teachings, could ever remotely be used as justification for atrocities committed in his name.
You must be friggin joking. Darwin was a eugenist through-and-through.
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. [Darwin, Descent of Man, Ch.5]
People can take scientific knowledge and use it for good or ill, just because people use it for ill doesn’t mean the science is bad. How much of Nazi Germany would have been impossible had the internal combustion and hero engines never been invented? Does that mean the science that led to these inventions is bad?
Problem here is you’re creating a false dichotomy between random chance and intelligent guiding force. It’s not an either/or proposition. Most seemingly random things aren’t actually random, they’re guided by knowable properties of the physical world. Take rain water on a window, it rolls down taking certain paths, clumps up in areas, some of it never rolls down but instead stays there until it evaporates, the whole process seems very random. But it isn’t, your window has certain physical properties that include imperfection in the surface, water has certain properties including surface tension, these two things combine to decide which water droplets will roll down and what path they’ll take. They are guided, but not by some intelligent force (I’m guess God has better things to do with His time than mess with the water droplets on every window during rain), but by knowable physical properties. If you take the time to study these physical properties and their interaction you can look at your window during a rainstorm and figure out which droplets will fall and their path, of course by the time you’re done with the math it will all be over, but you could at least check your results.
Darwinian theory teaches that the process of natural selection is there and measurable, and if we learn enough about it will be predictable. Designed or not is immaterial, that’s outside the realm of science. And no someone using the Darwinian theory could not rule out the existence of God or moral absolutes, because it is outside the realm of science. Part of a logical process is keeping things inside their own realm, once you hop outside that realm you’re committing logical fallacies.
The problem with eugenicists trying to make better human beings is we don’t know what’s better. We have used natural selection, even before Darwin, to improve species, servitor species mostly live stock. But in those circumstances we knew what better was. We wanted cows that made more milk, because cows primarily exist to serve us cows that made more milk were inherrently better, so we bread them more vigorously and got the modern dairy cows. Now in the wild we have no idea if cows that make more milk are better, the situation in the wild has too many variables, we don’t know what other side effect producing more milk has and how that interacts with the variables outside of farms, but cows basically don’t exist in the wild so it doesn’t matter. Human on the other hand do exist in the wild, there are too many variables, we simply aren’t smart enough to declare what’s better.
But again, Jesus’ teaching, with serious editing, HAVE been used to commit atrocities. A lot more atrocities than Darwin, though that’s largely owing to him having a 1850 year head start.
Of course part of the discussion is taking teaching in whole. So we need to keep in mind that later he said “nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature... we must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind.”
Is the capacity to practice eugenics an evolved trait?
Strictly speaking that would be a yes. Somewhere along the lines we evolved to the point of having enough intelligence to figure out selective breeding, even before Darwin put labels to it all we were practicing forms of selective breeding with livestock and even ourselves (Sparta and others). The problem comes in at scale, both in width and length. Spartan breeding habits wouldn’t really work across the bredth of humanity, they weren’t that good at breeding anything but fighters. And of course for the problems inherent with long term selective breeding just look at what’s been happening to purebred dogs the last couple of decades, and if I wanted to I could throw in a dig on the British royal family here too but I won’t ;) So we really do have to consider whether or not we’ve really developed the ability to perform eugenics yet, I don’t think we’re there yet when it comes to dealing with non-humans and I’m not sure we’ll ever develop the ability with humans. Which is probably a good thing, life is more interesting with imperfect people.
[Darwinism] very obviously can and does allow for the removal of God.
Nonsense! Darwinism is not remotely sufficient to allow for the removal of God (albeit many have viewed it as such).
Lets be a little more precise. We both know we have the ability. You are addressing our level of competance.
But why should a lack of competance mean we should avoid exploiting this ability? Maybe we will all die if we don't. But maybe we will all die if we do. As you said we don't have the ability yet to decide which traits are good and which are bad.
There are some things in this world that if you can’t do them right they shouldn’t be done, especially not in a large scale. If you can’t build small dams compitently then you shouldn’t build the Hoover Dam, if you can’t build a five story building compitently you shouldn’t build the Empire State Building, and if you can’t breed German Shepherds compitenty you definetly shouldn’t try focused breeding on the whole human race. And the other side of trying to control evolution is that we know there’s already a natural system in place that can do it. With 6 billion people on the planet and growing we can be pretty sure we’re not aiming down a natural path towards extinction (unless we find a way to outbreed our food but that’s still a ways off inspite of what Toffler said), there’s no reason to try to guide our development when unguided development is going fine. The normal forces of natural selection have proven to be more than effective is sorting out the good traits and bad, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it, especially if you’re just guessing at what the fix is.
It doesn't matter. Eugenics, fundamentally, is no different than predation. The fact that we are aware of our role within the system, and the Tiger is not, is irrelevant form the perspective of evolution.
Do we actually have a choice not to follow natural selection? How could we, when everything we ever thought or did, or will think or will do is just part of the process?
Have not the normal forces of natural selection created eugenics itself, as well as all human endeavors throughout all history? Have they not created music and art? Have they not created the horror of the worst human atrocities? Are not the occasional acts of pure heroic selflessness? Are not the most senseless acts of cruelty? The best as well as the worst -- and the scale upon which we judge the difference?
If you believe that "hard reason" is "urging" you to let the weak, imbecile, the maimed, and the sick die of smallpox or whatever, then you are a eugenist.
This is true. Eugenics is just another kind of selection. If, by eugenics, you cannot eliminate poverty, prostitution, chronic unemployment, imbecility, etc, and promote morality, skill, intelligence, etc, then neither can natural selection. Furthermore if adaptations arose by natural selection then they can be eliminated by artificial selection. But of course this is a delusion because both Darwinism and eugenics rely on a false model of heredity. Eugenics does not work, and therefore neither does natural selection.
In this case the science is simply bad. Here's an example of bad science (eugenics) built on a foundation of bad science (Darwinism). It comes from the chapter on biology from An outline for Boys and Girls. It was written by John R. Baker, who was a noted Oxford cytologist and author of Race, Foundation for Human Understanding. I don't think you can accuse this guy of misunderstanding Darwinism.
All the hundreds of thousands of kinds of animals have evolved from very simple forms of life, and presumably from inorganic matter originally, without the existence of any mind to plan them. Mind itself is one of the products of evolution, and now at last one kind of living thing only has got the ability to control and plan the course of evolution. That one kind of living thing is the human kind. For centuries men have selected certain types of domestic animals for breeding, and have thus created all the variety of horses and cattle and sheep and pigs and dogs that exist to-day. They have improved all these animals for the purposes for which they require them, but they have not improved themselves. There is no reason at all to suppose that the inborn mental capacity of man has increased since prehistoric times.
When men were just evolving from ape-like ancestors, they evolved because the best individuals survived and had young ones, whilst the worst died oft and had none. That does not happen in civilisation. With us the weakly are looked after by the strong. If the weakliness is an inherited character, it is unfortunate that the people who have it should have children, because they will pass it on, generation after generation. On the average, the most successful people have the fewest children in most civilised countries to-day, and the least successful the most. It is possible nowadays for ordinary people to arrange whether they will have many or few children, or none at all. It would certainly be better if the most successful people had most children, because success in life is partly due to inherited qualities. Many people with excellent inherited qualities never get an opportunity to show them, from lack of a sufficiently good education. If we wanted to improve our race, we should give everyone an equal chance in life as far as possible. We should then encourage the most successful to have a lot of children. Many people are what is called feeble-minded. Their brain never develops beyond that of a child of six. Often this is a character which is inherited in the same way as blue eyes. If two such feeble-minded people marry, all their children will be feeble-minded. If a feeble-minded person marries a normal person, the children will be normal, but some of their descendants will be feeble-minded. It would be a good plan to prevent people who have inherited feeble-mindedness from having children, because feeble-minded people are not happy themselves, and they are not useful to other people, and they cost other people a lot of money. Unfortunately, they are increasing rapidly in numbers in Great Britain. Before long they will form quite a large proportion of our population, unless we decide not to allow them to have children. Members of Parliament, who decide these things, think it best to let them go on multiplying. When they were young, Members of Parliament did not have An Outline for Boys and Girls.
IIRC, G.K. Chesterton described this whole development of history as an uprising of the rich against the poor.
Yes actually, that’s what eugenics is, not following natural selection. Natural selection says let the people, all the people, regardless of their flaws, breed as they are able. Eugenics is third parties deciding certain groups don’t get to breed.
It might be a “naturaql” thing, again just like I said to the other guy I’m not taking a position on whether eugenics is natural or not, but it is NOT natural selection because that doesn’t involve 3rd party delcarations, and most importantly it is NOT a good idea. The problem with eugenics is that it’s ego driven, it’s always group A declaring they’re better than everybody else but most especially group B and subsequently group B shouldn’t be allowed to breed and group A should be encouraged to breed more. The day I see group A declared that group B is better than everybody else and should be encouraged to breed more I’ll be willing to consider the possibility that human have maybe gotten close to being smart enough to pull off eugenics without it resulting in the destruction of mankind. Prior to that day there is no possibility, eugenics is ALWAYS a mistake because it is ALWAYS spawned from racist roots and not from any kind of logical analysis of what traits are superior.
It’s not that cut and dry. Hard reason, to an extent, does dictate the obviously flawed shouldn’t breed. BUT, and Darwin is actually hinting at this in the passage I quoted, hard reason also says that there must be a reason we developed this sense of sympathy that tells us to fight the other urge of hard reason. Because the more advanced civilizations have this sympathy for the weak and the ill that sympathy is clearly a positive trait, and clearly, as Darwin states, should not be checked when contemplating how to treat these people. What Darwin was dancing around, though hadn’t figured out fully yet, was the concept of emotional evolution, evolution at a level beyond the obvious physical traits, the evolution of a society to figure out that the Spartans were wrong and that the crippled people can be useful.
Not only is in not Darwin being a eugenicist, it’s Darwin realizing the core flaw in eugenics, it’s checking sympathy in favor of hard reason, it’s not realizing that the Spartans were wrong, it’s missing the opportunity to have Stephen Hawkins. So actually you got it 100% backwards.
No actually he clearly doesn’t get it. He makes the classic flaw of the eugenicist, that of thinking he is better than others and therefore his traits should be passed on. Someone with an understanding of Darwin would realize there must be some sort of reason why the people he thinks are inferior are breeding more than the people he thinks are superior, and he needs to re-examine his value judgements because natural selection says they’re wrong.
Actually Nazi medicine learned a lot. Sadly the torture method of medical experimentation has proven useful for learning things. From the early vivisectionists who functionally invented invasive surgery, to the Nazi’s who put Germany’s medical technology ahead of the rest of the world by a couple of decades with their messed up experiments, there is sadly a lot that can be learned the wrong way. Hopefully the invention of CT scans and MRIs has given us the tools to finally be able to learn the next level without the torture.
What third party?!?
Baker's book Race was endorsed by Peter Medawar, the Nobel Laureate. Those guys know more about biology than you ever will.
He makes the classic flaw of the eugenicist, that of thinking he is better than others and therefore his traits should be passed on.
The mistake Darwin made was in thinking they can be passed on. He thought any variation he liked was germinal. Descent of Man is based on this error. Darwinism is based on this error. Eugenics is based on this error.
The people deciding whether or not you get to breed even though they’re not in competition with you for a mate. Natural selection is all about direct interaction, you acquire food and live longer or you don’t, you become food and help something else live longer or you don’t, you acquire a mate and carry on your genetic traits or you don’t. Eugenics is all about indirect interaction some third party is deciding who breeds and who doesn’t, heck they might even go so far as to decide who gets to eat and who doesn’t.
Arafat was a Nobel Laureate too, it doesn’t impress me. Anybody can be wrong, and Baker is wrong.
Sorry that’s not an error. Every farmer for the entire length of recorded human history knows that traits get passed on. The entire concept of purebred animals is built around the knowledge that passing on traits is the truth and what happens. The fact that you think that’s in error shows that you simply don’t have the knowledge to actually be participating in this discussion. Lurk it and read, you need a lot of education on this matter.
[discostu] Sorry thats not an error... The fact that you think thats in error shows that you simply dont have the knowledge to actually be participating in this discussion. Lurk it and read, you need a lot of education on this matter.
"Darwin insisted upon the idea that minute fluctuating variations, which we now know are to a large extent non-heritable, were the principal, if not the sole, materials for natural selection to work upon Darwin considered all variations as heritable. He did not distinguish between somatic variations and germinal variations."
Which still has you wrong. Only the idiots expect we haven’t learned a few more things than Darwin in the intervening century and a half. But still trait are heritable, as opposed to you saying things can’t be passed on.
If a wolf decides to kill a deer, then the deer's ability to reproduce may be severely effected. Does this mean that the wolf may be in competition with the deer for a mate?
Eugenics is all about indirect interaction some third party is deciding who breeds and who doesnt
Female chimpanzees will sometimes gang up on an unpopular female chimpanzee who has just given birth in order to kill the offspring. Not in direct competition for a mate anymore, but seemingly done to free up more resources for preferred offspring. If humans were to do this, would this be natural selection or not?
...heck they might even go so far as to decide who gets to eat and who doesnt.
Like stronger animals preventing weaker animals from eating the available food. All part of natural selection.
In a well formed naturalist view there is no "third party". You must be borrowing the notion from somewhere else. The reason I agree with you that Darwin should not be blamed for the horrors of eugenics is that he had similar sensibilities -- not from his theory, but in spite of it.
No that means the deer failed the “not become food” test.
The chimpanzees are doing fairly normal resource competition. A lot of animals that pack will go after competing offspring.
It becomes not a part of natural selection when you start having governing bodies. There’s nothing natural about a beauracracy. I’m not into hardcore naturalist views because they’re too often used to excuse aberant behavior. We’re humans, we found a way to evolve things like sympathy and social contracts, even from an atheistic we’re supposed to be better than the animals because we’re further along the evolutionary and food chains. We really don’t have the level of resource competition that would excuse being like chimps, and we have enough capacity for logic to know that the concept of “undesirable” isn’t that cut and dry.
We really dont have the level of resource competition that would excuse being like chimps, and we have enough capacity for logic to know that the concept of undesirable isnt that cut and dry.
Have to disagree. Severe resource competition is common to the human condition.
Most of the places where we’re having survival resource problems on the planet it’s because the distribution network is being hosed with. The resources exist, they could even get to where they’re needed, but they’re being blocked. The African warlords learned about famine as a weapon and use it a lot.
So let me get this straight. The aggressive cruelty of war lords and the thugs that work for them is an anomaly in the process of natural selection, as is the behavior of eugenicists. But a distribution network that gives to masses of needy humans on another Continent is an obviously evolved trait?
Eugenics is a long ways from social Darwinism, but we are a long ways from the historical setting of the 1800s. Most of us anyway. Consensus was different then on almost everything we think is important now: Global Warming, cigarettes, the Pill. Still, it is not good to ignore that America provided a large part of the thinking on both eugenics and socialism at that time. It can happen here; it probably did happen here if it was an early experiment in Communism.
No, the warlord issue I raised was at best tangenital to the natural selection discussion. I had said there wasn’t any real resource competition among humans anymore, you said resource competition was still common, I said the only resource competition issues we really have anymore aren’t really competitions so much as deliberate failure in distribution. When you get to the point of warlords cutting off the food from districts you’re not really dealing with resource competition, famine as a weapon isn’t resource competition it’s a war strategy. And frankly deciding whether war strategies are part of natural selection is just way too much hair splitting BS for me.
I said it was common to the human condition. Specifically in the context in which we evolved.
When you get to the point of warlords cutting off the food from districts youre not really dealing with resource competition, famine as a weapon isnt resource competition its a war strategy. And frankly deciding whether war strategies are part of natural selection is just way too much hair splitting BS for me.
Agreed, evolution is not a sufficient explanation for human behavior and social constructs.