The fallacies and failure of social Darwinism.

[Seth]

A human created society has it's own evolutionary pressures to adapt to that human created environment. Just as living in an arctic or tropical environment causes adaptations such as changes in skin color or body shape. Social Darwinism is no different than normal Darwinism because it is based on environmental pressures shaping natural selection.

In other words, as I said, there is no such thing as "social Darwinism."

[pErvinalia]

Our generous welfare system selects for only one thing, fecundity.

Doubtful (not that I for a second believe you hold this view for any verifiable reasons). The third world has both a higher fertility rate and a higher fecundity rate than the rich developed world.

Fallacy. Just because the third world may have those attributes does not mean that the welfare state in the first world does not select for fecundity.

So what evidence and reasoning to back it up do you have for welfare selecting for fecundity?

[Seth]

Our generous welfare system selects for only one thing, fecundity.

Doubtful (not that I for a second believe you hold this view for any verifiable reasons). The third world has both a higher fertility rate and a higher fecundity rate than the rich developed world.

Fallacy. Just because the third world may have those attributes does not mean that the welfare state in the first world does not select for fecundity.

So what evidence and reasoning to back it up do you have for welfare selecting for fecundity?

The more kids you have the more money you get.

[Hermit]

Our generous welfare system selects for only one thing, fecundity.

Doubtful (not that I for a second believe you hold this view for any verifiable reasons). The third world has both a higher fertility rate and a higher fecundity rate than the rich developed world.

Fallacy. Just because the third world may have those attributes does not mean that the welfare state in the first world does not select for fecundity.

So what evidence and reasoning to back it up do you have for welfare selecting for fecundity?

The more kids you have the more money you get.

Empirically speaking, the fewer kids you have the more money is at your discretionary disposal. Social welfare payments are not renowned for creating affluence, and almost every one who needs to avail themselves to such assistance is very well aware of that.

[Hermit]

That's why "democratic" socialist societies are completely fucked beyond belief. You justify theft by the tyrannous majority with an entirely circular argument. "It's ok to steal what someone else worked their whole life for because the government has the power to steal it."

That doesn't morally justify redistributive taxation, it just makes you all thieves and pawns.

You don't present a moral or ethical argument because there is none that supports taking one person's wealth and giving it to someone else by force.

Those losers are fucked because they lack the necessary adaptations to be on the receiving end of the theft. If thieves get away with their thievery, then they can use the rewards of that successful thievery to propagate their genes. When has there ever been natural selection against any plant or animal successfully taking something from another? Oh sure, there is selection on the individual level on not allowing your personal stuff to be taken. But not for working against thieves in general. Not until human civilization anyway.


People who fancy themselves "Social Darwinists" are not upset that there is no selection pressure but rather are advancing an opinion about which way the selection pressures should go. But the minute you want to mess with the selection criteria, you're doing artificial selection rather than natural selection. People have been doing selective breeding long before anyone heard of Darwin. Adding Darwin's name is a dishonest tactic. These people mean to steal scientific validation for what is essentially a moral/ethical position that they fail to support on moral or ethical grounds.

Like most conservatives nowadays, they are butthurt cry-babies trying to act tough. They try to act like they're cold hearted realists when they're not so different from bleeding heart liberals. "Oh, there's something horrible going on! Predators, thugs, parasites and thieves are preying on me! Somebody needs to do something! "

They can't face the fact that "fitness" is a function of environment. It doesn't necessarily mean faster, stronger or smarter. If it did, there would never have been any such animal as a sloth. Fitness means you pass on the genes. End of.

If your environment doesn't allow you to get an advantage by brainwork, then the big brain is a waste of resources. Back to chimp brains or extinction for ya.

Well, there is a valid point there. After all, cats are the most highly evolved life form. Look at how they have adapted in ways that make human beings cater to them and care for their every whim and caprice...One cannot I suppose blame the cat for doing what makes it most likely to survive.

And then there are the grasses. They have become the most widespread plants ever. We actually cultivate them in many of their forms over millions upon millions of square kilometres because we either eat them or feed them to animals we then eat. Come to think of it, something like that applies to all those cattle, sheep, pigs and so on.

[FBM]

A human created society has it's own evolutionary pressures to adapt to that human created environment. Just as living in an arctic or tropical environment causes adaptations such as changes in skin color or body shape. Social Darwinism is no different than normal Darwinism because it is based on environmental pressures shaping natural selection.

In other words, as I said, there is no such thing as "social Darwinism."

Again, when you go from 'is' to 'ought,' you are engaging social darwinism, whether you accept the label or not.

"Teh gummit ought not make me pay taxes to support the poor."

"White people ought to run society."

etc.

[pErvinalia]

Our generous welfare system selects for only one thing, fecundity.

Doubtful (not that I for a second believe you hold this view for any verifiable reasons). The third world has both a higher fertility rate and a higher fecundity rate than the rich developed world.

Fallacy. Just because the third world may have those attributes does not mean that the welfare state in the first world does not select for fecundity.

So what evidence and reasoning to back it up do you have for welfare selecting for fecundity?

The more kids you have the more money you get.

That's neither evidence nor reasoning. That's only half the story (actually, probably well less than half the story). The more kids you have the more money it costs you to raise them. And financial incentives are not the only, nor the major (necessarily) factor affecting human decisions.

Try again.

[pErvinalia]

Doubtful (not that I for a second believe you hold this view for any verifiable reasons). The third world has both a higher fertility rate and a higher fecundity rate than the rich developed world.

Fallacy. Just because the third world may have those attributes does not mean that the welfare state in the first world does not select for fecundity.

So what evidence and reasoning to back it up do you have for welfare selecting for fecundity?

The more kids you have the more money you get.

Empirically speaking, the fewer kids you have the more money is at your discretionary disposal. Social welfare payments are not renowned for creating affluence, and almost every one who needs to avail themselves to such assistance is very well aware of that.

Yep. It's only moralising conservatives who seem to think that welfare is an incentive for anything.

[Robert_S]

A human created society has it's own evolutionary pressures to adapt to that human created environment. Just as living in an arctic or tropical environment causes adaptations such as changes in skin color or body shape. Social Darwinism is no different than normal Darwinism because it is based on environmental pressures shaping natural selection.

In other words, as I said, there is no such thing as "social Darwinism."

Again, when you go from 'is' to 'ought,' you are engaging social darwinism, whether you accept the label or not.

"Teh gummit ought not make me pay taxes to support the poor."

"White people ought to run society."

etc.

I don't think that's exactly what Seth's about in this thread or in general.

And I do think there is a moral case to be made for looking out for your own survival so others won't be stuck either having to bear the burden of taking care of you or cold leaving you to your own devices.

[Seth]

Empirically speaking, the fewer kids you have the more money is at your discretionary disposal. Social welfare payments are not renowned for creating affluence, and almost every one who needs to avail themselves to such assistance is very well aware of that.

Wrong. If childless person gets X, and one child brings X+Y, and another brings x+y+y there is more raw income to be diverted away from the child and to the parent. The effects of this were easily seen in the US welfare program before it was reformed. Minority women had child after child because every child was another check.

Thus selection for fecundity only, not necessarily happiness, success or even survival in the long term.

[Seth]

That's why "democratic" socialist societies are completely fucked beyond belief. You justify theft by the tyrannous majority with an entirely circular argument. "It's ok to steal what someone else worked their whole life for because the government has the power to steal it."

That doesn't morally justify redistributive taxation, it just makes you all thieves and pawns.

You don't present a moral or ethical argument because there is none that supports taking one person's wealth and giving it to someone else by force.

Those losers are fucked because they lack the necessary adaptations to be on the receiving end of the theft. If thieves get away with their thievery, then they can use the rewards of that successful thievery to propagate their genes. When has there ever been natural selection against any plant or animal successfully taking something from another? Oh sure, there is selection on the individual level on not allowing your personal stuff to be taken. But not for working against thieves in general. Not until human civilization anyway.


People who fancy themselves "Social Darwinists" are not upset that there is no selection pressure but rather are advancing an opinion about which way the selection pressures should go. But the minute you want to mess with the selection criteria, you're doing artificial selection rather than natural selection. People have been doing selective breeding long before anyone heard of Darwin. Adding Darwin's name is a dishonest tactic. These people mean to steal scientific validation for what is essentially a moral/ethical position that they fail to support on moral or ethical grounds.

Like most conservatives nowadays, they are butthurt cry-babies trying to act tough. They try to act like they're cold hearted realists when they're not so different from bleeding heart liberals. "Oh, there's something horrible going on! Predators, thugs, parasites and thieves are preying on me! Somebody needs to do something! "

They can't face the fact that "fitness" is a function of environment. It doesn't necessarily mean faster, stronger or smarter. If it did, there would never have been any such animal as a sloth. Fitness means you pass on the genes. End of.

If your environment doesn't allow you to get an advantage by brainwork, then the big brain is a waste of resources. Back to chimp brains or extinction for ya.

Well, there is a valid point there. After all, cats are the most highly evolved life form. Look at how they have adapted in ways that make human beings cater to them and care for their every whim and caprice...One cannot I suppose blame the cat for doing what makes it most likely to survive.

And then there are the grasses. They have become the most widespread plants ever. We actually cultivate them in many of their forms over millions upon millions of square kilometres because we either eat them or feed them to animals we then eat. Come to think of it, something like that applies to all those cattle, sheep, pigs and so on.

Therefore intelligence is not necessarily an evolutionary benefit.

[Seth]

A human created society has it's own evolutionary pressures to adapt to that human created environment. Just as living in an arctic or tropical environment causes adaptations such as changes in skin color or body shape. Social Darwinism is no different than normal Darwinism because it is based on environmental pressures shaping natural selection.

In other words, as I said, there is no such thing as "social Darwinism."

Again, when you go from 'is' to 'ought,' you are engaging social darwinism, whether you accept the label or not.

"Teh gummit ought not make me pay taxes to support the poor."

"White people ought to run society."

etc.

It's not social Darwinism because that's a fallacious concept. It's something else.

[Tyrannical]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -area.html

A family of former asylum-seekers from Somalia are living in a £2.1million luxury townhouse in one of Britain's most exclusive addresses at a cost to taxpayers of £8,000 a month.

Abdi and Sayruq Nur and their seven children moved into their three-storey property in a fashionable area of London last month because they didn't like the 'poorer' part of the city they were living in

That's a $150k a year US just for rent. I'm guessing that before taxes you'd have to make around $400K to be able to afford that much rent, putting you at that evil top 1%. Welfare and lots of children pay back quite well.

[Rum]

A rare occasion where I completely agree with Seth. At best 'Darwinism' (there is no such thing in any case..) could be used metaphorically in describing social development..and as so often is simply used to justify the survival of the fittest philosophy. Darwin measured the changes brought about by 'natural selection' and could be incredibly specific about them - anything from the size of the beak of a finch to the length of the neck of a turtle.

[Seth]

Yep. It's only moralising conservatives who seem to think that welfare is an incentive for anything.

It's an incentive not to work.