The fallacies and failure of social Darwinism.

[Tyrannical]

This topic is making my head hurt, am I imagining things or is the very definition of social Darwinism becoming a moving goal post?

[Rum]

There is no definition because social Darwinism does not exist and at best can be used metaphorically.

[pErvinalia]

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

It's an incentive not to work.

No it's not. You've clearly never been on welfare.

[Tyrannical]

There is no definition because social Darwinism does not exist and at best can be used metaphorically.

How can you be sure it does not exist if it can not be defined easily? Even a unicorn has a static definition

[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.

No it's not. You've clearly never been on welfare.

Yes it is. Any time you give someone anything while they are not working it is an incentive not to work. That's why we have so many "99ers" on unemployment right now. They get enough money to get by and this disincentivises them to take menial labor below what they believe to be their "station" as they wait around for a job in their chosen field to become available.

Hunger, however, combined with homelessness, is a strong incentive to go where there is any job that will feed and house you.

Just ask all the Mexicans that are here illegally, they'll tell you. Why on earth do you think they come here?

[Seth]

There is no definition because social Darwinism does not exist and at best can be used metaphorically.

How can you be sure it does not exist if it can not be defined easily? Even a unicorn has a static definition

The term "social Darwinism" is merely coinage used to either support or reject the notion that you get what you pay for. It's used as an insult to the poor, whom it is claimed are socially unable to survive without assistance, and the implication is that it would be better if they died. It is used as an insult to those who argue for self-sufficiency and personal responsibility over welfare by those who wish to support the dependent class, be it for altruistic reasons or merely politically expedient reasons.

Both sides use the same general notion, which is that poor people are less well adapted to survival in society than others are, but each side uses it as support for an entirely different and diametrically opposed position.

Therefore, it's really a useless term of opprobrium that's logically inconsistent to begin with.

[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.

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

[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.

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

[pErvinalia]

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

It's an incentive not to work.

No it's not. You've clearly never been on welfare.

Yes it is. Any time you give someone anything while they are not working it is an incentive not to work. That's why we have so many "99ers" on unemployment right now. They get enough money to get by...

We're a Marxist paradise compared to the US, and welfare is WELL below the poverty line here. That is, you can't actually live on welfare payments here.

So once again, you are talking shit via ignorance. Once you've lived on welfare, then you can comment authoritatively.

Hunger, however, combined with homelessness, is a strong incentive to go where there is any job that will feed and house you.

Yes, we know you believe in social darwinism and a healthy dose of conservative moralising.

Just ask all the Mexicans that are here illegally, they'll tell you. Why on earth do you think they come here?

You'd literally cream your pants at the idea of a "race to the bottom" wouldn't you?

[FBM]

Science. It works, bitches.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23529849

Selfish traits not favoured by evolution, study shows

Evolution does not favour selfish people, according to new research.

This challenges a previous theory which suggested it was preferable to put yourself first.

Instead, it pays to be co-operative, shown in a model of "the prisoner's dilemma", a scenario of game theory - the study of strategic decision-making.

Published in Nature Communications, the team says their work shows that exhibiting only selfish traits would have made us become extinct.

Game theory involves devising "games" to simulate situations of conflict or co-operation. It allows researchers to unravel complex decision-making strategies and to establish why certain types of behaviour among individuals emerge...

Follow link to the rest of the story.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think this thread has won a Darwin Award.

[pErvinalia]

Science. It works, bitches.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23529849

Selfish traits not favoured by evolution, study shows

Evolution does not favour selfish people, according to new research.

This challenges a previous theory which suggested it was preferable to put yourself first.

Instead, it pays to be co-operative, shown in a model of "the prisoner's dilemma", a scenario of game theory - the study of strategic decision-making.

Published in Nature Communications, the team says their work shows that exhibiting only selfish traits would have made us become extinct.

Game theory involves devising "games" to simulate situations of conflict or co-operation. It allows researchers to unravel complex decision-making strategies and to establish why certain types of behaviour among individuals emerge...

Follow link to the rest of the story.

Seth is living proof that that is wrong...

[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.

No it's not. You've clearly never been on welfare.

Yes it is. Any time you give someone anything while they are not working it is an incentive not to work. That's why we have so many "99ers" on unemployment right now. They get enough money to get by...

We're a Marxist paradise compared to the US, and welfare is WELL below the poverty line here. That is, you can't actually live on welfare payments here.

Then don't take welfare. Go get a fucking job and quit carping.

So once again, you are talking shit via ignorance. Once you've lived on welfare, then you can comment authoritatively.

I lived for many, many years on less money per month than welfare recipients in the US get, not including food stamps or Medicaid support, and I worked my ass off all the while. Don't try to teach your grandpa to suck eggs, boy.

Hunger, however, combined with homelessness, is a strong incentive to go where there is any job that will feed and house you.

Yes, we know you believe in social darwinism and a healthy dose of conservative moralising.

There is no such thing as "social Darwinism." There is survival and extinction and neither has a moral quality to it.

Just ask all the Mexicans that are here illegally, they'll tell you. Why on earth do you think they come here?

You'd literally cream your pants at the idea of a "race to the bottom" wouldn't you?

No, exactly the opposite. I want everyone to be happy, healthy and prosperous. I'm merely smart enough to understand that nobody gets that way under Marxism of any stripe.

[Seth]

Science. It works, bitches.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23529849

Selfish traits not favoured by evolution, study shows

Evolution does not favour selfish people, according to new research.

This challenges a previous theory which suggested it was preferable to put yourself first.

Instead, it pays to be co-operative, shown in a model of "the prisoner's dilemma", a scenario of game theory - the study of strategic decision-making.

Published in Nature Communications, the team says their work shows that exhibiting only selfish traits would have made us become extinct.

Game theory involves devising "games" to simulate situations of conflict or co-operation. It allows researchers to unravel complex decision-making strategies and to establish why certain types of behaviour among individuals emerge...

Follow link to the rest of the story.

I actually agree with this. The only problem is that Marxists have entirely the wrong definition of "selfishness." It is in fact THEY who are the selfish ones, THEY are the ones who want to enslave others to their service so that they don't have to work as hard. Unlike utopian Communism, which is impossible in any large society, State Socialism, which is where Marxism always stops and then fails, is a perfect example of the problem with "from each according to his ability" (slavery to the State), "to each according to his need" (vassalage to the State).

Fuck all you Marxist, I work for me and mine and those whom I voluntarily CHOOSE to assist, not for some indigent dependent-class fuck that some bureaucrat has decided "needs" my labor and property more than I do.

That's not "selfishness" that's just good survival strategy. Spread the peanut butter too thin and it has no nutritional value at all.

Oh, and the word "co-operation" is the most important word in the whole article. "Co-operation" you see is a voluntary act that flows from an individual's sense of altruism, charity and enlightened self-interest. Slaves don't "co-operate", they do what they are told under threat of punishment.

No Marxism-based society engages in "co-operation," every single fucking one of them relies upon "coercion" and enslavement, without exception.

[MrJonno]

Nothing wrong with a bit of compulsion in a society if you get a say in it (ie a vote), in fact I would saying having to do things you don't want to do because others want you to do them is the very basis of civilisation