The fallacies and failure of social Darwinism.

[Rum]

Some human groups have advantages over others - thus has it always been. They aren't different species though!

I think using the term 'Darwinism' regarding social groups can at best be metaphorical.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Some human groups have advantages over others - thus has it always been. They aren't different species though!

I think using the term 'Darwinism' regarding social groups can at best be metaphorical.

derail: Calling modern evolutionary theory "Darwinism" is like calling modern aeronautical engineering "Wrightism". /derail

[Rum]

I agree. After all Darwin wrote about the origin of species. The hint is in the title.

[MrJonno]

'Fitness' is ability to have kids and ensure they survive, have them at 16-18 and women have zero to low fitness by the time they are 35-40 so we might as well just shoot them. Unless you are going to go down that path social Darwinism is a very silly concept.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

'Fitness' is ability to have kids and ensure they survive, have them at 16-18 and women have zero to low fitness by the time they are 35-40 so we might as well just shoot them. Unless you are going to go down that path social Darwinism is a very silly concept.

Fit means you can pass along your genes. Anything else is just quibbling.

[cronus]

Only the weak argue against the survival of the fittest. They won't be around long though.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Only the weak argue against the survival of the fittest. They won't be around long though.

That made as much sense as peanut butter pasta.

[Pappa]

'Fitness' is ability to have kids and ensure they survive, have them at 16-18 and women have zero to low fitness by the time they are 35-40 so we might as well just shoot them. Unless you are going to go down that path social Darwinism is a very silly concept.

You're forgetting the importance of grandparenthood. It's a very good way of ensuring your genes continue.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

'Fitness' is ability to have kids and ensure they survive, have them at 16-18 and women have zero to low fitness by the time they are 35-40 so we might as well just shoot them. Unless you are going to go down that path social Darwinism is a very silly concept.

You're forgetting the importance of grandparenthood. It's a very good way of ensuring your genes continue.

And non-breeding males work to pass along their parents genes in pack animals.

[FBM]

Maybe if more people had a liberal arts education, fewer would fall into the social darwinism trap.

[Azathoth]

Maybe if more people had a liberal arts education, fewer would fall into the social darwinism trap.

If more people had a liberal arts education we would just have more apelusters. I prefer social darwinists

[FBM]

Maybe if more people had a liberal arts education, fewer would fall into the social darwinism trap.

If more people had a liberal arts education we would just have more apelusters. I prefer social darwinists

I'm just glad that those aren't the only choices. Somewhere between the extremes are people who can think straight. There is the occasional sighting.

[Seth]

Inheritance isn't any different from inheriting 'superior' genes so far as I can see.

If I make an example of it, I'd put it like this: A population finds itself in an environment that favours divefishing (you have to dive with a spear, or whatever, and harvest fish). A person may inherit genes that gift him or her with superior divefishing abilities. They may do nothing with what they've been gifted with, but that's only the human equation complicating the evolutionary process.

Inheriting superior genes prevents the offspring from being inferior. Inheriting wealth doesn't.

Are you sure?

Let me ask how many hillbilly redneck backwoods families from Appalachia are 100 percent and universally "inferior" in their gene set?

Not 100 percent surely.

This means that in any family, rich or poor, the offspring may be superior or inferior. However, social Darwinism dooms the intelligentsia of Appalachia to the perpetual grind of work and ignorance. Not stupidity or genetic defect, merely ignorance through a lack of education.

Whereas, Elly-May and Jethro Clampett's children are certainly going to have better educational and social opportunities as a result of their grandfather's wealth, and thus will have at least the opportunity to make the most of whatever evolution has granted them.

I believe greater wealth is never harmful in terms of social Darwinism. Some, or even many progeny may be stupid wastrels of the fortune, but even that is an effective redistribution of that wealth through the free markets as the economy responds to those luxurious demands. After all, Jed's mansion in Beverly Hills was very expensive to build and maintain, and Jed personally employed at least two regular characters, Milburn Drysdale and Jane Hathaway, along with many more peripheral characters like Dash Riprock, John Brewster (manager of the OK oil company) and Janet Trego, a secretary at the bank, a role played by Sharon Tate, who was murdered just before the start of the eighth season by the Manson Family.

And there would have been, in real life, thousands or tens of thousands more people who worked directly or indirectly for Jed and his family doing everything from cleaning the cement pond to cleaning the toilets at the bank, all of whom would potentially be unemployed if Jed was not constantly redistributing his wealth while nobly maintaining a humble country lifestyle that had Granny doing the cooking...which could have employed the finest chefs in Beverly Hills instead.

Thus, Elly-May's kids will not likely grow up as ignorant hicks, but instead will attend the finest private schools Beverly Hills has to offer, because if Jed is anything, he's a practical and pragmatic man who understands that children are the future who would undoubtedly spend enormous sums giving his grandchildren the life of opportunity he and his lineage has been denied.

Which is precisely why the government has absolutely no right to or moral claim on Jed's estate when he dies. It should go unmolested to his children and grand children and great grandchildren to provide, at NO public expense, the opportunities that many others do not enjoy. And those kids are entitled to that money (and no one else is) because it's Jed's money and he gets to use what is his to benefit his progeny and keep them off the welfare rolls. That other kids don't have the same wealth is unfortunate, but not an excuse for stealing what belongs rightfully to Jed's kids so that others may benefit without working for it.

Socialism however would strip the Clampett descendants of their property for no better reason than petty jealousy and greed, thus reducing them to the same status as everyone else...a dependent on government...because socialism thinks that's what's "fair."

Jackasses. Life is not fair, and neither is evolution.

[En_Route]

leaving aside morality, which is always a matter of opinion, the massivein inequalities in wealth in the USA seem to have survived the depredations of inheritance taxes pretty well.

[FBM]

Inheritance isn't any different from inheriting 'superior' genes so far as I can see.

If I make an example of it, I'd put it like this: A population finds itself in an environment that favours divefishing (you have to dive with a spear, or whatever, and harvest fish). A person may inherit genes that gift him or her with superior divefishing abilities. They may do nothing with what they've been gifted with, but that's only the human equation complicating the evolutionary process.

Inheriting superior genes prevents the offspring from being inferior. Inheriting wealth doesn't.

Are you sure?

Let me ask how many hillbilly redneck backwoods families from Appalachia are 100 percent and universally "inferior" in their gene set?

Not 100 percent surely.

This means that in any family, rich or poor, the offspring may be superior or inferior. However, social Darwinism dooms the intelligentsia of Appalachia to the perpetual grind of work and ignorance. Not stupidity or genetic defect, merely ignorance through a lack of education.

Whereas, Elly-May and Jethro Clampett's children are certainly going to have better educational and social opportunities as a result of their grandfather's wealth, and thus will have at least the opportunity to make the most of whatever evolution has granted them.

I believe greater wealth is never harmful in terms of social Darwinism. Some, or even many progeny may be stupid wastrels of the fortune, but even that is an effective redistribution of that wealth through the free markets as the economy responds to those luxurious demands. After all, Jed's mansion in Beverly Hills was very expensive to build and maintain, and Jed personally employed at least two regular characters, Milburn Drysdale and Jane Hathaway, along with many more peripheral characters like Dash Riprock, John Brewster (manager of the OK oil company) and Janet Trego, a secretary at the bank, a role played by Sharon Tate, who was murdered just before the start of the eighth season by the Manson Family.

And there would have been, in real life, thousands or tens of thousands more people who worked directly or indirectly for Jed and his family doing everything from cleaning the cement pond to cleaning the toilets at the bank, all of whom would potentially be unemployed if Jed was not constantly redistributing his wealth while nobly maintaining a humble country lifestyle that had Granny doing the cooking...which could have employed the finest chefs in Beverly Hills instead.

Thus, Elly-May's kids will not likely grow up as ignorant hicks, but instead will attend the finest private schools Beverly Hills has to offer, because if Jed is anything, he's a practical and pragmatic man who understands that children are the future who would undoubtedly spend enormous sums giving his grandchildren the life of opportunity he and his lineage has been denied.

Which is precisely why the government has absolutely no right to or moral claim on Jed's estate when he dies. It should go unmolested to his children and grand children and great grandchildren to provide, at NO public expense, the opportunities that many others do not enjoy. And those kids are entitled to that money (and no one else is) because it's Jed's money and he gets to use what is his to benefit his progeny and keep them off the welfare rolls. That other kids don't have the same wealth is unfortunate, but not an excuse for stealing what belongs rightfully to Jed's kids so that others may benefit without working for it.

Socialism however would strip the Clampett descendants of their property for no better reason than petty jealousy and greed, thus reducing them to the same status as everyone else...a dependent on government...because socialism thinks that's what's "fair."

Jackasses. Life is not fair, and neither is evolution.

Darwin's principles apply to biological evolution of DNA, not social evolution. It is fallacious to misapply those principles. This has been demonstrated over and over again by people much smarter than either of us.