If natural selection is the mechanism for superiorty then those at the bottom

  • 77 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by EagleEyedOne (1354 posts) -

of society begging for help/money are those begging against the natural order of life.

Why should we give those at the bottom resources the bottom did not work for? The bottom will not ever provide resources for the future if they continue to beg so why keep giving them resources instead of providing the ones (the ones not on the bottom) who will use those resources to provide for future generations?

(Ones on the bottom would be the ones who beg on the corners or sleep on sidewalks).

#2 Posted by Rattlesnake_8 (18414 posts) -
Because we are humans and we are above what normal animals consider instinct. We have choice, free will and at times, compassion. Be nice, help others.. or be a d*ck and don't help them. But if you ever find yourself in a bad situation don't expect someone to help you.
#3 Posted by Rattlesnake_8 (18414 posts) -
Because we are humans and we are above what normal animals consider instinct. We have choice, free will and at times, compassion. Be nice, help others.. or be a d*ck and don't help them. But if you ever find yourself in a bad situation don't expect someone to help you.
#4 Posted by frannkzappa (3101 posts) -

of society begging for help/money are those begging against the natural order of life.

Why should we give those at the bottom resources the bottom did not work for? The bottom will not ever provide resources for the future if they continue to beg so why keep giving them resources instead of providing the ones (the ones not on the bottom) who will use those resources to provide for future generations?

(Ones on the bottom would be the ones who beg on the corners or sleep on sidewalks).

EagleEyedOne

your premise has nothing to do with your assertion.

#5 Posted by EagleEyedOne (1354 posts) -

[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"]

of society begging for help/money are those begging against the natural order of life.

Why should we give those at the bottom resources the bottom did not work for? The bottom will not ever provide resources for the future if they continue to beg so why keep giving them resources instead of providing the ones (the ones not on the bottom) who will use those resources to provide for future generations?

(Ones on the bottom would be the ones who beg on the corners or sleep on sidewalks).

frannkzappa

your premise has nothing to do with your assertion.

What is my premise and assertion?
#6 Posted by frannkzappa (3101 posts) -

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"]

of society begging for help/money are those begging against the natural order of life.

Why should we give those at the bottom resources the bottom did not work for? The bottom will not ever provide resources for the future if they continue to beg so why keep giving them resources instead of providing the ones (the ones not on the bottom) who will use those resources to provide for future generations?

(Ones on the bottom would be the ones who beg on the corners or sleep on sidewalks).

EagleEyedOne

your premise has nothing to do with your assertion.

What is my premise and assertion?

i would hope that you would know.

#7 Posted by EagleEyedOne (1354 posts) -

[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

your premise has nothing to do with your assertion.

frannkzappa

What is my premise and assertion?

i would hope that you would know.

I am asking you just to clarify.
#8 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

TC doesn't have the slightest understanding of natural selection.

#9 Posted by frannkzappa (3101 posts) -

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"] What is my premise and assertion?EagleEyedOne

i would hope that you would know.

I am asking you just to clarify.

that seems rather pointless.

#10 Posted by Person0 (2944 posts) -

Adam-Sandler-movie-gameshow-host.png.

#11 Posted by EagleEyedOne (1354 posts) -

[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

i would hope that you would know.

frannkzappa

I am asking you just to clarify.

that seems rather pointless.

I know what I posted but I am asking you to restate my premise and assertion in order to gauge my communications.
#12 Posted by EagleEyedOne (1354 posts) -

TC doesn't have the slightest understanding of natural selection.

worlock77
If you think this, then how does TC not have the slightest understanding of natural selection?
#13 Posted by frannkzappa (3101 posts) -

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"] I am asking you just to clarify.EagleEyedOne

that seems rather pointless.

I know what I posted but I am asking you to restate my premise and assertion in order to gauge my communications.

well in general terms you are stating that a long term biological process somehow relates to human post industrial socioeconomics, which is quite a jump. A jump you have no way accounted for by the way.

#14 Posted by theone86 (20555 posts) -

TC doesn't have the slightest understanding of natural selection.

worlock77

This.  Natural selection has to do with the passing of inherited traits via procreation, being lazy (a dubious assumption to begin with) is not inherited.  In fact, if we're going to talk about procreation then the lower class is one of the most prolific at reproducing, and if we're going to talk about what's inherited then social class is most definitely passed down to children.  In a roundabout sort of way that kind of makes natural selection geared towards poverty (when you consider the final objection, that natural selection does not mean the best survives, it means what is best at reproducing survives).  Although that is a sort of natural selection that is engineered by the way society works and by people who support the status quo as far as social class is concerned, so in your own way you're supporting the spread of poverty.

#15 Posted by EagleEyedOne (1354 posts) -

[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

that seems rather pointless.

frannkzappa

I know what I posted but I am asking you to restate my premise and assertion in order to gauge my communications.

well in general terms you are stating that a long term biological process somehow relates to human post industrial socioeconomics, which is quite a jump. A jump you have no way accounted for by the way.

What long term biological process are you referring to?
#16 Posted by pawq4 (476 posts) -

of society begging for help/money are those begging against the natural order of life.

 

Why should we give those at the bottom resources the bottom did not work for? The bottom will not ever provide resources for the future if they continue to beg so why keep giving them resources instead of providing the ones (the ones not on the bottom) who will use those resources to provide for future generations?

 

(Ones on the bottom would be the ones who beg on the corners or sleep on sidewalks).

EagleEyedOne

Natural selection is not the same thing as social darwinism. Natural selection is when animals' genes adapt to fit their environment over thousands of years. What you are talking about is behavioral. So you are saying that the poor should never be given the opportunity to improve themselves?

#17 Posted by frannkzappa (3101 posts) -

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"] I know what I posted but I am asking you to restate my premise and assertion in order to gauge my communications.EagleEyedOne

well in general terms you are stating that a long term biological process somehow relates to human post industrial socioeconomics, which is quite a jump. A jump you have no way accounted for by the way.

What long term biological process are you referring to?

natural selection. I described it as long term because it's effects take many generations to take hold on a species level.

#18 Posted by EagleEyedOne (1354 posts) -

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

TC doesn't have the slightest understanding of natural selection.

theone86

This.  Natural selection has to do with the passing of inherited traits via procreation, being lazy (a dubious assumption to begin with) is not inherited.  In fact, if we're going to talk about procreation then the lower class is one of the most prolific at reproducing, and if we're going to talk about what's inherited then social class is most definitely passed down to children.  In a roundabout sort of way that kind of makes natural selection geared towards poverty (when you consider the final objection, that natural selection does not mean the best survives, it means what is best at reproducing survives).  Although that is a sort of natural selection that is engineered by the way society works and by people who support the status quo as far as social class is concerned, so in your own way you're supporting the spread of poverty.

That cannot possibly be true in terms of human reproduction because the minority owns the majority of resources.
#19 Posted by EagleEyedOne (1354 posts) -

[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

well in general terms you are stating that a long term biological process somehow relates to human post industrial socioeconomics, which is quite a jump. A jump you have no way accounted for by the way.

frannkzappa

What long term biological process are you referring to?

natural selection. I described it as long term because it's effects take many generations to take hold on a species level.

The incremental steps of this long term biological process of natural selection we are talking about includes the elimination of the weak, does it not?
#20 Posted by frannkzappa (3101 posts) -

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"] What long term biological process are you referring to?EagleEyedOne

natural selection. I described it as long term because it's effects take many generations to take hold on a species level.

The incremental steps of this long term biological process of natural selection we are talking about includes the elimination of the weak, does it not?

No, it involves the elimination of those unable to reproduce in successful numbers.

#21 Posted by EagleEyedOne (1354 posts) -

[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

natural selection. I described it as long term because it's effects take many generations to take hold on a species level.

frannkzappa

The incremental steps of this long term biological process of natural selection we are talking about includes the elimination of the weak, does it not?

No, it involves the elimination of those unable to reproduce in successful numbers.

That is false in that numbers of newborn are not a factor. Natural selection involves the elimination of organisms unable to survive efficiently in the environment they were born into.
#22 Posted by lostrib (39191 posts) -

Oiy...don't they teach biology in school still?

#23 Posted by frannkzappa (3101 posts) -

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"] The incremental steps of this long term biological process of natural selection we are talking about includes the elimination of the weak, does it not?EagleEyedOne

No, it involves the elimination of those unable to reproduce in successful numbers.

That is false in that numbers of newborn are not a factor. Natural selection involves the elimination of organisms unable to survive efficiently in the environment they were born into.

might want to look at that definition again.

#24 Posted by EagleEyedOne (1354 posts) -

[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

No, it involves the elimination of those unable to reproduce in successful numbers.

frannkzappa

That is false in that numbers of newborn are not a factor. Natural selection involves the elimination of organisms unable to survive efficiently in the environment they were born into.

might want to look at that definition again.

Nope. Mutations enabled fish to walk on land.
#25 Posted by lostrib (39191 posts) -

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"] That is false in that numbers of newborn are not a factor. Natural selection involves the elimination of organisms unable to survive efficiently in the environment they were born into.EagleEyedOne

might want to look at that definition again.

Nope. Mutations enabled fish to walk on land.

it is really not that simple

#26 Posted by frannkzappa (3101 posts) -

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"] That is false in that numbers of newborn are not a factor. Natural selection involves the elimination of organisms unable to survive efficiently in the environment they were born into.EagleEyedOne

might want to look at that definition again.

Nope. Mutations enabled fish to walk on land.

I'm at a loss.

#27 Posted by EagleEyedOne (1354 posts) -

[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

might want to look at that definition again.

lostrib

Nope. Mutations enabled fish to walk on land.

it is really not that simple

How is it not that simple?
#28 Posted by EagleEyedOne (1354 posts) -

[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

might want to look at that definition again.

frannkzappa

Nope. Mutations enabled fish to walk on land.

I'm at a loss.

Explain your loss.
#29 Posted by lostrib (39191 posts) -

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"] Nope. Mutations enabled fish to walk on land.EagleEyedOne

it is really not that simple

How is it not that simple?

It's called an evolutionary tree for a reason, not an evolutionary line.  There wasn't just one mutation that made fish sprout legs and start walking on land.  And your understanding of natural selection is flawed, it has more to do with the inheritance of traits over time

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

#30 Posted by frannkzappa (3101 posts) -

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"] Nope. Mutations enabled fish to walk on land.EagleEyedOne

I'm at a loss.

Explain your loss.

i don't think that will help.

#31 Posted by EagleEyedOne (1354 posts) -

[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"][QUOTE="lostrib"]

it is really not that simple

lostrib

How is it not that simple?

It's called an evolutionary tree for a reason, not an evolutionary line.  There wasn't just one mutation that made fish sprout legs and start walking on land.  And your understanding of natural selection is flawed, it has more to do with the inheritance of traits over time

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

It still begins with a mutation of an individual organism that leads to it's more efficient survival compared to organisms that are un-mutated in it's same group.
#32 Posted by EagleEyedOne (1354 posts) -

[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

I'm at a loss.

frannkzappa

Explain your loss.

i don't think that will help.

Then you are not helping yourself.
#33 Posted by frannkzappa (3101 posts) -

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"] Explain your loss.EagleEyedOne

i don't think that will help.

Then you are not helping yourself.

In this case... i can live with that.

#34 Posted by lostrib (39191 posts) -

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"] How is it not that simple?EagleEyedOne

It's called an evolutionary tree for a reason, not an evolutionary line.  There wasn't just one mutation that made fish sprout legs and start walking on land.  And your understanding of natural selection is flawed, it has more to do with the inheritance of traits over time

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

It still begins with a mutation of an individual organism that leads to it's more efficient survival compared to organisms that are un-mutated in it's same group.

yes, but it relates to biology and genetics.  Your OP is more related to some sort of Social Darwinism.

#35 Posted by EagleEyedOne (1354 posts) -

[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"][QUOTE="lostrib"]

It's called an evolutionary tree for a reason, not an evolutionary line.  There wasn't just one mutation that made fish sprout legs and start walking on land.  And your understanding of natural selection is flawed, it has more to do with the inheritance of traits over time

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

lostrib

It still begins with a mutation of an individual organism that leads to it's more efficient survival compared to organisms that are un-mutated in it's same group.

yes, but it relates to biology and genetics.  Your OP is more related to some sort of Social Darwinism.

If my OP seems to relate more to some sort of Social Darwinism then I have miscommunicated. It should relate more toward pure Darwinism.
#36 Posted by BranKetra (49063 posts) -
Is human civilization a natural part of the world?
#37 Posted by lostrib (39191 posts) -

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"] It still begins with a mutation of an individual organism that leads to it's more efficient survival compared to organisms that are un-mutated in it's same group.EagleEyedOne

yes, but it relates to biology and genetics.  Your OP is more related to some sort of Social Darwinism.

If my OP seems to relate more to some sort of Social Darwinism then I have miscommunicated. It should relate more toward pure Darwinism.

You're trying to related biological theories dealing with evolution/genetics to society (politics, economics, etc), which is social darwinism

#38 Posted by frannkzappa (3101 posts) -

Is human civilization a natural part of the world?BranKetra

I can only give a platonic answer, so i would say it is philosophically not. Only man can perceive forms and thus gain the understanding and of the surrounding world enough to form societies. societies which are based on concepts non perceivable by most of the natural world.

The tripartite theory of the soul also suggests a more complicated nature attributed to man which inherently leads to civilization. this "soul" sets man apart from all known life and the "natural world". And as civilization is inherent to man, which has shown it'self to be above nature in it's understanding it is also above nature.

#39 Posted by EagleEyedOne (1354 posts) -

[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"][QUOTE="lostrib"]

yes, but it relates to biology and genetics.  Your OP is more related to some sort of Social Darwinism.

lostrib

If my OP seems to relate more to some sort of Social Darwinism then I have miscommunicated. It should relate more toward pure Darwinism.

You're trying to related biological theories dealing with evolution/genetics to society (politics, economics, etc), which is social darwinism

Social Darwinism is derived from biological theories.
#40 Posted by frannkzappa (3101 posts) -

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"] If my OP seems to relate more to some sort of Social Darwinism then I have miscommunicated. It should relate more toward pure Darwinism.EagleEyedOne

You're trying to related biological theories dealing with evolution/genetics to society (politics, economics, etc), which is social darwinism

Social Darwinism is derived from biological theories.

Good lord.

#41 Posted by EagleEyedOne (1354 posts) -

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]Is human civilization a natural part of the world?frannkzappa

I can only give a platonic answer, so i would say it is philosophically not. Only man can perceive forms and thus gain the understanding and of the surrounding world enough to form societies. societies which are based on concepts non perceivable by most of the natural world.

The tripartite theory of the soul also suggests a more complicated nature attributed to man which inherently leads to civilization. this "soul" sets man apart from all known life and the "natural world". And as civilization is inherent to man, which has shown it'self to be above nature in it's understanding it is also above nature.

Man and his soul is not above nature as man kills each other (war) and also kills his soul (suicide).
#42 Posted by lostrib (39191 posts) -

[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"][QUOTE="lostrib"]

You're trying to related biological theories dealing with evolution/genetics to society (politics, economics, etc), which is social darwinism

frannkzappa

Social Darwinism is derived from biological theories.

Good lord.

 

oh god dammit.

#43 Posted by frannkzappa (3101 posts) -

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]Is human civilization a natural part of the world?EagleEyedOne

I can only give a platonic answer, so i would say it is philosophically not. Only man can perceive forms and thus gain the understanding and of the surrounding world enough to form societies. societies which are based on concepts non perceivable by most of the natural world.

The tripartite theory of the soul also suggests a more complicated nature attributed to man which inherently leads to civilization. this "soul" sets man apart from all known life and the "natural world". And as civilization is inherent to man, which has shown it'self to be above nature in it's understanding it is also above nature.

Man and his soul is not above nature as man kills each other (war) and also kills his soul (suicide).

that has nothing to do with what i said.

you also misinterpreted my use of the word "soul".

#44 Posted by lo_Pine (5048 posts) -

[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

I can only give a platonic answer, so i would say it is philosophically not. Only man can perceive forms and thus gain the understanding and of the surrounding world enough to form societies. societies which are based on concepts non perceivable by most of the natural world.

The tripartite theory of the soul also suggests a more complicated nature attributed to man which inherently leads to civilization. this "soul" sets man apart from all known life and the "natural world". And as civilization is inherent to man, which has shown it'self to be above nature in it's understanding it is also above nature.

frannkzappa

Man and his soul is not above nature as man kills each other (war) and also kills his soul (suicide).

that has nothing to do with what i said.

you also misinterpreted my use of the word "soul".

What do you mean by that, what is a 'form'?
#45 Posted by mrbojangles25 (31998 posts) -

you're assuming society, politics, and economy are parts of nature.  They are not.

#46 Posted by Exiled_Badger (266 posts) -

of society begging for help/money are those begging against the natural order of life.

Why should we give those at the bottom resources the bottom did not work for? The bottom will not ever provide resources for the future if they continue to beg so why keep giving them resources instead of providing the ones (the ones not on the bottom) who will use those resources to provide for future generations?

(Ones on the bottom would be the ones who beg on the corners or sleep on sidewalks).

EagleEyedOne
Not all of those people can help it. The bank could have foreclosed on their home, they could have been laid off from work. And we are above what you call "natural instinct." We have the ability to reason, which means we can reason why exactly helping someone may be a good thing. IMO, by helping a homeless person, you could have saved their life, and they could go on to find a cure for cancer. When you mention those at the "bottom," would you include babies? They are always begging, yet we still take care of them. For what reason? For life. We, as humans, tend to value life more than anything, so helping someone who is in need means helping them survive, and live.
#47 Posted by frannkzappa (3101 posts) -

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"] Man and his soul is not above nature as man kills each other (war) and also kills his soul (suicide).lo_Pine

that has nothing to do with what i said.

you also misinterpreted my use of the word "soul".

What do you mean by that, what is a 'form'?

you'll have to specify what "that" is.

A form refers to a perfect concept on which the world is based. it comes from Plato's Socratic dialogues and explain how humans can describe the universe using non physically existing "forms".the theory is now accepted by many of in the mathematical community. An example of a form would be the number 'Pi", A euclidean straight line. Numbers themselves, And even feelings such as love and happiness. The term platonic love refers to a moment in a relationship where one feels attachment in a permanent sense in a transitory world, catching a glimpse of the "form" love, which is unchanging.

#48 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"] If my OP seems to relate more to some sort of Social Darwinism then I have miscommunicated. It should relate more toward pure Darwinism.EagleEyedOne

You're trying to related biological theories dealing with evolution/genetics to society (politics, economics, etc), which is social darwinism

Social Darwinism is derived from biological theories.

No, Social Darwinism is derived from, at best, woefully ignorant misinterpretations of biological theories.

#49 Posted by lostrib (39191 posts) -

[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"][QUOTE="lostrib"]

You're trying to related biological theories dealing with evolution/genetics to society (politics, economics, etc), which is social darwinism

worlock77

Social Darwinism is derived from biological theories.

No, Social Darwinism is derived from, at best, woefully ignorant misinterpretations of biological theories.

seriously do they not teach history or biology in school anymore? do people not have wikipedia? 

#50 Posted by EagleEyedOne (1354 posts) -

[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"][QUOTE="lostrib"]

You're trying to related biological theories dealing with evolution/genetics to society (politics, economics, etc), which is social darwinism

worlock77

Social Darwinism is derived from biological theories.

No, Social Darwinism is derived from, at best, woefully ignorant misinterpretations of biological theories.

If you believe social Darwinism is derived from at best of "woefully ignorant misinterpretations of biological theories" then you have a seriously flawed idea of both social Darwinism and biological theories if that is "the best" of what you can think of.