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

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).

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.

[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.

[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.

i would hope that you would know.

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

your premise has nothing to do with your assertion.

frannkzappa

i would hope that you would know.

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

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

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

i would hope that you would know.

that seems rather pointless.

.

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

i would hope that you would know.

frannkzappa

that seems rather pointless.

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

worlock77

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

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

that seems rather pointless.

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.

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.

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

that seems rather pointless.

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.

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?

[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.

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

[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.

[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

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

[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.

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

[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

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

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

[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.

might want to look at that definition again.

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

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

frannkzappa

might want to look at that definition again.

[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.

it is really not that simple

[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.

I'm at a loss.

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

might want to look at that definition again.

lostrib

it is really not that simple

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

might want to look at that definition again.

frannkzappa

I'm at a loss.

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

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

it is really 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

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

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

I'm at a loss.

i don't think that will help.

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

it is really not that simple

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

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

I'm at a loss.

frannkzappa

i don't think that will help.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

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

i don't think that will help.

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

[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

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

[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

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

[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.

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

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.

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

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

lostrib

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

[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

Good lord.

[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.

[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

Good lord.

oh god dammit.

[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.

that has nothing to do with what i said.

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

[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

that has nothing to do with what i said.

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

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

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

[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".

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.

[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

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

[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

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? 

[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

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