Dealing with Evolution.

Ok well, evolution survival of the fittest, the passing down of the best genes for survival to the next generation.




if you really want the best genes to be passed down to the next generation, for better fit people to survive in the next generation, then you would have to find some way to kill off the undesirable ones.

mentally and physically handicapped people for example, obviously they are not fitted to survive on their own, they need the help of another individual to survive in this life. if nature took its course, they would not be around right? they w*ould die off and those genes would not be passed on for others to become that way in the next generation.

so how can you be for evolution of better genes, if you help mentally or physically handicapped people? if it wasn't for our medicine and stuff like that, they would die off.

just stating an honest opinion, sounds kinda cruel but i think its hypocritical to be for evolution and for helping disadvantaged people, your just spreading shitty genes to the next generation if they fuck someone and have kids.

 

Social darwinists use the "survival of the fittest" argument to justify their lack of compassion for the "genetically inferior". So I don't think that issue would ever come up. They would indeed be hypocrites if that scenario happened to occur.

Please make sure not to get those fools mixed up with regular proponents of evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theorists see evolution as a plain phenomenon without any social implications. It's merely a tool to be used in science and psychology to better understand and serve humanity and doesn't assume or demand any ethical doctrine.

 

thanks for the info.

i guess that was kinda what iwas saying, if a philosopy was based off of evolution, then that would have to be factored in.

 

As you correctly pointed out, Herbert Spencer's Social Darwinism was a misguided social philosophy inspired by a misinterpretation of Darwin's theory. It was Spencer who coined the "survival of the fittest" phrase. For evolutionists, "fittest" is unnecessary, so long as an organism is "fit". "Fitness" in evolutionary parlance simply refers to the ability of an organism to survive and pass its genes on to the next generation. If cockroaches can do that, and they have certainly shown they can, then they are "fit" in evolutionary terms. If a mutation develops a characteristic that gives it the edge, it or its progeny will eventually displace the less adept just by surviving and reproducing. No "genocide" is necessary.

 

wasn't denying it happens.

but anyway, thanks for the info, you have some good points, i was kinda thinkin about that the other day, like one person may be well equipped physically and good for say athletics or work that requires physical strength, and one may be short on the strength but very bright and cause us to question things or become scientists and doctors exc., or someone else may be really creative for example.

 

People with as you call it "disadvantages" are not a separate species, in other words people born without serious abnormalities mentally or physically are not in competition with them over survival.

When I think of "bad genes" I don't consider people who annoy me or I think may be stupid, what comes to mind are severe mental impairments or colossal physical deformities normally to the extent that they would be typically unable to reproduce on there own.

 

Also, consider that our definition of evolution has gotten considerably more complex since the times of social darwinism. Survival of the fittest is complimented by "tit-for-tat," or cooperation, an equally, if not more essential piece in ecosystems.

One interesting way of seeing social darwinism is a faulty cross-over from evolutionary biology, to sociology. "If only the most fit survive, we must apply this to our own culture!" Meanwhile, the social level has vastly more complex variables and can't be seen in a strictly, survival-based outlook. To do that is unfortunately reductionistic and diminishes other human capacities. For instance, healthy competition, cooperative spirit for survival, nurturing and relationship perspectives, etc.

 

I don't know if you are aware, but this is grade A Nazi ideology. Think Action T4 and the "euthanasia program" of killing "Life unworthy of life", aka, those with mental disorders, neurological diseases, physical handicaps and so forth. You may not realise it, but if you were alive in Nazi Germany, or in other countries which performed forced "euthanasia" on those "unworthy of life", such as America and Canada, you would fit right in and be their biggest support.
This is an example of human eugenics, something all humanity should hope to end forever.

 

there is nothing to "deal with". though there is a lot of misunderstanding about what this "fitness" actually means. and i can guarantee you it isn't the separate strength of one species vs another, let alone individuals within it, but the fitness of fitting in ness, within the framework of the complex interactions of a whole ecosystem. this is what determines the relative success of failure of a species or a particular mutation within that species.

not the nonsense that is assumed by a culture of romanticizing aggressiveness.

(nor of course the straw lifeforms invented by fanatics to discredit the scientific process)