NationStates Jolt Archive

Lets face it; for as long as people have been around, as much as they fight eachother, no matter how many wars there are, society basically protects its people.

More than anything in the world. Now, I'm saying, has society gone too far? Some people wouldn't be alive today, if society didn't protect them for long. Intelligence is what got people this far, now the stupid ones are being protected from themselves, and some people who would have been at the top are at the bottom.

Does Darwin's theory apply as much as it used to?

No, and nor should it. A society is judged on how well it treats its lowliest members :)

PS hi again, good to see you making the thread! :D

Lets face it; for as long as people have been around, as much as they fight eachother, no matter how many wars there are, society basically protects its people.

More than anything in the world. Now, I'm saying, has society gone too far? Some people wouldn't be alive today, if society didn't protect them for long. Intelligence is what got people this far, now the stupid ones are being protected from themselves, and some people who would have been at the top are at the bottom.

Does Darwin's theory apply as much as it used to?

Sure it does.

"Survival of the fittest" isn't always the biggest or smartest.

Empathy is what guides the "protection" of people. It even exists in the wild....

In the words of Makoto Shishio -- "If you are strong you live, if you are weak you die. It is the only truth in this world." :)

Lets face it; for as long as people have been around, as much as they fight eachother, no matter how many wars there are, society basically protects its people.

More than anything in the world. Now, I'm saying, has society gone too far? Some people wouldn't be alive today, if society didn't protect them for long. Intelligence is what got people this far, now the stupid ones are being protected from themselves, and some people who would have been at the top are at the bottom.

Does Darwin's theory apply as much as it used to?

Damned those bees for their complex societies and using their numbers to their advantage! And damned be those herd animals and their willingness to stick together and ensure mutual survival! Damn them to hell! Don't they know some people just don't understand how natural selection works and assume that all there is is competition between individuals and there can never exist such a thing as mutual cooperation for the good of the many? Not to belittle such pesky things like ethics and that other crap...

Elgesh']No, and nor should it. A society is judged on how well it treats its lowliest members :)

PS hi again, good to see you making the thread! :D

Good to see you too.
I'd have to agree with Dragons with Guns here a little more though... Although
not necessarily injust physical strength.

It seems now that in society those with money get away with it all, regardless of intelligence. I view ignorant people as the lowliest members of any society, and often those who are rich seem very, very ignorant.

Dragons with Guns]
In the words of Makoto Shishio -- "If you are strong you live, if you are weak you die. It is the only truth in this world."

Damned those bees for their complex societies and using their numbers to their advantage! And damned be those herd animals and their willingness to stick together and ensure mutual survival! Damn them to hell! Don't they know some people just don't understand how natural selection works and assume that all there is is competition between individuals and there can never exist such a thing as mutual cooperation for the good of the many? Not to belittle such pesky things like ethics and that other crap...

Sure it does.

"Survival of the fittest" isn't always the biggest or smartest.

Empathy is what guides the "protection" of people. It even exists in the wild....
Not nearly to the scale it exists among people. I'm not saying its a bad thing, I'm just wondering if theres too much of it.



I completely agree that other species do involve themselves in simpler societies. However, they don't take care of eachother the way humans do. For example, people do it on a world-wide scale, which other species can't possibly imagine. We take care of our sick and wounded, and precautions are taken to keep idiots from being idiots.

Even just a few centuries ago, people had to have more common sense, like "Hey, this seems like a bad idea...maybe we shouldn't be tying ourselves to rocks and jumping in the water."

I completely agree that other species do involve themselves in simpler societies. However, they don't take care of eachother the way humans do. For example, people do it on a world-wide scale, which other species can't possibly imagine.

Well the animals in question can't contact each other across the world. Man if they did we would be screwd! :p

Favors. If you help somebody out. Odds are they will help you out if you need it..

Well the animals in question can't contact each other across the world. Man if they did we would be screwd! :p

But that is the ape thing to do. Favors. If you help somebody out. Odds are they will help you out if you need it..

Its the basic "You scratch my back, I scratch yours," system. My whole idea of this is that human society today often skews whose back gets scratched first; IE. In the ape world, the biggest, meanest ape got his back scratched because he could kick ass... I'm not saying thats what we should go back to, but I am saying that it has shifted mostly to monetary value today, and I don't think thats the right idea. Never gonna change though :rolleyes:

And animals can contact eachother. Haven't you seen Tarzan?

In the words of Makoto Shishio -- "If you are strong you live, if you are weak you die. It is the only truth in this world." :)

Bingo.

Not nearly to the scale it exists among people. I'm not saying its a bad thing, I'm just wondering if theres too much of it.

So, what are you suggesting? We let people die?

"Oh, he broke his leg. Well, I as a doctor am not gonna fix it because he was stupid in getting it broken so he deserves to die, because I'll use social Darwinism as a disgusting excuse for my lack of ethics."

So, what are you suggesting? We let people die?

"Oh, he broke his leg. Well, I as a doctor am not gonna fix it because he was stupid in getting it broken so he deserves to die, because I'll use social Darwinism as a disgusting excuse for my lack of ethics."

Nope, not at all. If we can save him, then do it. I just think we should stop looking up to all the rich bastards.

Then again, if its survival of the fittest, then those with money are now most fit, therefore they survive. Wow...so Darwin's theory is changing with time too... now its not the most adaptable who survive, but the richest.

Lets face it; for as long as people have been around, as much as they fight eachother, no matter how many wars there are, society basically protects its people.

More than anything in the world. Now, I'm saying, has society gone too far? Some people wouldn't be alive today, if society didn't protect them for long. Intelligence is what got people this far, now the stupid ones are being protected from themselves, and some people who would have been at the top are at the bottom.

Does Darwin's theory apply as much as it used to?

There are a lot of spineless people here who would think that the best way to protect your people is to roll over and beg for mercy instead of standing up to evil.

Nope, not at all. If we can save him, then do it. I just think we should stop looking up to all the rich bastards.

What?

Then again, if its survival of the fittest, then those with money are now most fit, therefore they survive. Wow...so Darwin's theory is changing with time too... now its not the most adaptable who survive, but the richest.

And, to get rich you have to be adaptable - you have to traverse your environment and be successful in it... in any case, Social Darwinism is a bunch of unethical crap.

What?



And, to get rich you have to be adaptable - you have to traverse your environment and be successful in it... in any case, Social Darwinism is a bunch of unethical crap.

Forget that first thing I said...
But social darwinism is still in effect? Ethics has got nothing to do with it, thought I tend to agree with you. And in general, people who are rich are getting richer; making the ladder rung harder to reach for and the environment tougher to adapt to.

What?



And, to get rich you have to be adaptable - you have to traverse your environment and be successful in it... in any case, Social Darwinism is a bunch of unethical crap.

Forget that first thing I said...
But social darwinism is still in effect? Ethics has got nothing to do with it, thought I tend to agree with you. And in general, people who are rich are getting richer; making the ladder rung harder to reach for and the environment tougher to adapt to.

There are a lot of spineless people here who would think that the best way to protect your people is to roll over and beg for mercy instead of standing up to evil.

And there will of course be people silly enough to use words like "evil," and torpidly feeble platitudes such as "standing up to evil" while at the same time dispensing a straw man so poorly constructed, not even Dorothy would fellate it.

Does Darwin's theory apply as much as it used to?

It wasn't Darwin, it was Spenser.

The fact that it applies to groups of animals as well as individuals themselves seems to have escaped your notice.

Sorry about the spenserian theory thing; bit rusty on my science history.

Nope, not at all. If we can save him, then do it. I just think we should stop looking up to all the rich bastards.

Then again, if its survival of the fittest, then those with money are now most fit, therefore they survive. Wow...so Darwin's theory is changing with time too... now its not the most adaptable who survive, but the richest.

Well being rich is not always the "fittest" It's more then that. For example, my family was very wealthy once. As the story goes they drank it away. Bastards.....

It helps as an advantage but you can loose it.

Social Darwinism? man is that eugenic crap still being preeched somewhere?

Consider this. Did people "waste" effort by finding that people with ceribal palsy(sp) actually have a "normal" brain?

What about Hawkins? By social darwinism standards he should have been shoved aside.....

Got to go.....

Hokay. I've deleted it. Apologies, but my blood is boiling here.

Would you be so kind as to remove the quote from your post and we'll let this continue on its track?

Alright...I'll admit he took a cheap shot. "Those type," annoy me too.

SO I'm not really sure anymore. Society is intricately and infinately complicated now, far more than it ever has been. I think I've decided not to really analize it as a whole in this theory, but small parts.

"Survival of the fittest," is so kick-ass though. Sums it up in 4 words.

What about Hawkins? By social darwinism standards he should have been shoved aside.....

Jack Hawkins from Treasure Island? Surely Long John Silver was the cripple?

"Survival of the fittest," is so kick-ass though. Sums it up in 4 words.

The problem with it as a principle is that it is such a trueism and is so banal as a result: if you ain't the fittest you fuck up and die.

Jack Hawkins from Treasure Island? Surely Long John Silver was the cripple?

Long John Silver was too cool do die. Plus, he was a fictional character. He's got that on his side too.

The problem with it as a principle is that it is such a trueism and is so banal as a result: if you ain't the fittest you fuck up and die.

Not necessarily...look at it as more an entry exam. Theres a grade/level of quality when it comes to being fit. If you're in tough shape, you might not make it, but if you're in so-so shape, you might.

The thing with nature is that there's always exceptions...always luck, everywhere. Oops, I woulda died but lightning hit the cougar that was after me. That sort of thing.

The thing with nature is that there's always exceptions...always luck, everywhere. Oops, I woulda died but lightning hit the cougar that was after me. That sort of thing.

So, as time marches relentlessly on the human race is effectively breeding luckier and luckier individuals? Can we not accelerate this trend by instituting a lottery with permission to conceive as the prize?

So, as time marches relentlessly on the human race is effectively breeding luckier and luckier individuals? Can we not accelerate this trend by instituting a lottery with permission to conceive as the prize?

Well, ideally... Kidding. Nah, because then you're messing with luck, and as you're creating it, you'll get hit by lightning.
People aren't exactly getting luckier, but their are lots of us, so we've got odds on our side and rising; remember, we're not talking about standards of living etc. Merely survival.

Jack Hawkins from Treasure Island? Surely Long John Silver was the cripple?

Ok Grammer Nazi! :p

Hawkings! as in Stephen Hawkings! :D