Social and Biological Darwinism One?

[phildwyer]

but spurts AND competition can work alongside each other perfectly well, just as environmental causes can be triggers for evolution or not. neither mean that the other is wrong, and even if environmental factors ARE the main cause, it seems completely preposterous to say that it leads to intelligent design being correct. evolutionary theory did not end with darwin, it has advanced and moved on. your beef with darwin is ancient history.

to the best of our knowledge as it stands right now, there is no ID. or if there is ID, then it's exactly the same as evolution - the creator, if there was one, programmed evolution to happen.

What do you mean "to the best of our knowledge?" Do you mean that there is no *empirical* evidence for ID? Apart, presumably from the fact that species do indeed seem to be perfectly adapted to their environments? Fair enough. But there is no empirical evidence *against* ID either. So that route gets us nowhere. Now, against that, we have to set the fact that *all* human civilizations, in *every* part of the world, have *always* looked at creation and concluded that it must have been intelligently designed. Only when we set up empirical evidence as the universal standard of truth (and hence spearated "science" from "philosophy") was this conclusion brought into dispute. To claim that a *universal* human conclusion is "wrong" seems a bit rash, if you ask me.

 

[kyser_soze]

1. Would you deny that Darwin's theory of evolution was directly inspired by the economics of Malthus and Smith? If so, your argument is not with me but with Darwin himsef, who admitted these sources of inspirations in many places.

See Shippy's answer. I would contribute more but am pushed for time...

2. I'm not sure what you mean by "ID." The conclusion that the universe is intelligently designed was a *universal* human opinion before Darwin. Agreed? Darwin thought he had refuted this by demonstrating that the *only* cause of evolution is competitive adaptation among individuals. But no-one (or only a very few Darwinist dead-enders) now believes this. So it seems to me that the debate is once again very much open.

Don't agree - while it was a near universal human opinion that some form of deity created the universe and earth, the method that the gods managed this were varied - from Enki (IIRC) mastubating life into existance as the Sumerians believed, thorugh the various animist beliefs that were local to their known environment and invovled geogrpahy and fauna through to modern religions. It's also the case that in many ways this 'universal' thought was held in place by a variety of oppressive and coercive methods, the march of history (e.g. the loss of the Library @ Alexandria and other human and natural phenomena that have seen whole civilisations and great works dissappear from history) and did in fact prevent the coming of new ideas.

3. The truly interesting thing about this discussion is how many people who have never read Darwin, or any other theory of evolution, or indeed any theory about intelligent design, simply do not want this debate to take place. Darwinism provides a very comforting, all-explanatory view of the world, and many people will not easily tolerate having such a view challenged. I don't know if this applies to you, Kyser, but Nino Savatte has openly admitted to never having read Darwin, and yet he feels able to express strong opinions on his validity. For such people, Darwinism is a matter of faith, is it not?

Not since uni! It's been about 11 years since I last read 'Origin...' and 'Decent of Man' so maybe I should re-read them and see if my opinions have changed...but no, I don't follow it from faith, I follow from reading scietific papers that have shown how natural selection, both competitive, cooperative, catastophic and...dammit, lets call it gradualist for the moment...variants all have a role to play. I've also seen it simulated in computers in both serious applications (epidemic modelling of the evolution and transmission of viruses for example) and not so serious A-life simulators like 'Creatures' - software agents who, in the last few years have reportedly shown behaviours in their 100+ generations that were never programed to happen and that some 'creatures' have evolved with appearances and behaviours beyond the original programmers parameters.

Thing is phil, you say expand the horizons, and how you need to introduce philosophy back into science (altho lets face it - high end physics is as much about philosophy as would be designing a mood-reactive lipstick...think about that last one too...) but when we had the discussion on memes, something that is clearly observable in the real world as being an example of 'social evolution' and involving all the elements I've mentioned above you still don't want to discuss it because of your own ideological bent.

 

[Fruitloop]

species do indeed seem to be perfectly adapted to their environments

This is just rubbish isn't it.

 

[kyser_soze]

Oh no, not at all. I've always thought that the problem with this debate is that it is dominated by fundamentalists on *both* sides--that is, people who take their chosen dogma, whether Biblcal or Darwinist, on faith. You're not one of them. Nor am I. But anyway, you're quite wrong to call capitalism "essentially the same social model humans have had on earth since mass civilisations started." The reproduction of money as "interest," which is the definitive characteristic of capitalism, was regarded as a monstrous perversion and heinous sin by all previous civilizations. Capitalism is quite unique, and very recent.

OK, what is the basic social model of capitalism?

It's the rule of the few, based around their access and ability to manipulate knowledge and to use that to control both resources and people.

Those few systemically create and maintain a social model that benefits them the most while hanging crumbs and treats out to a select few of the mass in order to continue their rule through division.

Aside from interest, this is no different from Feudalism, mercantilism and state cap as nino points out. Interest is not even a development of modern capitalism, but existed 000s of years ago - AFAIK the moneylenders charged interest, it was used by the Chinese in metal lending and even existed in non-money societies such as Sumeria.

More here on the history of interest and how it's roots go back to the earliest human societies...

 

[Crispy]

What do you mean "to the best of our knowledge?" Do you mean that there is no *empirical* evidence for ID? Apart, presumably from the fact that species do indeed seem to be perfectly adapted to their environments?

Now you're being silly. There are so many examples of species having to struggle to survive in their envoironments, while others thrive there, that I don't even know where to start. Besides, evolution also states that species will change over time to adapt to their environments, so this evidence supports that theory too.

Fair enough. But there is no empirical evidence *against* ID either. So that route gets us nowhere.

You should also know that this means diddly squat when you're talking about science. There is no emperical evidence for (that old favorite) pink unicorns. Yet they are plausible are they not? Flamingoes are pink, and there are other mono-horned animals.

Now, against that, we have to set the fact that *all* human civilizations, in *every* part of the world, have *always* looked at creation and concluded that it must have been intelligently designed. Only when we set up empirical evidence as the universal standard of truth (and hence spearated "science" from "philosophy") was this conclusion brought into dispute. To claim that a *universal* human conclusion is "wrong" seems a bit rash, if you ask me.

What made us so special? What was the evidence for an Inteligent Designer before the advent of humans? What makes previous conclusions more valid than more recent ones? Before the sepeartion of science and philosophy, the rate of progress and discovery of the material world was achingly slow. By mixing myth and rumour with observed facts, you end up with medicine based on the four humours, epicycles for the planets to sit on and other strange notions. I call those "wrong" don't you?

 

[phildwyer]

high end physics is as much about philosophy as would be designing a mood-reactive lipstick...think about that last one too...

OK, I have. I think a mood-reactive lipstick would be the best invention ever. No more pesky misunderstandings, misjudgments, misadventures. Once invented, I think it should be compulsory. Also, high-end physics *is* philosophy, n'est-ce pas?

 

[kyser_soze]

There are many examples of species that are too adapted to their environments that any radical change it undergoes means they will die - viz polar bears, insect species that live only in one specific geographical area. These are the equivalent of the rust belt communities I mentioned earlier - organisms utterly reliant on environmental equilibrium for survival, which in and of itself is a massive weakness, just as the ultraspecialisation of industry and skillsets is when economic or technological conditions change dramatically.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Aside from interest, this is no different from Feudalism, mercantilism and state cap as nino points out.

Oooh, that won't do at all.

 

[kyser_soze]

OK, I have. I think a mood-reactive lipstick would be the best invention ever. No more pesky misunderstandings, misjudgments, misadventures. Once invented, I think it should be compulsory. Also, high-end physics *is* philosophy, n'est-ce pas?

Ah but...is the function of makeup to show or conceal the wearers feelings? How should smart makeup respond to a flush of anger and/or sexual interest? See - philosophy in the design of makeup

Right, off home now and this thread is just starting to pick up.

Oooh, that won't do at all.

What, so the social model of capitalism isn't simply a more sophisticated, subtle and brutal version of the oppression of past ages?

 

[nino_savatte]

Damn! I left out feudalism...which isn't a great deal different to late western capitalism...really.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Right Panda, you've been blathering on about this supposed "vested interest" of mine for months. Now its time for you to explain yourself. What kind of "vested interest" could I possibly have in pointing out the manifest, widely accepted, flaws in orthodox Darwinism?

Have I? "Blathered on" you say?

Tell you what, if you show me where, using links, I (not anyone else) have mentioned you having a "vested interest" other than this thread, then I'll tell you what I believe your vested interest to be (that's my use of the actual words "vested interest", by the way, not your interpretation of other words to mean same).

If you can't show me such then I'll expect to receive an apology.

Fair?

I

 

[Donna Ferentes]

What, so the social model of capitalism isn't simply a more sophisticated, subtle and brutal version of the oppression of past ages?

I think it differs in respects other than degree.

 

[Crispy]

I think it differs in respects other than degree.

I think Ky's being abit simplistic here too. The relationships between power, labour and wealth differ between the systems (although the elite control all three in each)

 

[axon]

Apart, presumably from the fact that species do indeed seem to be perfectly adapted to their environments?

Just to add my two penneth. The above shows you don't know your arse from your elbow when it comes to evolution and science. And you've obviously never squashed a bug.

Your agenda seems to be to push ID by winning an argument that doesn't exist. There are not bands of militant ultra-Darwinists promoting evolution through competition alone without any influence from the environment. So, pointing out that this (mythical) army are wrong does not add any weight to ID.

And was Darwin influenced by the economic system of his time? I'm sure he was, because he must have been aware of it. Jutst like he was aware of gravity, bees, coal, bacon and a whole host of things. However, you cannot ignore the past 125-odd years of evidence that has added to weight to evolution, which involves both competition and the environment!

 

[phildwyer]

Have I? "Blathered on" you say?

Tell you what, if you show me where, using links, I (not anyone else) have mentioned you having a "vested interest" other than this thread, then I'll tell you what I believe your vested interest to be (that's my use of the actual words "vested interest", by the way, not your interpretation of other words to mean same).

If you can't show me such then I'll expect to receive an apology.

Fair?

No! Accusing someone of having a "vested interest" is worse than accusing someone of accusing someone of having a "vested interest." Obviously. So come on then: what's my "vested interest?"

 

[phildwyer]

Damn! I left out feudalism...which isn't a great deal different to late western capitalism...really.

And then there's the Atlantic Ocean, Ken Livingstone, the Daily Telegraph, Yosemite Sam, California Redwood trees, Electric Avenue and Venus... none of them are a great deal different to late Western capitalism really.... Twit.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Is that a posting or an Ian Dury song?

 

[bluestreak]

What do you mean "to the best of our knowledge?" Do you mean that there is no *empirical* evidence for ID? Apart, presumably from the fact that species do indeed seem to be perfectly adapted to their environments? Fair enough. But there is no empirical evidence *against* ID either. So that route gets us nowhere. Now, against that, we have to set the fact that *all* human civilizations, in *every* part of the world, have *always* looked at creation and concluded that it must have been intelligently designed. Only when we set up empirical evidence as the universal standard of truth (and hence spearated "science" from "philosophy") was this conclusion brought into dispute. To claim that a *universal* human conclusion is "wrong" seems a bit rash, if you ask me.

is there empirical evidence for ID? could be. other universal human conclusions have, however, been proved incorrect, such as the flatness of the earth, the fact that the sun clearly goes around the earth, and the inherant and god-given superiority of the white man. like all universal human truths, they are fine, until we find a theory that explains them better and without resorting to such arguments as x = y therefore a = b, which as you no doubt would be the first to point out should the shoe be on the other foot does not happen. the empirical evidence against ID is that there is a perfectly good scientific system that has more or less been universally accepted by pretty much everyone except those with faith-based biases.

are there any other theories apart from faith-based ideas or evolution to explain fossils and mutations and whatnot?

 

[Jo/Joe]

Empirical evidence against ID? Whales with reminants of thigh bones? Cave dwelling snakes with eyes that have skin grown over them?

Evidence for ID? Things exist is all it boils down to.

 

[phildwyer]

Empirical evidence against ID? Whales with reminants of thigh bones? Cave dwelling snakes with eyes that have skin grown over them?

If you think this is evidence against ID, you clearly haven't understood the concept.

 

[Crispy]

If you think this is evidence against ID, you clearly haven't understood the concept.

If anyone thinks that evidence against something is what makes science tick, they haven't really understood the concept either. Emperical evidence for ID will have to be incompatible with modern evolutionary theory for it to be worth noticing.

 

[Jo/Joe]

If you think this is evidence against ID, you clearly haven't understood the concept.

And if you think there is an ounce of evidence for ID, you clearly haven't understood the concept of 'evidence'.

 

[Velouria]

Natural selection is not about being competitive and strong. It is merely about avoiding death so that you breed. There is no pinnacle end to it. In a million years time human decendents might have tiny brains, a single stumpy flipper and suck nutrients from rank swamps using and oversized trunk. Whatever 'fits' your environment.

Others theorise that humankind is unlikely to make any great evolutionary leap, since we now use our intelligence to shape our environment, rather than having the environment shape us. Time (more time than any of us have) will tell

 

[gorski]

Damn! From the very first post in the thread we can see just how pervasive Social Darwinism is, so I think a few of us pointing out towards the social, economic, political, ethical and philosophical context of it need to continue challenging the "self-evident" "dominant discourse position" it is in at the moment...

Social Democracy propped up by a co-operative based theory, as opposed to Social Darwinism propped up by a conflict based theory is the name of the game... No other games in town, unless we take into account a demi-feudal Far Eastern model...

Which way to go - America (S-Darwinism) or Europe (S. Democracy)...?!?

I know which one suits me much better!

 

[gorski]

Just to illustrate... and to ask what do you think - actually?!?

The ideological consequences of Social Darwinism are obvious: it is necessary, inevitable, and therefore *good* that, in a free competition, the successful should propser and the unsuccessful should perish. I trust that the influence of this idea on every area of our society requires no illustration.

The mind boggles sometimes... How far would you drive this "theses" - would you want the "failures" to "perish" as in... how exactly? How many have managed only after quite a while, an enormous struggle etc. - only to change the world for the better, sometimes much later on... Not even mentioning the "crucial" artists of various periods who were virtually unknown and died poor etc. etc. Giordano Bruno, maybe? I could go on for a while...

Define "success", please? It seems to me you have a set of beliefs behind it and you're not even beginning to think about them... Scary!

But I wonder how far Social Darwinism follows naturally and inexorably from Darwinian biology? My own view is that the economic and biological manifestations of Darwinism are two parts within a single, greater ideological process.

Yes, see my bigger post on page 1. And that is THE issue here!! Beliefs verging on dogma these days [see your own post, for starters], rather than "a theory"... Almost silly to think of it as A. Augustine and co. - entering into an "inquiry" to justify the initial position, rather than inquire, research without prejudice and see what comes out... The first victim at the altar of such "untouchable, prevailing positions" is [are] truth.... Always was the case...

I would be interested in learning from the Darwinists amongst you how this conclusion might be refuted. I do not think it can be done by an appeal to empirical evidence because, as we know, the fossil record does not support Darwin's theory that evolution is exclusively guided by competition among individuals. To put my question another way: how else can Darwin's biological conclusions be explained other than as ideological rationalizations of capitalism?

Might be wiser to address the critically minded with such a Q... Methodically speaking, if nothing else...

Or you set the Q in such a way that leaves much to be desired...?

 

[kyser_soze]

gorski, leaving aside the grammar issues in your posts - incomplete sentences, half made statements, overuse of ellipses means that not only are your posts hard to follow, you've also missed pd's point - he's arguing the same point as you that Darwinism is a dogmatic belief system that needs to be challenged. For example, your first paragraph doesn't get pd's point - he's not the one arguing in favour of social Darwinism! Not that anyone is, but you seem to be grabbing the stick at the wrong end here.

DF/Crispy - so in what ways is cap SO radically different from previous socioeconomic systems? HOW is the division of labour different? What respects does it differ in? What makes it fundamentally different from previous systems of oppression - not that it is more complete than other systems, or more complex because I've addressed these points - but what separates it from other top-down, oppressive/coercive/divisive systems of governing societies as unique? Or is it simply different in the detail and my contention - that it's an evolved, more complex and subtle variation on prior social models - isn't incorrect?

 

[nino_savatte]

Has phil done a runner?

Social Darwinism is what is practised in the USA; where the rich survive and the poor get swept away by hurricanes. As for natural selection, it has more going for it as a theory than ID ever will have.

 

[nino_savatte]

And then there's the Atlantic Ocean, Ken Livingstone, the Daily Telegraph, Yosemite Sam, California Redwood trees, Electric Avenue and Venus... none of them are a great deal different to late Western capitalism really.... Twit.

More proof (as if proof were needed) that your intentions on this forum are less than serious.

If you cannot work this out, I'm not drawing you any pictures. Prick.

 

[nino_savatte]

If you think this is evidence against ID, you clearly haven't understood the concept.

You're actually here to promote ID though - aren't you? Unlike the US, ID will never catch on in this country, so you are wasting your time.

 

[gorski]

gorski, leaving aside the grammar issues in your posts - incomplete sentences, half made statements, overuse of ellipses means that not only are your posts hard to follow, you've also missed pd's point - he's arguing the same point as you that Darwinism is a dogmatic belief system that needs to be challenged. For example, your first paragraph doesn't get pd's point - he's not the one arguing in favour of social Darwinism! Not that anyone is, but you seem to be grabbing the stick at the wrong end here.

But that's the point - the way it was put... Look, methodically speaking, the way one sets a Q up directs the way "research" develops and an A is in a direct relationship with it... Have a look at my last sentence - it is a Q about the Q...

The way I wrote is commensurate with the nature of the board. Tell me when you have become my tutor and I need to be careful as I'm after a good mark......

DF/Crispy - so in what ways is cap SO radically different from previous socioeconomic systems? HOW is the division of labour different? What respects does it differ in? What makes it fundamentally different from previous systems of oppression - not that it is more complete than other systems, or more complex because I've addressed these points - but what separates it from other top-down, oppressive/coercive/divisive systems of governing societies as unique? Or is it simply different in the detail and my contention - that it's an evolved, more complex and subtle variation on prior social models - isn't incorrect?

Now is the time for me to give you a really deserved "Z" mark on understanding the elements of human development. Back to the break-up of feudalism, the change of the bearer relationship (ownership of land and a different set of rules for different estates etc.), French and American revolution and so on... Whatever next? [Sur]Real Socialism was a so called version of “State Capitalism”?

Welcome to Modernity!