 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate. |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Survival of the Fittest and the Application Thereof. |
New poll |  |  |
| Pages: 1 2 3 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
Tommathy                 Since: 11-17-05 From: Cloud Nine, Turn Left and I'm There~ Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
The question: Is humanity's prediliction for community effort and saving the weak leading towards the eventual downfall of the species, or is it the evolutionary gimmick that ensures the survival of the human race? |
|||
NetSplit Paratroopa  Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6457 days Last view: 6457 days |
| ||
| We've reached the point where survival of the fittest no longer really applies to us. Because we place so much value on individual lives, we strive to keep those who would normally die off (specifically those with some sort of disease or disorder) alive for as long as possible, which even can allow them to live fairly normal lives and pass on their shortcomings.
This isn't much of a problem, however. Because of the continuing advancements in technology and understanding, particularly in the realm of biology and medical science, future evolution of humanity will be able to be done artificially. The fact that survival of the fittest is being made to no longer apply to us will be irrelevent when we can control our own design, assuming governments worldwide do not ensure that this can't happen by imposing laws that will limit the exploration of this field. However, even with that potential for problems in the future, I do not believe that this is leading toward the downfall of the species. |
|||
Arwon Bazu   Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
| Cooperation, the impulse to protect the group, is as much an evolutionary trait as competition. | |||
Silvershield   580  Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6308 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Originally posted by ArwonDefinitely, but it's often promoted with the intent of allowing the survival of the individual. That is to say, by creating a strong community, the evolutionary benefit is that each specific member of that community reaps greater benefit in terms of survival chances. But among modern humans, I'd argue that an individual is afforded no greater chance of passing on his genes as a social butterfly than as a bona fide hermit. Except, of course, that a hermit has nobody to pass them on with, but you get what I'm saying... In any case, the mental capacity of humans is so advanced relative to that of lower animals that we don't really rely on the tenets of the "survival of the fittest" theory any more. Obviously, as has been pointed out, medical technology allows even the most severely unfit to survive and even to pass on their genes, but I don't perceive that as a general weakening of the species. Any physical or genetic disability can be overcome by the products of the human brain, I think. |
|||
|
||bass Administrator  Since: 11-17-05 From: Salem, Connecticut Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| Here's the problem. Survival of the fittest generally tends to mean survival of the physically strong. The problem? We already have plenty of dumb strong grunts, they make great used car salesmen after their sports careers go down the toilet.
The people who are going to save us all from getting killed? These are the smart people. The people who will figure out how to power your house and car and everything else you own for a year on $10 worth of duterium. Let's just say, these people, the Stephen Hawkings of the world, aren't always the most "fit" individuals ever. |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6308 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Originally posted by ||bassNo, it means survival of those whose traits most fittingly match the environment in which they live. A mouse on steroids will not survive if obtaining food relies on running a maze. Likewise, even early humans did not survive on strength of body alone, but by perceiving the habits of prey animals, discerning healthy plants from dangerous ones, understanding weather and climate, etc. Surely a muscular hunter could more easily bring down his target or could physically best a rival when seeking a mate, but humans are definitely not a species that has or currently does rely on physical strength to an enormous degree and above all else. |
|||
|
Nappy Factory Newcomer Since: 02-13-06 Last post: 6604 days Last view: 6604 days |
| ||
| Silvershield is right. Survival of the fittest could imply that the cutest poodle at the dog breeder's will get to pass on his genes.
Tommathy, where did you get the quote? In the city, being of great physical fitness doesn't put one in a better position than a weedy dweeb. Being of great intellect doesn't, either. Simply being human is enough to be considered 'fit' enough to survive in our environment. |
|||
Snow Tomato Snap Dragon  Since: 12-31-05 From: NYC Last post: 6316 days Last view: 6301 days |
| ||
| People butchered Charle's Darwin's theory of Darwinism when they changed it into a social theory.
He meant survival of the fittest, as in special skills. He used the examples of the birds on different islands, they were able to survive because they were adapted and had developed special skills needed for survival in their environment. If a bird from one island went to another island, he wouldn't have survived because he didn't have the special skills and adaptations needed to survive. That's the original theory of survival of the fittest. Survival of the fittest when interpreted as a social theory.. was quite butchered. It was used to justify imperialism. Survival of the fittest race. Basically... it's kind of like Divine Manisfestation, the Divine right of Kings... or even in American society it loosely bases itself around the Protestant values we still have today. Basically... our people are chosen... or I'm chosen to make alot of money.. so I will.. and boo-hoo for you, you aren't the fittest. I believe that if you use your skills for enormous financial gain... hooray for you. That's all well and good. But there need to be safegaurds on our economy so that wealth doesn't get concentrated in the hands of a few. Social Darwinism advocates the belief that it's alright if a few people have all the wealth.. because essentially, they are chosen, they are the fittest and they deserve it. People make their own wealth because they are good at what they do.. and they excelled. And people deserve their poverty. This doesn't apply in the real world. Many people are BORN INTO poverty, or enormous wealth. The monopolies that existed in the early 1900's (Standard Oil and such), were created by people who already had tremendous wealth and power. And I don't think that poor people deserve to be taken advantage of by wealthy people. If they can't afford an education... if you follow the social darwinism philosophy, it's because they don't deserve it.. it's their fault they're poor... they aren't the fittest and they aren't chosen. I believe in upward mobility.. but once you're at the top.. there's no need to be super greedy. There needs to be safeguards on how much power and wealth one can accumulate. Because if ENORMOUS wealth gets concentrated in the hands of a few... then the economy stagnates. The rich stay rich... and the poor stay poor. The gap widens... and well, it's not good for your country. (Think France pre-French Revolution..) I tend to like Darwin's original theory. That you should do what you're meant for, what you like best... and where your natural abilities take you. If you're an amazing writer, and that's your one great passion... and you become an investment banker because you want alot of money.. and you're not as good at it. You won't get very far in the field... you'll limit yourself to a mediocre job and existance. You should do what you love.. and what you enjoy... and a comfortable lifestyle will follow. You'll be enthusiastic about it.. you'll be skilled at it.. and generally that only leads to good places. But.. yeah Social Darwinism... has absolutely nothing to do with it's original meaning. I prefer the original. It's like people haven't actually read Darwin's "Origin of Species" in hundreds of years. |
|||
Rom Manic Since: 12-18-05 From: Detroit, WHAT?! Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| I agree that while Survival of the Fittest may be realistic in the animal kingdom, it doesn't work in the case of civilization.
Look at Capitalism and Socialism, for example. With Capitalism, you have to fight to survive in the world or end up living a life of poverty. In Socialism, the fight to survive doesn't exist. You make the same amount of money as everyone else, and depending on how corrupt the government is, probably a very minimal amount. Which doesn't really matter if inflation sinks through the floor, but the point is that there is no fight there. I like the idea, but for me the world should live in an equal world. And for me, Socialism is that way. |
|||
geeogree Red Cheep-cheep Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6310 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| see... I think the lack of fight in socialism is part of the problem of socialism
if there is no struggle in life, how are you to improve? why would anyone want to become a doctor or engineer if they earned just as much as a guy pumping gas, or a guy working at a grocery store? socialism doesn't work very well unless people are forced to do things.... and probably a lot of the time they don't want to do the thing they are forced to do which probably doesn't make them very good at it I'm not saying capitalism is perfect, but I think it works overall better than socialism does |
|||
max Blipper  i'm a pixie !!! Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6556 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Originally posted by geeogree Originally posted by Arwon I think that kinda answers your question. |
|||
|
Nappy Factory Newcomer Since: 02-13-06 Last post: 6604 days Last view: 6604 days |
| ||
Originally posted by geeogree Money wouldn't be the only thing spurring the trainee doctor. There's status and job-satisfaction to be had as well. |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6308 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| I don't care how much status and personal satisfaction I'll get, I'm not going to devote ten years of my life to school and medical residency and get paid x when I could roll out of bed one morning and go get a job as at a McDonald's, and still make x. And I'd consider myself a pretty socially interested person. | |||
Skreename Giant Red Paratroopa Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6302 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| I don't think the question is "why would anyone want to become a doctor or an engineer" as much as it is "Who in their right mind would want to be a guy pumping gas, or a guy working at a grocery store?" A lot of people don't care too much about pay; they choose their work based on if it suits them.
As for survival of the fittest... ehh... it's supposed to be that the most fit (in whatever way) would tend to pass their genes on, but it seems that a lot of stupid people have a lot of kids (such as all of the BRILLIANT ones who have kids before the end of high school... or worse, middle school (6th-8th grades).) |
|||
|
geeogree Red Cheep-cheep Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6310 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| yeah, but if I knew that I could make just as much money doing an easier job (hours, education, effort all taken into account).... then why would I put in extra effort?
sure, some would.... but I'd say fewer than do now. |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6308 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| While carrying on a casual conversation with a classmate last semester, I was distressed to hear her reason for choosing her major. She's a science major - biology, I think - and plans to go to medical school and eventually be a doctor. All well and good, I thought, until she admitted that writing is really her passion. As an English major myself, I was a bit upset or even offended to hear that she'll really sacrifice what she enjoys in order to do something that will make more money for her.
What's the point? Well, she certainly wouldn't put in the extra years and extra cash for medical school if her eventual salary wasn't so considerably larger. I'm a very idealistic person in many ways but, when examining the viability of socialism, I'm able to realize that the world is not really so ideal that a signficant number of people will disregard money as a main motivation for performing a more difficult, time consuming, or dangerous job. Speaking of dangerous jobs, I think I'm onto something - who wants to be a coal miner, or work in a nuclear reactor, or do anything like that, when the risk of one's life is not compensated for? |
|||
Jomb Deddorokku  Since: 12-03-05 From: purgatory Last post: 6298 days Last view: 6298 days |
| ||
| Machines are getting more and more advanced. There will almost certainly come a time when they replace humans in virtually all low paying jobs. There are not enough high paying jobs for most people to work in them. So what becomes of the great mass of unemployed then? Under capitalism since the rich own the machinery they continue to get richer while the poor now have no job at all and no prospects. Under socialism we'd all live the high life on the backs of the machinery. Not that i completely agree with socialism, but i dont think its any more flawed than capitalism. When you are the one with the wealth already established and good prospects, then capitalism sounds wonderful. But what if it was your job that was being phased out, and you were born poor? Socialism sounds pretty nice then. Capitalism as it is now greatly favors people who already have some wealth to begin with, to build upon. if you already have some money you can afford to go to school or to make investments and further your income. If you come from poverty though, you have considerably less options. Therefore capitalism is an unfair system. Maybe if people were all given the same starting point in life then it would be fair, unless you were born handi-capped, then you'd be screwed. | |||
|
geeogree Red Cheep-cheep Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6310 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| somebody watch I-Robot too many times or something....
socialism doesn't mean everyone lives the "high-life".... it means everyone is "equal" in wealth. It also means huge amounts of tax to run all the social programs to take care of all the people in the system. capitalism isn't fair? no it's not equal... but that doesn't mean it's not fair. Everyone has an equal chance to make something of themselves. There are just some people with my drive and ability than others. What socialism proposes is bringing the best people and putting them at the same level as the worst people. It doesn't work. The wealthy are there because they did something to get there. Some are lucky and are born into wealth. Others work and make something of themselves. |
|||
|
Jomb Deddorokku Since: 12-03-05 From: purgatory Last post: 6298 days Last view: 6298 days |
| ||
| Never seen i-robot.
No, today not everyone would live great under socialism, i'm not talking about today on that (no shit sherlock), i'm talking about that inevitable day on the horizon when machines actually do replace man for all menial tasks and low paying jobs. In a time when man does'nt actually have to work to survive (the machines doing most of the work), socialism could be a paradise. How can something be not equal but somehow fair? Everyone does not have an equal chance. No matter how often i lift weight i'm never going to look like Arnould in his weight lifting days. No matter how much i study i'll never be einstein. No matter what i do to improve my appearance i'm simply never going to be a model. Its just not in the genes. Its a great lie to tell people they can be whatever they want if they just try hard enough. The cold reality is that people are simply not born equal. I know a guy who was born with a learning disability because his mother was on drugs when she was pregnant. That guy has a 0% chance of getting a degree at any serious university. How is this fair to him? Had he been born rich he'd probably just have a trust fund and not have to compete, how is that fair? |
|||
Wurl Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6337 days Last view: 6337 days |
| ||
Originally posted by geeogree As a filthy, commie bastard, I'm going to have to call bullshit on this. In a capitalist society, money often keeps people from bettering themselves. A perfect example being inner city schools in the U.S. Frankly, they're shit. Broken taxing makes sure they will never get equal education opportunities when compared to a suburban or upper-class area's schools. Without education, advancement in society is nearly impossible. I can already predict the "they are lazy" or "they just need to work harder" arguments coming. But other negative implications of poverty (drugs, crime, ect.) hinder progress further. Joining a gang to make money (through crime) or to fulfill the social need of belonging will take priority of going to a dead end school almost all of the time. This, however, does not mean we need to five these people cash for whatever, as geogree instantly assumes. It means building up public services on par with those of upper class areas, in order to create equal opportunities. Originally posted by geogree I would estimate that for most people, the vast majority of their wealth is inherited. How many college students pay for their own college, clothes, transportation (because public transportation is for commies!), ect from a young age? Almost none. And because a college education is the foundation for many careers in the U.S., ultimately a large part of one's wealth is inherited indirectly. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but it is a fact. Giving others a chance to better themselves through public institutions ultimately makes society as a whole better. Also, I don’t thing being wealthy and being poor constitutes being one of the “best” or worst “people.” |
| Pages: 1 2 3 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Survival of the Fittest and the Application Thereof. |
| |
