The chosen ones. On the upper social classes.

It is more appropriate to describe the wealthy and upper classes the chosen flock in that they view themselves above everybody else.

( Above the fray.)

In some way they view themselves to be bestowed by the universe the right to rule the lives of others and to mold them into whatever fashion they may conjure up in their minds like how a potter molds clay puppets.

In the world view of the upper classes they are the privileged chosen of the human specie entitled by what they deem in themselves to be superior qualities where they view their own lives model in comparison to others.

( To the upper classes they themselves are a sort of human thoroughbred that is prized, privileged, and desired.)

To the upper classes they themselves are model human beings superior, better, ideal,enlightened, profane,sanctified, purified,untouchable,unfettered,limitless, and unbound in contrast to other classifications of people that is also created and categorized by themselves. ( Self referencing logic.)

And it is that underlying belief of themselves that they believe gives them the right to control, manipulate,and order other human beings around like their own domesticated cattle to which how they see themselves in comparison to others that they come to see themselves as having the ability in having the final authority on all things from which all social authority derives.

In the view of the upper classes everyone else beneath them doesn’t have a purpose since for them others have a purpose only when it is handed down to them by their own design and making.

For the upper classes everyone beneath them sole purpose is to exist in servicing their amusement, wants,comfort, goals,aspirations,acomadations,pleasure,self indulgence, and existence. To this they view all other people’s lives to exist only for themselves to take advantage of for their own to which they attribute themselves to be privileged and more better suited for the pleasures of life.

To the upper classes all other people they underneath them don’t exist for themselves but instead only exist for their own uplifting, adoration, and self worship.

They do this by having complete hegemony and control over value to which they relate and reduce the lower classes into mere function or instrumentation through engineered economics.

It makes sense as to why they do this because according to their perspective the lower classes are merely empty vessels, instruments,tools, and biological machines at their every disposal to take advantage of for whatever whim they may have.

It also makes sense as to why the upper classes feel the necessity to dehumanize and disenfranchise the lower classes in that as they see the lower classes as mere instruments and tools at their disposal with human flesh it then becomes necessary to seperate their humanity from their perceived mechanized function in a economical setting.

( In other words it becomes necessary to dehumanize them in order to reduce them into mechanical function or economical appliance which then becomes translated into social compliance by coercion.)

Thus the warehouse worker is reduced to a work horse or mule maybe even a biological machine who’s only function is seen to be moving things.

The grocery store clerk is reduced to a automated convenience appliance apart of the grocery store expirience.

The waitress reduced to a automated service interface apart of the restaurant expirience.

( So on and so fourth.)

(All of them seen only to have the sole purpose of servicing the upper classes and each other.)

However you wish to perceive the relationship between the upper class and the lower classes it is always clear that the upper class has no intention of living under the same terms they dictate to the lower classes as coercive ultimatums.

To the upper class they expect nothing but servitude, degradation,drudgery, and exploitation when it comes to the masses of lower class workers.

Should the lower classes band together in revolt, rebellion, or insurrection directly in front of the upper classes they have at their disposal the police, local army, and courts of law to protect them when they are attacked or left defenseless in that as the upper classes see themselves as a sanctified race of human thoroughbreds they are a protected class of people guarded by a variety of government runned safety nets should they find themselves in a situation where they cannot protect themselves.

There is no justice for the lower classes for it is the government that dictates law and justice where a government is merely a representation of those in power through the upper classes.

( Thus law, justice, and the courts becomes dictated by the upper classes where the lower classes come to not have a say or word in what is imposed upon them but instead must contend with what is thrusted upon them.)

( Thus when Thrasymachus said in Plato’s Republic:" Listen—I say that justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger.” It then becomes all the more understandable.)

( He also said: “What I say is that ‘just’ or ‘right’ means nothing but what is in the interest of the stronger more powerful party.” )

( It could be said that all institutions are merely representations and abstractions of the upper classes will or agenda.)

As said before the upper class is a protected group of people. They are a coddled class of people.

Not only do they demand the absolute subjugation, obedience, and bondage of others to service them but they also demand that there be no reprisals and consequences of their demands by making it a crime to revolt, rebel, or insurrect against them.

When a member of the upper class is affronted by a assailant they fall to the safety nets of their paid police when they cannot protect themselves or when they are left defenseless as they have others fight their battles for them.

( The upper classes see themselves as the more superior or stronger but they themselves are just as every bit weak as those they view to be inferior.)

A more recent example of this coddling social interaction of the upper classes is the current United States recession. Several banks, corporations, and places of business were about to fail recently in the United States where they were about to be left to fail at their own demise but then in came the safety net of the long arm of government which bailed them out from failure in order to stabilize them.

Too big or invaluable to fail on their own has become the motto of such socially constructed safety nets that bails them out constantly.

( The motto of the upper classes is that they are too big or invaluable to fail on their own where in their eyes there needs to be specific safety net guarantees to provide for their security when they cannot provide it for themselves.)

( Clearly survival of the fittest is absent from post-modern society in that survival of the fittest amongst nature through natural selection there is no safety nets of any kind where individual organisms are self reliant on themselves only.)

The upper classes get the best of both worlds in that they command and subjugate others without mercy but have also made it nearly impossible for anyone and anybody to compete or challenge against the legitimacy of their authority.

Even when the upper classes find themselves in situations where they are attacked or left defenseless through their own marks of weakness, they nonetheless have made it impossible for anybody to challenge them with their labyrinth of safety nets that makes it possible for them to live a life where it isn’t necessary for them to protect themselves, in that they have others do it for them.

Truly the upper classes today are the chosen people in the most sanctified perspective.

Chosen by what? Their self referencing ideals and logic.

What if social power dynamics and classism is an expression of natural selection and competition, of survival of the fittest? Survival of the fittest does not care abour your moral qualms or sentimental outrage over human rights abuses or the unfair discrepencies in the system. We compete, we are animals, some of us live and some die, make more money and you are more competitive and successful and more ‘fit’ in an evolutionary sense. It doesnt matter how or why you are more fit, just whether or not you are.

But as far as sociology goes, the overlap between it and evolutionary theory is pretty speculative. Social Darwinism has been challenged and to a large extent refuted, if only because it is barely a small snapshot, one little piece in a much larger puzzle, and of the wrong perspective. Your morals and ideals are noble, perhaps, but unfortunately for you nature and life does not care nor operate by them.

Natural selection and survival of the fittest doesn’t exist in civilization or human existence anymore.

In a genuine definition of natural selection and survival of the fittest there is no limitation or rules of engagement in competition. (In a genuine atmosphere of natural selection aided by survival of the fittest competition has no fixed limitations.)

( In a genuine atmosphere of natural selection aided by survival of the fittest there are no rules, laws, morals, or ethics when it concerns competition other than that the strongest and more ruthless survive off of the more weaker members.)

The fact that civilization has limited competition with rules of engagements only shows it’s nonexistence within it.

In a genuine atmosphere of natural selection and survival of the fittest if I kill someone I remain the victor in eliminating my competition. ( The weaker get what they get and nothing more even if it means death.)

In today’s environment it is considered illegal to kill or eliminate another person you are competing against because of all the metaphysical nonsense people have been indocrinated to believe in. ( This is where today’s limitations come into present competition.)

A genuine atmosphere of natural selection where survival of the fittest is paramount it doesn’t. Agreed.

However today’s competition is limited and defined by metaphysical nonsense which has only stifled natural selection if you were to ask me.

In a genuine atmosphere of survival of the fittest aided by natural selection there would be no rules of engagement, police, law, or courts.

This is why today’s upper classes have cheap power which can be bought or sold to others.

I always find it ironic that today’s upper classes define themselves as the more fittest considering they’re so quick to call the police when they are left defenseless unable to defend themselves against assailants.

( Rather than fight their own battles they dial 911 so somebody else can fight their battles for them because largely most of them are unable to fend for themselves beyond their treasured monetary value system which is their only source of power.)

If the upper classes feel so confident in themselves and the understanding of natural selection from which survival of the fittest derives one would think they would have no problem disbandoning the police which protects themselves and their financial assets.

In a genuine sense of natural selection from which survival of the fittest derives there are no safety nets of any kind.

Now why is it that today’s upper classes can’t exist without their safety nets to catch them when they are unable to defend themselves or survive on their own? They are after all supposedly the most fittest members of society supposedly … :laughing: :evilfun: [-X

( Isn’t it ironic that it is today’s upper class members that are the first to scream about immorality and unethical acts done in their backyard? Why should they complain? Survival of the fittest, remember? :laughing: )

( One would think that if people took natural selection and survival of the fittest seriously that there would be no complaint about anything that happens yet present society is completely the opposite.)

Animals in nature, or “pure” natural selection still operates within limits. There are always limitations. Physical limits are the easiest to see, but there are also instinctive ones. Humans are not the only animal that operates by guidelines of behavior, norms, impulse, fears, etc. All life acts according to these sorts of internal drives. The mass relations of these individual drives generates group dynamics, which exist within all species life. Where there are two or more animals of a kind, they create a dynamic, a civilization. They may just posture and scream and strut around, rather than build skyscrapers or murder each other for cash, but its the same thing.

The behavior of any individual is governed by the existence and possibilities, and thus limitations, impressed upon it physically and psychologically-instinctively by the presence of others.

Human laws and rules and morals are an expression of our internal needs and desires. They are as much an offspring of what it is to be a human as the instincts of other animals. You can draw a line around it and separate them if you like, but from the perspective of natural selection there is no difference.

You are saying that the use of tools or environmental objects or factors to aid in individual power over others is somehow a ‘violation’ of natural selection or survival of the fittest?

An animal which covers itself up in the dirt when a predator is around might survive whereas its brother animal does not do this, and dies. The use of all assets available is part of survival. By definition the use of police or courts or laws to allow us as individuals to survive or exert power over other people is survival of the fittest.

“In nature”, the animal which best uses its environmental factors and elements will survive. Humans are exactly the same. Those of us who best use police, courts, laws, etc to further our survival are more fit than those of us who do not, and suffer survival-related reprecussions.

If i die because I did not call the police when a burglar invaded my home, that is survival of the fittest, as I was not fit within the environment that I lived in. I failed to successfully navigate environmental landscapes and rules and challenges.

Once again, the use of tools or environmental factors to aid in survival is the definition of survival of the fittest.

Navigating ones environment, whatever it might be, by any and all means necessary.

The most dominant male in a group will use its influence over other members to avoid having to fight as often, or will surround itself with a pack of loyal followers to ward off threats. This is survival of the fittest. The animal which best surrounds itself with such a pack will be more likely to survive.

Using police is protecting themselves and their financial assets.

No, there are no arbitrary rules that you are claiming exist, such as “its only survival of the fittest or natural selection of you defend yourself with bare hands against attackers, rather than use a club or a gun or a phone call to 911.”

If there are available safety nets, of any kind at all, it is pertinant to use them. Whoever best uses them is more likely to survive, and IS THUS MORE FIT.

They are probably the first to complain about it because they receive the most benefit from the existence of the social environemnt and modern systems of rules. Humans live in a human environment, a blend of natural and human made limitations and guidelines and limits. All life lives within an environment, its just that some animals affect their environment more directly and intentionally. Yet it doesnt matter in the end WHAT the environment is that we live in, it only matters how well we survive within it, given the specific demands that it places on us.

What specific limits?

Depends on what you are talking about.

Such as?

Human beings are the only specie to have dogmatic fictional beliefs and values like that of morality or ethics much as they are the only unique specie to have religious dogma centered around a imaginary idol which they call god.

The origins of morals and ethics is a very similar one to the origin of religion and god if one was to trace their emergence within history with precision.

Alright.

Yet with any group dynamic you cannot generalize all individuals under one collective interest due to the fact that different individuals have different competing interests,goals, and desires.

( This is the failure of understanding on the part of socialists and collectivists which has caused me to question the social or collective nature of human beings.)

Sure.

I agree with the phsyical part but what are you talking about when it concerns psychology or instincts?

I consider myself entirely amoral am I somehow inhuman? ( Your generalizing with the human laws statement along with where you are trying to describe everybody to have the same needs and desires.)

What of the criminal who survives off of breaking rules? Are they somehow inhuman?

And what does it mean to be human? I had no idea there was some singular grand sweeping definition out there that is the final end all definition on the subject.

Explain in depth that comment.

No I didn’t say that. I believe when a person describes themselves as the fittest but is also at the sametime unable to fend for themselves without a safety net of some sort by a outside agency outside of themselves is a poser where such a social interaction nullifies natural selection and stifles it.

The fittest members have no need or use of safety nets of any kind.

To me the fittest get to their position of power by their own undertaking and individual autonomy without the aid of any outside agency or others. ( That right there is why they are the fittest because of their power within their own individual autonomy.)

Were not talking about camouflage here. Or are you comparing morals, ethics, laws, and rules of engagement as a sort of fictional facade of camouflage used by the weak to get what they want where they otherwise would be unable to get what they wanted without it? :sunglasses:

I suppose. What your describing is kinda like how bishops accumulated power in medieval times by using a religious myth to burn people they considered social heretics alive on pyres.

What they used in myth didn’t really exist beyond myth but since people believed in myths to such a great extent it became a useful asset to the power of bishops who successfully manipulated people with superstition of them.

What you have there is just the use of deception by preying upon people’s beliefs.

(It’s more parasitical if you ask me.)

So a old lady who has a hundred dollars snatched out of her hands by a younger more stronger physically male is the more fittest because she called the police to locate her stolen money for her where she was unable to do so by herself?

That doesn’t make much sense to me.

Is this your definition of the more fittest? You must forgive me if I laugh a little… :laughing:

Your understanding of Darwinian selection is flawed.

Selection goes according to the fittest within an environment. The polar bear is the fittest large land predator in Arctic surroundings, but wouldn’t do too well in the Sahara. Fitness has little to do with greater physical strength or size, so much as appropriate allocation of resources for the environment.

Society is the environment in which humans operate. Social sensitivity, empathy and the ability to manipulate others without arousing resentment are all qualities that count for social success. As is social conformity, within boundaries, or at least the appearance thereof.

You’re missing your own point, in fact. The purse-snatching thug is not a successful human; he may be able-bodied, but very few of them get rich or make anything of their lives. The successful exploiters of others’ weakness are the unscrupulous business owners and politicians, the upper classes you claim are not the fittest - they are exactly the fittest for the environment. Not the strongest, but the most aware, intelligent, manipulators of their environment. They do not breed the fastest, for sure, but they are expert at keeping power close to them, which perpetuates their grouping.

Darwin never used the term survival of the fittest in such simplistic terms, fit just means adaptable. It does lead to erroneous conclusions especially in social Darwinism which leads to the idea that only the strongest will survive or some attribute makes survival inevitable. Should we only select those we determine at any given moment to be successful? In fact the survival of those most able to adapt to their environment is what he meant. Those who are the most able to change survive; the strongest, the most intelligent, the most socially subservient, the most inhuman, the most independent, the most compassionate, the most manipulative, the least vulnerable to x may all loose out to their opposites if they don’t evolve to meet the needs of the environment in which they belong.

Everything is in flux in nature at least, being strong in one area may only be beneficial if there is success inherent in that strength, it may not last in a changing environment; it could be that being weak in that area even might lead to a fitter individual. Short legs are bad for running away so they die out, short legs are better for climbing trees and thus avoiding the need to expend energy in running away, so after learning the behaviour the “weak” re-emerge as kings. Having no money is bad in a capitalist society, should society collapse, the skills you learnt in making the most of virtually nothing may well enable you to survive above those reliant on their wealth.

Natural selection if you’re going to use it for humans (and I don’t advise it without caveats) is the selection of the dynamic in a dynamic, or those who aren’t stagnated by the status quo in an environment that is subject to change. For example economics is fairly chaotic, those who play the same game eternally will often end up being caught up in a herd which can’t change direction because they are subservient to conventional rules. Thus economists who are capable of adapting are now able to see that they shouldn’t bank on the usual. They are “fitter” than the herd. If that behaviour that determines the herd becomes viable though, then they rejoin the heard, bearing in mind that gravy trains are changeable, they have learnt not to be subject to conformity. They are adaptable.

Why is being a successful criminal considered a heinous form of behavior, interaction, and form of survival when a thief, murderer, and rapist are called into question or discussion when it concerns natural selection in a evolutionary enviroment?

On the one hand people say that natural selection goes according to the fittest within an environment yet on the other specific behaviors are outlawed or ridiculed as illegal forms of behavior when it concerns competing.

If natural selection goes according to the most fittest within an environment why isn’t stealing, murdering, and raping acceptable viable behaviors for competition?

( Why does society tend to limit competition by making certain distinct behaviors unattainable or illegal?)

( To me to limit competition in such a way stifles natural selection in that I think all behaviors should be accepted as acceptable forms of competition. I believe competition should have no limits and that in a genuine existence of natural selection there are no limits or rules of engagement of any kind.)

( I believe the moment you limit competition with rules of engagement natural selection is stifled.)

SavagePostModern:

Point out to me even just one human being who has achieved power completely on their own, completely? No one is completely autonomous. Even notwithstanding, meglomanics like a Stalin or Mussolini or Hitler, whoever, there had to be some outside influence or connection to something or someone.

Really, who undertakes and assumes power by their very own will and in a completely autonomous way? Even the inner power and independence which you may feel you have achieved, and yes, you have, is because of your resistance to others and their influence upon you. Psychologically speaking, it is there, though unconsciously - you just don’t see it. Of course, that doesn’t mean it is right or wrong…it simply is what it is - it exists but not by its very own taking. [-X

Is there really any such society that isn’t like this? Maybe the labels would be different, the attire different, but the general structure’s the same. The difference in capitalism, at least in theory, and in practice today to a certain degree, is that the vast majority of people have the opportunity to climb the ranks - perhaps not all the way to the top, but to find a relatively comfortable niche - which is more than can be said for other sociopolitical systems around the world. Do you have something better in mind?

It is considered heinous because it harms the society. You seem to have fetishised nature above civilisation, but wild dogs live in social groupings, and certain behaviours are punished with ostracism - which in harsh environments such as the savannah is almost a death sentence. Many primates also live in social groups wherein antisocial behaviour is punished. Ants and bees live in social groupings; although they don’t have the power to act independently, ‘malfunctioning’ members of the society are killed and removed.

In all of these cases, the social behaviour is what keeps the societies in question evolutionarily fit. And breeding within the societies does not necessarily follow the rule of survival of the fittest as you understand it - but on a larger scale, the societies with the fitter rules and selection procedures will tend to win out over competing, inferior societies.

Why do you believe in natural selection as the best method of optimisation? It’s left us with all sorts of inefficiencies, it’s a wasteful design process.

Which values are you trying to promote?

Hypothetical question: If you open the door one morning and were punched in the face by someone who went on to rape and murder your partner and steal all your valuables, do you think you’d have the courage of your convictions not to involve the police but to chalk it up to your version of “natural selection”?

Then there should be no limits imposed on those who wish to compete by way of deceiving and brainwashing their competition into believing that they should respect certain (moral?) limits.