DOn’t think this is much of an argument.
I’m not sure “fittness” is that useful.
Yes, it does. Of course. Duh!
Only then, if he is supported by liberalism, socialism and other modern isms. … You do not want to become a travelling train hobo, do you?
Exactly.
Yes, although I do not think that it is only a thing of socialism but of liberalism and other modern isms as well. It is typical for modern humans.
This can only be certainly said if the environment is a natural environment - and not a human cultural environment. In a human cultural environment idiot criminals can be punished or not - thus: it depends on the human cultural (especially political) environment whether criminal idiots proliferate or not. This idiot criminals can be punished by death and do not proliferate but die out, and the same idiot criminals can be revered as heroes and do not die out but proliferate.
You can easily observe this.
I don’t think that putting declared/judged criminals to death affects the future population much at all. Most have already had whatever children they were going to have.
It’s possible to organize and kill all people who have red hair. A subsequent examination would lead to the conclusion that red-haired people were not well adapted to the environment.
The fact that it was an organized act brought on by ‘culture’ is not important in terms of evolution. Stuff happens and whoever survives was the fittest to survive.
If that was true, you were not communicating with the people from all over the world without moving an inch from your place. It becomes possible for you because of the contributions of the many generations in the past.
Contribution does not mean merely empathy or helping others. Whatever one does in any field, small or big, is contribution. Yes, it may be either positive or negative.
And, this capacity of contribution is precisely what differs humans from other animals. Animals are unable to contribute to their society. That is why they are there where they were thousands of years ago, but humans evolved continuously.
With love,
Sanjay
To be judged by so called contribution to society is to admit being owned by it.
This thread proves once again the hilarity and absurdity of evolution. Naturally evolution has no direction or final destination despite what the Social Darwinians would like to pretend everybody else should believe in.
I think it would, since most politicians and people in power are criminals. If you put them to death it would radically change the infrastructure (for the better.) I recommend starting with China, pollution in that nation has reached apocalyptic levels.
In the short run, maybe, but not in the long run, and evolution is more about the development in the long run.
Exactly.
The fact that it was an organized act brought on by culture is important in the long run. Thus it depends on time and on the capability of the humans to circumvent the nature by culture.
False dichotomy of nature and culture. Evolutionary theory does not care about such things because it cannot identify why some trait survives and why it dies out. Nor does it care. The ‘environment’ is too complex to identify single direct causes.
It is not really a dichotomy, because culture is embedded in nature.
Which evolutinary theory? That is the question. And the next and more important question is: Is it false?
What do you exactly mean by “identify single direct causes”?
There is a VERY good reason why the NATURE/CULTUREdichotomy is valid.
Natural evolution is restricted to the transmission of genes, whilst cultural selection concerns the transmission of memes or ideas, technologies, knowledge and belief systems.
Whilst genetic evolution relies on natural selection thought the differential breeding success of individuals within species; and competition between species; Social or Cultural evolution is the success of ideas. These ideas or memes are not immutable units of heritability in the same way that genes are.
Social and cultural evolution is more like Lamarkism in that specific solutions can be chose in light of the circumstances by human agents and does not need to rely on random variations and mutations.
The point about Social Evolution is that people can chose. So duh yeah it can have direction.
Yes, subjectively and relatively speaking. Objectively? No.
True.
But, why fear the reality and run from it?
Just because it puts some responsibility on one’s shoulders?
That is what true maleness is; not to run away from the responsibilities but own those willingly as they come in the life.
With love,
Sanjay
Into???
Sometimes evolution really doesn’t know when to quit.
Yes, that happens. But, it will be learned eventually one day for sure.
With love,
Sanjay
You’re not talking about responsibility, you’re talking about indentured servitude. Good luck trying to sell that.
With magnificence,
LaughingMan
@ ALL
Genes and memes do not work in the same way. So Richard Dawkins’ meme theorie is false too.
In fact, it is not so original either. Cough Aristotle.