Modern medicine means now that people who would have previously died are being saved, living longer, and sireing their own offspring.

Surely this is affecting the generations to come whereby they are inheriting dodgy gene stains which would have otherwise died out.

Survival of the fittest?

More like survival of the cleverist (man)
Or perhaps even survival of the richest.

Discuss.

darwin never said 'survival of the fittest'

If it really was survival of the fittest surely the gorgeous Linsey Dawn Mckenzie will forever. No bad thing in isaacs eyes.

Do you know what 'survival of the fittest' means? It doesn't mean 'survival of the most agile' opr even 'survival of the strongest'. It means 'survival of the most suitable to their environment. So, you could say that in being the most cunning and ruthless, human beings are the fittest even though there are thousands of species that can lift more than us and beat us over 100 meters. Or even 100 miles.

As for your suggestion that we are weakening the gene pool by allowing 'dodgy gene strains': you might have a point, even if it is one that has been made by successive generations of Nazis and racial purists. As I see it, the salient points are:

1) Even if it were true that genes could be split into 'more desirable' and 'less desirable' (genes have complex and non-linear funtions, in many cases impossible to analyse and predict) impoverishment of the gene pool has potential risks attached far greater than any posed by leaving it intact.

2) So, you sort it out and create your master-race (because that's the logical conclusion of what you propose): what then? Who cares? Are you any happier? Presumably not, becuase you're seen as a dangerous pathogen, to be eradicted from this Brave New World [sic].

Fuckit. we're human. We get sick. We die. You are not Whatsisname McLeod. Deal with it.

Jesus, it was only something i was mulling over. Relax

Dazzla:

You really have to except that people don't necessarily share the same opinions as you. Just because someone doesn't have the same 'wealth of knowledge' as you, it doesn't mean that you have to deliberately attempt to criticise them or make them feel 'stupid'.

I think you can be a good poster Dazzla, but from reading your recent posts, it would seem to me you are on some sort of power trip...

And this is my opinion....deal with it.

And before you launch one of your trademark tirades, this is not a personal attack (i'm not like that), but a mere observation of your messageboard behaviour as of late...

i don't think he was having a go at crunt, he can just be a bit 'strident' and was just referring to a vague unspecified 'you' out there

now lets all be friends :D

Unochild:

Yes, there are opinions that I have, most of which have been arrived at after consideration and examination. In this case (as in many other where you seem to think I have indulged in 'some sort of power trip') I think it's neccesary that someone point out that what is being suggested actually has some very sinister historical and social implications and that a knee-jerk response is dangerous and blinkered.

I accept that things like:


You are not Whatsisname McLeod. Deal with it.


Might appear a little forceful, and I actually got the subjunctive wrong. What I meant was more: "We are not Whatsisname Mcleod. We are all going to die. We should deal with it"

Possibly the problem is that I am hugely busy at the mo, and am trying to anticipate opposition to my point of view so I can get it all down as concisely as possible. I should probably give it a rest until I've got a bit more time on my hands, but it's not illegal to put forward convincing, thought-through arguments to support your point of view. I can either shut up, give up and ask my newsagent to start delivering The Sun; or I can argue my point of view as effectively as I know how.

It strikes me that if a few more people spent as much time thinking about current affairs issues and histrorical events as they did rubbishing other contributors for being 'know-alls' or 'power-trippers' the quality of debate here might be raised. I apologise to anyone who thinks that there was any kind of deliberate design or conspiracy to make them look stupid. I never intended to make anyone look stupid, except those who clearly are ;)

Anyway, back on topic. Aldous Huxley had a lot to say about this in 'Brave New World'. Any thoughts on this?

Added in a later edit:

i don't think he was having a go at crunt, he can just be a bit 'strident' and was just referring to a vague unspecified 'you' out there

Spot on, Hugo. Thanks for your perception.

Dazzla wrote

"Anyway, back on topic. Aldous Huxley had a lot to say about this in 'Brave New World'. Any thoughts on this"?

I have. but they're lost in the maelstrom of my mind.

Dazzla spouted:
Unochild:

It strikes me that if a few more people spent as much time thinking about current affairs issues and histrorical events as they did rubbishing other contributors for being 'know-alls' or 'power-trippers' the quality of debate here might be raised.

I have never rubbished your contribution to Dogbomb at all....As i've said I think you can be a good poster who expresses their opinions in a well thought and concise manner. I was merely stating my current perception of you based on your recent posts... If my perception was wrong, I will hold my hands up and admit it..

Anyway :

Have never read Brave New World, although from the excellence that was The Doors Of Perception, I know I should.

survival of the fittest means just that. Not survival of the rightious, or survival of the wrong.
On an person to person level, we have a society shaped around the idea of obedience to the law, a set of arbitary morals set down to the state. In this scenario, its the people that dont go to extreme lengths, and end up in prison that are worst off
Contrast that to the situation on a country level where there is no effective policeing of actions. The US is the country with the least morals and scruples, and unfortunatly it prospers for exactly this fact. Because there is noone to stop them, they go to extreme lengths because they feel they have to to ensure their sphere of influence remains untouched.

Uno, I wasn't talking about you. I've never seen you lower the level of debate or over-simplify a complex argument. There are a lot of people who do this, though.

Anyway, enough of this back-slapping. yes, you really should read Brave New World. It describes a world where everyone and everything is rigidly controlled and stratified and gauged by their usefulness to society. Nothing that is not directly beneficial to the stability of society is allowed to exist or propagate and everything is geared to consumerism. As a result, the society produced is stable but completely sterile.

Doors of Perception is also wicked, but a subject for another thread.

Dazzla spouted:

Doors of Perception is also wicked, but a subject for another thread.

Certainly was, but Huxley made reference to things that made me doubt his knowledge of genetics and stuff, he talked briefly about how heightened colour sense is a biological luxury in humans, not sure if this is the case, I think people like David Attemborough would argue that strong colour sense is a neccesarry survival skill.

Huxleys theories were interesting, especially in relation to the mind being an eliminatve organ which filters information out rather than constructing information (In know this wasn't his own theory, but he expanded on it).

In relation to the topic, perhaps evolution is improving our colour sense and cognitive processes as we become creatures of leisure and not because they are necessary to our survival.

On a lighter note - can any of our American friends confirm that in some states it is illegal to teach Darwinism as the "we are all the result of millions of years of evolution" theory slightly contradicts the "God made the world in 6 days" theory.

I heard that Drawin's theories were banned from Schools in certain Southern states (the same ones that legalised Polygamy)

For a watered down, easy to digest Hollywood version of Brave New World, watch Demolition Man with Sly Stallone and Wesley Snipes, the similarities are remarkable.

Yes Crunt - if it were the dark ages then people with poor eyesight would get killed by lions meaning they are unable to reproduce (being dead) so therefore the bad genes are stopped. This would be the case with other such undesirable traits and so I believe its correct to say that the survival of the fittest idea is no longer taking place.

Surely "survival of the fittest" refers to the survival of the fittest within a species not a human being eaten by a lion. More that a fitter lion would get the food ahead of a less fit lion.
But then I'm not David Attenborough.

magicguppy spouted:
On a lighter note - can any of our American friends confirm that in some states it is illegal to teach Darwinism as the "we are all the result of millions of years of evolution" theory slightly contradicts the "God made the world in 6 days" theory.

I heard that Drawin's theories were banned from Schools in certain Southern states (the same ones that legalised Polygamy)

A minor but not, I think, pedantic point:

There is a difference between the Theory of Eveolution (which is a purely scientific hypothesis) and the movement known as 'Darwinism'. The latter is a socio-political movement with, for many, slightly distasteful ideas about how humans should be governed. Their ideas are based around the assertion that the human gene pool requires 'pruning' to survive and that 'weak' genes should be allowed to wither and leave the pool.

Huxley subscribed to a theory known as social Darwinism which propunded rule by sceince, a select group of scientists running the world for the good of all.

And if that doesn't terrify you, I don't know what would.

Ace: have you read Nietzsche? One of your posts back there summarised his ideas perfectly.

AI Guzzler it doesnt matter if its eyesight and a lion or some other instance. The weaker members of the human race would be culled - thats the point.

Another instance would be children born with mental or physical disabilities - they would surely not be able to survive in the "wild" - however in today's world of human dominance these people are taken care of internally. Same with the people with poor eyesight - they get glasses, contacts or laser treatment. Oh and there arent lions roaming freely where i live anyway.

Dazzla I haven't read Nietzsche but I remember something about having confidence and pretending to have confidence being the same thing. Which I thought was pretty sound thinking. Do you recommend any texts in particular?

this is my favourite Nietzsche saying "Wann Du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickst der Abgrund auch in Dich hinein"

Ace_mcfly said

"Oh and there arent lions roaming freely where i live anyway."

I only mentioned lions in response to a posting which now ...(strokes chin)... seems to have vanished! Hmmmmmm... inscrutable!

HMMMMMMMM! A.L.Guzzler now sits down to huge plate of humble pie (MMMMMMM, PIE!) as previous posting stares him in the face & was actually there all the time. Ho Hum... soz

Darwin inspired me to become a biologist.

Ach, he was great wasn't he!

magicguppy spouted:
On a lighter note - can any of our American friends confirm that in some states it is illegal to teach Darwinism?

Not yer actual Septic meself but as of August 1999 Kansas at least had banned teaching evolution. See this article http://extra.shu.ac.uk/rinr/pri-old/scripts/resources/uploaded/controversy.doc.
(All the depth one would expect from a uk academic authority.)

A lot of this anti-Darwin shite started with the Christian Fundamentalists flying their airplane of hatred into the twin towers of science and rationalism in the "Scopes Trial" http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/scopes.htm

Sadly, it seems they are returning.

I got taught at uni at some point that when you take darwin in his social context and look at the time he was writing, his ideas on survival of the fittest fit in quite nicely with the industrial ideas of the time. I am not disputing evolution or the origin of the species, but there are other elements to nature that don't seem to fit in with the idea of only the fittest surviving, for example the idea of the welfare state, the NHS and the BBC's obligation to educate the masses are things that Britain is envied for throughout the world. Perhaps I'm being romantic but there is also an element to humanity that seeks to care for those who are less able and protect and help them.

ace_mcfly spouted:

Dazzla I haven't read Nietzsche but I remember something about having confidence and pretending to have confidence being the same thing. Which I thought was pretty sound thinking.

I think that's dead right too.

Anyways, sod reading Neitzsche. Much too hard. Better to just memorise a couple of his aphorisms, quote them at will, and make everybody think you've read the whole texts.

What I think is that if survival of the fittest is a law of nature, and then we've changed our environment to suit that law for us, then it wouldn't mean that the law of nature itself has become any stronger or weaker (if that's possible) and so from there you can't really say that it needs help, or needs to stop being helped. It's like creating a god of evolution and giving that god the characteristics of Shiva the destroyer, which compared to the original scientific definition of evolution isn't correct, and in my view shouldn't be mixed up with it.

I agree that theres too many people on the planet but I don't forget to include myself in that number, it's like what someone said about when you are in a car everything else but you is traffic. So if I'm going to suggest cannabalism as an answer I'm going to be thinking if it would suit me being murdered until the point that my environment becomes untollerable, actually I'm not I'm telling lies..I can't imagine eating (as in digesting, food..) another human, but I've read that it happens if it's life or death.

Where survival of the fittest becomes most noticable to anyone their aspirations would deviate from it, the pleasure is in having dealt with any threat and that results from need and when the need is gone then theres no way to satisfy that need. Seeking to be constantly under threat isn't a need for most of us and there will have been good reason for that. You can also see that in nature theres a whole lot of things that just seem pointless, it's as if it does what it has to where it has to by selection, but as well as that it pretty much trys to get away with whatever it can.

Moved to mass debate

Malthus spouted
The effects of this check remain now to be considered.

Among plants and animals the view of the subject is simple. They are all impelled by a powerful instinct to the increase of their species; and this instinct is interrupted by no reasoning, or doubts about providing for their offspring. Wherever therefore there is liberty, the power of increase is exerted; and the superabundant effects are repressed afterwards by want of room and nourishment, which is common to animals and plants; and among animals, by becoming the prey of others.

The effects of this check on man are more complicated.

Impelled to the increase of his species by an equally powerful instinct, reason interrupts his career, and asks him whether he may not bring beings into the world, for whom he cannot provide the means of subsistence. In a state of equality, this would be the simple question. In the present state of society, other considerations occur. Will he not lower his rank in life? Will he not subject himself to greater difficulties than he at present feels? Will he not be obliged to labour harder? and if he has a large family, will his utmost exertions enable him to support them? May he not see his offspring in rags and misery, and clamouring for bread that he cannot give them? And may he not be reduced to the grating necessity of forfeiting his independence, and of being obliged to the sparing hand of charity for support?

These considerations are calculated to prevent, and certainly do prevent, a very great number in all civilized nations from pursuing the dictate of nature in an early attachment to one woman. And this restraint almost necessarily, though not absolutely so, produces vice. Yet in all societies, even those that are most vicious, the tendency to a virtuous attachment is so strong, that there is a constant effort towards an increase of population. This constant effort as constantly tends to subject the lower classes of the society to distress, and to prevent any great permanent amelioration of their condition.

The way in which these effects are produced seems to be this.

We will suppose the means of subsistence in any country just equal to the easy support of its inhabitants. The constant effort towards population, which is found to act even in the most vicious societies, increases the number of people before the means of subsistence are increased. The food therefore which before supported seven millions, must now be divided among seven millions and a half or eight millions.

The poor consequently must live much worse, and many of them be reduced to severe distress. The number of labourers also being above t the proportion of the work in the market, the price of labour must tend toward a decrease; while the price of provisions would at the same time tend to rise. The labourer therefore must work harder to earn the same as he did before. During this season of distress, the discouragements to marriage, and the difficulty of rearing a family are so great, that population is at a stand. In the mean time the cheapness of labour, the plenty of labourers, and the necessity of an increased industry amongst them, encourage cultivators to employ more labour upon their land; to turn up fresh soil, and to manure and improve more completely what is already in tillage; till ultimately the means of: subsistence become in the same proportion to the population as at the period from which we set out. The situation of the labourer being then again tolerably comfortable, the restraints to population are in some degree loosened; and the same retrograde and progressive movements with respect to happiness are repeated....



Just love that guy............... Discuss?

Yikes. Well for one he's objectified primordial will as belonging to an objectified thing and given it various characteristics and applied it to the human condition by extension. Thinking and being are not in reality able to be proven separate from it any more than they can be proven logically to be of it, I much prefer the poem or song that says "you are a child of the universe, you have a right to be here, just like the trees and the stars" to this way of seeing things, but even that has dangers if seen in a certain way - as if forgetting that this reality also includes things like death and disease.

In Buddhism I believe the Buddha to have said there are two extreems of view to be avoided, one is eternity belief and the other is annihilation belief, and although the context of what he said relates to what people think happens after death the same principle applies here, and that scientific view is flawed in that it's based on an axiom and then proposes that things are set in stone from that point on, although there is a lot of good information in that text I'm picking up on what I disagree with only. In ancient societys I've read about the young men were sent out into the forest to fend for themselves, when some were older and been through many fights and seen friends die they realised the value of working together and returned to the village, which just goes to show things are not set in stone.

Were only human, I think that if we were really thirsty we would more likely say that a river that we might drink from was working in our favour instead of it being some menacing thing that cuts through rock and is completley selfish, which to me is no more mad than saying flowers or whatever are in a war with each other, that might be an effective way of putting science across but it seems that science is more than ever prepared to take on the "why" question instead of just the "what" which in turn takes it towards religion so if it does go that way, it really owes it's scientific credentials to find out the "what" of religion, much of it may be outdated rubbish but values other than the attainment of knowledge for it's own sake, things that when applied make a better society just for the reason that they work for us shouldn't be lost sight of because of science being valued for it's own sake above other things.

Amen !

geeks

damn not being able to edit. sorry...

This made think about cultures that feel strongly about ancestors and can trace their lineage back for hundreds of years by memory. Im wondering if this is a subconcious way of keeping a genetic tab on where we've come from?

Not clear at all I'll need to go and write this in word so I can edit it as I go.

Aborigine maps are interesting, it's a different perspective.