News2 mins ago
Evolution Vs the UK workers
10 Answers
If evolution favours the strong and the fit; If the purpose of evolution is to allow the fittest to survive and prosper; If the weakest are least likely to survive and procreate, then why does this nanny state provide benefits for those unable to work; those too ill/feeble to provide for themselves; and allow them to reproduce at a rate which will out number the workers of this world?
Does this make any sense? What do ABers think about this statement?
Does this make any sense? What do ABers think about this statement?
Answers
1 to 10 of 10
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Spoiled33. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I think you're confusing nature with civilisation, Vahran Touryan recalled as a boy that after he was "adopted" (too long a story to go into now) one of the servants in the house became ill with typhus, his "sister" decided that she was'nt getting any better and ordered another servant to dispose of her.
He did'nt see the act he said all he could remember was her scream, was his "sister" right?
He did'nt see the act he said all he could remember was her scream, was his "sister" right?
What you are talking about is social darwinianism.
It founded ideas like Eugenics and were popular in the early twentieth century.
Very popular with the Nazis it has a bad history.
Partly because Darwinian natural selection causes organisms to evolve to adapt to their environment but in the society we define the environment
Change the environment and different people prosper
It founded ideas like Eugenics and were popular in the early twentieth century.
Very popular with the Nazis it has a bad history.
Partly because Darwinian natural selection causes organisms to evolve to adapt to their environment but in the society we define the environment
Change the environment and different people prosper
Think of it this way
Do you have a good job? Are you educated? have a good upbringing?
What would you have been like if you'd been born to a teenage mum? maybe she had a boyfriend who hit you so you never went home, hung out with others like you and so started bunking off school. Maybe they started to break windows for a laugh so you joined in because you wanted to be accepted.
See where this is going?
On the other hand I saw a program on Chateau Margeau last night. Owned by the daughter of a greek millionaire who bought it and promptly dropped dead and left it to her.
How would you have done with an expensive education and a start like that?
It's the whole nature/nuture debate
If you want to believe in social Darwinism you have to believe that upbringing is not important or at least not very important.
That's what I mean by environment.
Otherwise when you let the weakest sink without offering them the opportunity to get out of that sort of background you waste huge human potential.
We have had great people in this country who've only become great because they got a lucky break.
Captain Cook was the son of a farm labourer who was allowed to join the navy rather than stay on the land.
Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith, a guy called William Dance took him under his wing and got him lecture seats in the Royal Institution.
How many others didn't get the chance that people like this did? and what did we lose because of it?
It's not the genes it's the environment
Do you have a good job? Are you educated? have a good upbringing?
What would you have been like if you'd been born to a teenage mum? maybe she had a boyfriend who hit you so you never went home, hung out with others like you and so started bunking off school. Maybe they started to break windows for a laugh so you joined in because you wanted to be accepted.
See where this is going?
On the other hand I saw a program on Chateau Margeau last night. Owned by the daughter of a greek millionaire who bought it and promptly dropped dead and left it to her.
How would you have done with an expensive education and a start like that?
It's the whole nature/nuture debate
If you want to believe in social Darwinism you have to believe that upbringing is not important or at least not very important.
That's what I mean by environment.
Otherwise when you let the weakest sink without offering them the opportunity to get out of that sort of background you waste huge human potential.
We have had great people in this country who've only become great because they got a lucky break.
Captain Cook was the son of a farm labourer who was allowed to join the navy rather than stay on the land.
Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith, a guy called William Dance took him under his wing and got him lecture seats in the Royal Institution.
How many others didn't get the chance that people like this did? and what did we lose because of it?
It's not the genes it's the environment
The expression "survival of the fittest" doesn't mean what you think it means. It doesn't mean that the strongest, most aggressive survive. It means that species which are the best adapted to their environments will survive. 'Fit' is meant in terms of 'suitable'.
Furthermore, the theory of evolution by natural selection is descriptive not prescriptive, which is to say it tells you how something is not how it should be. Just because we can observe evolution by natural selection taking place, it doesn't therefore follow that we must approve of it. Think of it this way; we can understand how HIV works without believing that it is admirable or something to emulate.
The phrase 'Survival of the Fittest' didn't even come from Darwin - it comes from Herbert Spencer - though Darwin did later include it in a revised On The Origin of Species. We should also note that Darwin explictly states that to seek to remove the weak and helpless from society would be dehumanising and evil.
It's right to acknowledge that in some respects human beings have sidestepped the traditional evolution through things like immunisation (if we didn't have our childhood jabs, very many fewer of us would survive to adulthood) and medical technology, and there are certainly some who have claimed human evolution has ceased - (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/10/ver y_peculiar.php) but it doesn't really make sense.
Firsty, it just changes the genetic diversity upon which natural selection can work and secondly, evolution takes a very long time. A lot of the advances in medical technology are far too recent for any effects to be seen.
Furthermore, the theory of evolution by natural selection is descriptive not prescriptive, which is to say it tells you how something is not how it should be. Just because we can observe evolution by natural selection taking place, it doesn't therefore follow that we must approve of it. Think of it this way; we can understand how HIV works without believing that it is admirable or something to emulate.
The phrase 'Survival of the Fittest' didn't even come from Darwin - it comes from Herbert Spencer - though Darwin did later include it in a revised On The Origin of Species. We should also note that Darwin explictly states that to seek to remove the weak and helpless from society would be dehumanising and evil.
It's right to acknowledge that in some respects human beings have sidestepped the traditional evolution through things like immunisation (if we didn't have our childhood jabs, very many fewer of us would survive to adulthood) and medical technology, and there are certainly some who have claimed human evolution has ceased - (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/10/ver y_peculiar.php) but it doesn't really make sense.
Firsty, it just changes the genetic diversity upon which natural selection can work and secondly, evolution takes a very long time. A lot of the advances in medical technology are far too recent for any effects to be seen.
1 to 10 of 10
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.