The News Thread

[Onder]

Yeah it's not survival of the smartest.

 

[UltimateApathy]

Well, it's smartest and strongest, but in human society the former usually matters more.

 

[tagradh]

It doesn't have to be any of these things. It's simply survival of the genes of those that manage to produce offspring.

Other primates take care of their old and their sick and what must be their retarded so it seems a safe bet that humans, which are surely the most social of primates, have always done so too.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

This part of the problem with the lack of teaching of Darwinian evolution in schools: most people have no idea what the theory actually impliea.

In the context of the phrase "survival of the fittest" the word "fit" means "reproducing the most possible offspring that are also capable of reproducing." An in-shape doctor making 200k a year with degrees from prestigious universities who doesn't plan to have kids (or even one kid) is far less fit than an obese high school dropout that works at a fast-food restaurant and has five kids.

The problem is people project the virtues they value (i.e. intelligence, strength) onto a biological theory.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Not in social societies where non-reproductive members can still improve the overall fitness of their family/community/species.

 

[CiG]

Or in the case of electing Donald Trump and voting for your country to leave the European Union, whoever makes the biggest mistakes and destroys the chance to even breed in the first place, is out of the game.

Which is why I said he has no idea what he's talking about.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Not in social societies where non-reproductive members can still improve the overall fitness of their family/community/species.

Family yes. Community (depending on how you define it) probably not and species, no. At that point you're developing an alternative theory of evolution.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Family yes. Community (depending on how you define it) probably not and species, no. At that point you're developing an alternative theory of evolution.

What are you specifically arguing against? UltimateApathy explicitly said that it's unfortunate that "survival of the fittest" aka the essential definition of evolution does not apply to modern human society, which is obvious being that society is not biological. Then he said that intelligence is a more important part of human society than strength, which I think anyone would be hard-pressed to disagree with with respect to developed nations. If you're being pedantic and your whole point is that there are other factors that can play a role, than duh, but the reason I have to ask is because you previously sperged out regurgitating a basic definition most people accept while failing to understand the slightest bit of metaphor and the purpose of the discussion, which is the progression of human society and how biological fitness isn't all that relevant to it.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

What are you specifically arguing against? UltimateApathy explicitly said that it's unfortunate that "survival of the fittest" aka the essential definition of evolution does not apply to modern human society, which is obvious being that society is not biological.

It's not obvious at all. In fact, it's categorically false.

The theory of evolution applies to all living beings in all environments. Being "fit" means reproducing much of your genotype as possible (with the most obvious way to do this being reproducing the most offspring capable of reproducing). Generally speaking, Fit=reproducing offspring that also reproduce. Doing so means being adapted to one's environment. Society is an element of the human environment. Therefore, claiming that the theory of evolution doesn't apply to modern society is false and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the theory.

Then he said that intelligence is a more important part of human society than strength, which I think anyone would be hard-pressed to disagree with with respect to developed nations.

That's a tricky hypothesis to evaluate. If we assume that there is a correlation between education and intelligence (already a big assumption that I am not willing to commit to), then the idea that being of above average intelligence is not necessarily evolutionarily beneficial. I know of studies showing that the more educated a woman is, the less offspring she is likely to have. I'm not sure if the same holds for men. I'm not sure what alternative way you would suggest testing theory.

If you're being pedantic and your whole point is that there are other factors that can play a role, than duh, but the reason I have to ask is because you previously sperged out regurgitating a basic definition most people accept while failing to understand the slightest bit of metaphor and the purpose of the discussion, which is the progression of human society and how biological fitness isn't all that relevant to it.

Way too many people conflate biological evolutionary theory with "social Darwinism," which is a pseudoscience. I do feel a responsibility to point it out when I see it.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

It's not obvious at all. In fact, it's categorically false.

The theory of evolution applies to all living beings in all environments. Being "fit" means reproducing much of your genotype as possible (with the most obvious way to do this being reproducing the most offspring capable of reproducing). Generally speaking, Fit=reproducing offspring that also reproduce. Doing so means being adapted to one's environment. Society is an element of the human environment. Therefore, claiming that the theory of evolution doesn't apply to modern society is false and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the theory.

I don't understand how you reconcile this and the post immediately previous where you say evolution is something unrelated to community and species. If human society is part of human environment, then you would seemingly have to acknowledge that there are biological traits necessary for the maintenance of human society.

That's a tricky hypothesis to evaluate. If we assume that there is a correlation between education and intelligence (already a big assumption that I am not willing to commit to), then the idea that being of above average intelligence is not necessarily evolutionarily beneficial. I know of studies showing that the more educated a woman is, the less offspring she is likely to have. I'm not sure if the same holds for men. I'm not sure what alternative way you would suggest testing theory.

Again, you're autistically jumping to claims no one is making. No one mentioned education to begin with, and no one is saying that intelligence or education specifically fits the literal definition of maximizing biological fitness, with UltimateApathy in fact saying quite the opposite. If your whole argument is that people use the word in ways less literal than what it actually means, then you are a hypocrite for suggesting that bands evolve when the Led Zeppelin discography has nothing to do with the biological fitness of the band members.

All I'm getting out of your argument so far is that you're going to ACKCHYUALLY all over what is obvious and miss the point people are trying to make.

Way too many people conflate biological evolutionary theory with "social Darwinism," which is a pseudoscience. I do feel a responsibility to point it out when I see it.

Social Darwinism doesn't really pretend to be a science, it's a political philosophy. In any case, fitness doesn't sufficiently account for the full breadth of things important to human societies, where we possess consciousness capable of creating artificial selection and avoiding the natural selective pressures that existed for billions of years prior to our consciousness, and where we operate in complex social structures that promote the success of tribes, towns, and nation states. Fitness means the ability of an individual to produce reproduction-capable individuals; OK. I'm not talking about that and I don't think UltimateApathy is talking about then when we're talking the things that optimize the progression of a human society.

 

[Dak]

Social Darwinism would render a different pattern of "fitness" than the Idiocracy-patterned neoliberal social democracies prefer. Ultimately, the IQ shredder currently employed via neoliberal welfarism is going to necessitate a hard correction, as there will be no persons left who know that Brawndo isn't for plants. The pain Mort et all complains about will look like park walks vs the hard corrections necessitated by their champion policies. The alternative is the paperclip optimizer consumes all. Also thanks to the Mort-Hayek truce.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

I don't understand how you reconcile this and the post immediately previous where you say evolution is something unrelated to community and species.

I never said it was unrelated to commuinties or species. If you want to engage in an intellectual discussion with me you, you're gonna need to step up your level of precision. I'm sure you're capable of following my reasoning, if you focus...

1. I claimed that Fit=reproducing offspring that also reproduce

2. You claimed that wasn't the case in societies where individuals could improve the sucess of their community/species.

3. I generally (but not categorically) rejected this claim with regard to communities. Let me explain why. The smaller the community, the more plausible, or at least testable, your hypothesis is. If we're talking about a tribe of 200 people, it is at least possible to test if non-reproducing members can improve the spread of their gene-pool. However, even in that case, it would take a very massive and extensive level of observation to test, and even then it would be extremely diffuclt to limit other variables. If we're speaking of "community" as in modern nation-states (or even modern cities, or large neighborhoods), then the theory becomes so weak that it can be dismissed outright because a. the impact of the individual becomes virtually impossible to measure and therefore the hypothesis is untestable (and thus is a bad hypothesis) and b. depending on the behavior or action you have in mind, the impact on the gene pool is likely too broad (i.e. it won't just be benefiting those with a high gene-match).

The "species theory" is even more absurd, since obviously expanding to the entire human gene-pool exasperates the problems the "community theory" has exponentially.

If human society is part of human environment, then you would seemingly have to acknowledge that there are biological traits necessary for the maintenance of human society.

Of course. But nothing I said implied otherwise. No idea where this is coming from.

Again, you're autistically jumping to claims no one is making. No one mentioned education to begin with, and no one is saying that intelligence or education specifically fits the literal definition of maximizing biological fitness, with UltimateApathy in fact saying quite the opposite. If your whole argument is that people use the word in ways less literal than what it actually means, then you are a hypocrite for suggesting that bands evolve when the Led Zeppelin discography has nothing to do with the biological fitness of the band members.

Fallacy of equivocation. Obviously the word "evolution" means something different when talking about a band then when talking about biology. Again, you're gonna need to step up your game if you want to engage in intellectual discussion with me.

Social Darwinism doesn't really pretend to be a science, it's a political philosophy. In any case, fitness doesn't sufficiently account for the full breadth of things important to human societies, where we possess consciousness capable of creating artificial selection and avoiding the natural selective pressures that existed for billions of years prior to our consciousness, and where we operate in complex social structures that promote the success of tribes, towns, and nation states. Fitness means the ability of an individual to produce reproduction-capable individuals; OK. I'm not talking about that and I don't think UltimateApathy is talking about then when we're talking the things that optimize the progression of a human society.

Fitness applies regardless of scientific changes. Even if 100% of women chose their sperm from a sperm bank, the theory would still apply. Whichever attributes women selected would be the ones that would then qualify as fit. The universality to all life in all environmental conditions is much of the beauty Darwin's theory.

As for Social Darwinism, it is a pseudoscience, and if you doubt me just look up the history of its use for yourself. I find it boring debating verifiable facts with someone who has Google.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I never said it was unrelated to commuinties or species. If you want to engage in an intellectual discussion with me you, you're gonna need to step up your level of precision.

You said that non-reproductive members of a group larger than family cannot improve the fitness of reproductive members. If a man never has children, but invents an industrial process which greatly improves the efficiency of growing food, allowing larger populations to be sustainable, has he not by definition improved the fitness of all those that reap the benefits of the process?

I'm sure you're capable of following my reasoning, if you focus...

1. I claimed that Fit=reproducing offspring that also reproduce

2. You claimed that wasn't the case in societies where individuals could improve the sucess of their community/species.

I'm not denying claim 1 by also stating claim 2. I accept your definition of fitness. I'm saying that in addition to it, non-reproductive members can improve the fitness of others.

3. I generally (but not categorically) rejected this claim with regard to communities. Let me explain why. The smaller the community, the more plausible, or at least testable, your hypothesis is. If we're talking about a tribe of 200 people, it is at least possible to test if non-reproducing members can improve the spread of their gene-pool. However, even in that case, it would take a very massive and extensive level of observation to test, and even then it would be extremely diffuclt to limit other variables. If we're speaking of "community" as in modern nation-states (or even modern cities, or large neighborhoods), then the theory becomes so weak that it can be dismissed outright because a. the impact of the individual becomes virtually impossible to measure and therefore the hypothesis is untestable (and thus is a bad hypothesis) and b. depending on the behavior or action you have in mind, the impact on the gene pool is likely too broad (i.e. it won't just be benefiting those with a high gene-match).

The "species theory" is even more absurd, since obviously expanding to the entire human gene-pool exasperates the problems the "community theory" has exponentially.

I think you're fundamentally confusing testability and falsifiability. A hypothesis can be valid, albeit perhaps not too meaningful, even if the resources, mathematics, etc aren't yet available to test it. Gravitational waves had been postulated to exist for over 100 years, and prominent physicists tried for a long time to detect them to no avail. That would be a "bad hypothesis" according to you, yet they were detected just last year thanks to better technology.

However, a hypothesis cannot be valid if it is by design not testable, e.g. "Black metal has good riffs but they are impossible for human beings to observe".

If you have a specific reason to believe that inclusive fitness is by definition untestable, please provide it.

Of course. But nothing I said implied otherwise. No idea where this is coming from.

If biological traits (meaning heritable alleles) involved in forming and/or maintaining human society exist, and if human society generally improves the fitness of those that participate in it, then how is that not an example of individuals (the people possessing the traits) improving the fitness of all those within society?

Fitness applies regardless of scientific changes. Even if 100% of women chose their sperm from a sperm bank, the theory would still apply. Whichever attributes women selected would be the ones that would then qualify as fit. The universality to all life in all environmental conditions is much of the beauty Darwin's theory.

As for Social Darwinism, it is a pseudoscience, and if you doubt me just look up the history of its use for yourself. I find it boring debating verifiable facts with someone who has Google.

Applies to what? I'm not trying to change the definition of fitness or saying that it goes away just because social hierarchy and non-biological modes of inheritance exist. I'm saying that in a social and political context, there is a benefit to selecting for those that improve the viability of society at the expense of those technically more biologically fit.

And again, it's not a pseudoscience because it doesn't pretend to be a science. That's like calling religion a pseudoscience; Creationism when taught as if science, sure. "Thou shalt not kill", not pseudoscience. Social Darwinism is broadly just an argument that aspects of society, such as free market forces, should be used to reduce the fitness of those that cannot compete according to rules of said society.

 

[arg]

I think the world and mankind itself would be better off if they were smarter and prettier and less.

Unfortunately the ugly and stupid reproduce more. We're fucked unless there's a mass cleansing

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

 

[CF87]

North Korea is going to take out new york city and surrounding states and their own geographical area , if you live in upstate new york or florida and stuff you will be ok, I find this kinda interesting because Texas just got wiped out.

 

[Nate Skalman]

Liberals should start digging their own graves then, lol. Gotta admit...ultimatecrapathy is good at dragging people into intelligence insulting arguments...really? arguing about the definition of survival of the fittest? Ah...junior high memories....

 

[CiG]

Hillary dindu nuffin.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ake-on-bernie-sanders/?utm_term=.a64d72330601

Hillary Clinton's book is due out next week. And judging by a page that was just tweeted by one of her staunchest supporters — not to mention plenty of other evidence — it's likely to include a heaping dose of score-settling.

That includes with Bernie Sanders.

In the passage that was tweeted out Monday evening by Tom Watson, Clinton attacks some of Sanders's supporters for being “sexist” and suggests the Vermont senator doesn't have the Democratic Party's true interests at heart. Most notably, she also intimates that he may not have even cared that his underhanded (in her opinion) attacks on her helped Donald Trump become president.

“When I finally challenged Bernie during a debate to name a single time I changed a position or a vote because of a financial contribution, he couldn’t come up with anything,” she wrote. “Nonetheless, his attacks caused lasting damage, making it harder to unify progressives in the general election and paving the way for Trump’s 'Crooked Hillary' campaign.

“I don’t know if that bothered Bernie or not.”

Horrid use of the word "savage" here. She wishes Bernie Sanders was a Democrat like her? She rigged the system against him, so of course she's a proud Democrat and he's honest by comparison so of course he's not a true Democrat to her.

She is honestly just such a piece of garbage. Arguably the most powerful woman in America and she is still playing the fucking victim. Just, fuck off into retirement already.

If she hadn't fucked Bernie over and just won honestly, most if not all of the Bernie supporters wouldn't have turned on her and she may have actually won. She deserves everything she gets and then some.

 

[Nate Skalman]

 

[CiG]

Maybe this is all a devious ploy to get people like me to love Bernie Sanders.