What political ideology are you and why?

[sologdin]

spencer is so gross.

as for 'inner nature,' it is kinda bizarre that the 'strong replacer' is part of it, but 'weak replacee' is not.

[James Arryn]

spencer is so gross.

as for 'inner nature,' it is kinda bizarre that the 'strong replacer' is part of it, but 'weak replacee' is not.

It was an educational definition of familial communism though, you have to admit that much (because I am stronger).

[sologdin]

fairly certain that we can derive a logical rationale for familial communism, perhaps even from darwinian (or spencerian) principles, rather than relying on mere emotionalism.

[Magnar of Skagos]

I'm a Belieber.

[Larry of the Lawn]

My friends have described me as 'a fundamentalist chocolate maltist', which is pretty accurate.

[SayGen]

Right. It is an is-ought fallacy.

explain

Poor old Darwin, always getting Spencer's words put in his mouth.

True, often spencer's social views of Darwins evolution based work are intertwined. That being said the point remains.

spencer is so gross.

as for 'inner nature,' it is kinda bizarre that the 'strong replacer' is part of it, but 'weak replacee' is not.

Gross or not, there is a lot of evidence to support the perspective in it's real world application.

Of course the weak replacee isn't there. They usually end up dying in the process, lines get cut and family tress shift.

Assuming we look at non war style conflicts, population numbers suggest irrelevancy.

for example if a society can't maintain a 2.11 ratio of B/D the population and culture dies.

A strong society not only exceeds the minimum but boasts the largest growth numbers.

DNA doesn't care about borders, or political lines on a map.

Darwin:

On the geologically new Galápagos Islands Darwin looked for evidence attaching wildlife to an older "centre of creation", and found mockingbirds allied to those in Chile but differing from island to island.

Why were the mockingbirds different? Why aren't all mockingbirds the same world wide? They 'adapted' via evolution to their environment. Mockingbirds that were able to secure the largest numbers (again see birth ratios and irrelevancy) became dominate. When competing with mockingbirds that aren't dominate they 'weaker' mockingbirds died out due to the inability to maintain relevancy, if not direct conflict during food shortages.

That is so not the argument and point of Darwin.

Yes it was, it was the logical conclusion from Spencer.

"Spencer is best known for the expression "survival of the fittest", which he coined in Principles of Biology (1864), after reading Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species. This term strongly suggests natural selection...."

[Wicked Woodpecker of West]

Point is we cannot know what is strong and what is weak from evolutionary point of view for sure.
There are to many levels, too many things influencing our population.
Any kind of a priori rationalization is doomed to fail.
Only after something happens we can describe it.

Something that could be theoretically good from perspective of unit can be evolutional disaster for population (and therefore in a non-direct way for unit).

Also: evolution is purposeless. It's pointless. Idea that society based on 'evolutionary' principles would be happier and cool and more peaceful is a wishful thinking.
It could as well lead to nuclear war and survival of fittest 50 000 who adapted well to life on nuclear wastelands. ;)

[Gears of the Beast]

explain

As Hume said, you can't derive an "ought" from an "is", you could also use the label naturalistic fallacy but in this context I prefer is-ought fallacy. It is simply fallacious to observe how something 'is' and conclude that that's how it 'ought' to be. As a real fan of Darwin I'm annoyed by people who act like their fallacious ideas have any kind of endorsement from Darwin. Darwin told us what is, not what ought to be.

[Ordos]

I'd answer the question to the thread, but it would take a very long essay for me to describe it and why. But the shortest answer I can possibly pull together is a tie between Social Democrat and Progressive. Explaining why would take too long. I hate the term liberal because it's too vague a word outside the United States.

[sologdin]

sayg, your position is aporetic: if the weak are unnatural, how did they come to exist?

if the weak, further, is a geopolitical category, how is an evolutionary argument relevant? there is, after all, no evidence arising out of changes in allele frequencies from generation to generation that accounts for societal differences in military doctrine, economics, systems of governance, colonialist practice, and other things associated with imperialism.

[TerraPrime]

Yes it was, it was the logical conclusion from Spencer.

"Spencer is best known for the expression "survival of the fittest", which he coined in Principles of Biology (1864), after reading Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species. This term strongly suggests natural selection...."

No, it really isn't. You should read Darwin's original work yourself and see.

[Seli]

Yes it was, it was the logical conclusion from Spencer.

"Spencer is best known for the expression "survival of the fittest", which he coined in Principles of Biology (1864), after reading Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species. This term strongly suggests natural selection...."

Even that simplification does not mean what you apparently think it means. Most fit and strongest do not correlate.

[Weeping Sore]

Where have all the Eugenicists gone, btw? For all the talk of "diversity", we're missing out on the opportunity to be truly diverse as a species, with variation as extreme as that between Mastifs, Greyhounds and teacup Poodles.

[Horza]

It died out a little more slowly than people think, but certain events around the middle third of the last century had a very negative impact on perceptions of eugenics.

It also emerged through genetic research that the mainstay ideas of eugenicist theory were either outright wrong or drastically oversimplified. Also, now we can modify genomes directly, selective breeding is a little roundabout.

[TrueMetis]

Where have all the Eugenicists gone, btw? For all the talk of "diversity", we're missing out on the opportunity to be truly diverse as a species, with variation as extreme as that between Mastifs, Greyhounds and teacup Poodles.

The variation between those sub groups isn't terribly large, and of course most of them have rather terrible issues stemming from to little diversity in their genetics. Most of our selectively bred species are examples of the opposite of diversity. Which is ultimately the issue with any attempt at eugenics and survival of the fittest, what's fit today and here might not be fit tomorrow and over there.

"fit" in a long term evolutionary sense means having a lot of diversity, including examples that a not terribly fit by current standards by may thrive in a different environment.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lazarova,

Where have all the Eugenicists gone, btw? For all the talk of "diversity", we're missing out on the opportunity to be truly diverse as a species, with variation as extreme as that between Mastifs, Greyhounds and teacup Poodles.

You should read Daniel Abraham's series "the Dagger and the Coin". It explores what could be done if humans were bred the way Human's have bred dogs.

[Weeping Sore]

...what's fit today and here might not be fit tomorrow and over there.

"fit" in a long term evolutionary sense means having a lot of diversity, including examples that a not terribly fit by current standards by may thrive in a different environment.

So our diversity should probably start edging toward "merfolk" to cope with rising ocean levels. Would selecting Michael Phelps types for breeding stock work, or do we have to pursue human-dolphin hybrids?

[Larry of the Lawn]

I am the Walrus.

[maarsen]

So our diversity should probably start edging toward "merfolk" to cope with rising ocean levels. Would selecting Michael Phelps types for breeding stock work, or do we have to pursue human-dolphin hybrids?

The last part might be difficult as dolphins do seem to like me the best.

[SayGen]

Even that simplification does not mean what you apparently think it means. Most fit and strongest do not correlate.

Depends on how you are defining strong. If you think strong means muscle you are correct.

If you think strong means more than capable you are incorrect.

sayg, your position is aporetic: if the weak are unnatural, how did they come to exist?

if the weak, further, is a geopolitical category, how is an evolutionary argument relevant? there is, after all, no evidence arising out of changes in allele frequencies from generation to generation that accounts for societal differences in military doctrine, economics, systems of governance, colonialist practice, and other things associated with imperialism.

Good question, at some point in time the 'weak' we have today were very much the strong, they haven't been fully replaced in our societies.

As time continues on, more and more strong will rise and the weak will start to decline, to whatever group of traits is more adapt to fulfill the 'requirements' I listed earlier. Sometimes this process is very forgiving, other times it leads to great conflict.

In the interest in preventing mass harm and damage to greater society as a result of conflicts, I always support the 'strong' up and comers.

The real trick, and I've mentioned this before, is figuring out who is the strong and who is the weak.

Some people might gravitate to saying that minority populations are weak, and start judging based on economic status, or demographics that don't actually have anything to do with genes and adaptability.

For example, if I were asked to pick one group that currently is gaining great strength I'd start looking at Arabs. They are highly reproductive, some sub-sects out producing Anglo-Saxon Christians(Catholics), or 'American' Mormons (Later day Saints). They have a religion that focus on core culture, ready to face challenges to their societies world wide, eliminating competition on potential threats to their continued growth. Also India/China have potential, though China's one child law set them back quite a bit.