Darwin question

[Votto]

Darwin wrote the following

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.”
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

In other words, if we killed off those who contribute to a weak gene pool, the human race would be better off. However, he then says that we have a noble nature that prevents us from doing so? Where is the science here? As he says, in the animal kingdom we have no issues with eugenics. The weak are stricken from the gene pool, yet we are suppose to allow humans to contribute to the demise of the human race by not regulating it?

What does "noble nature" have to do with science? It seems to me that this is simply an adaptation to the Christian culture from which he came, even though he rejected Christianity. However, chaps like Hitler had no problem simply embracing the science of eugenics, and hurling the anti-science aspect of having a "noble nature"

 

[ScienceRocks]

Lol, the fucking bible somehow explains it better.

You people are truly backwards like the islamic state in way too many ways.

 

[MarathonMike]

One way to look at it is to compare a primitive colony to an advanced western civilization. Even in primitive colonies that you would expect to be ruled by "only the strong survive" you will find that is not the case. The members of the colony will accommodate the old, weak and sick. I don't believe this is nobility, it is simple human compassion. You love your baby, you love Grandma.

In an advanced civilization, the responsibility of the sick shifts from individuals to the medical community. There is still the human compassion element as no one wants to see their loved ones suffer. But the difference is the medical community has a vested interest in caring for the sick. Individuals working within the medical community may be compassionate but they are part of a much larger entity that is not. The medical community at some level actually works together to keep the weak and sick people alive because it is profitable, not because it is noble. After all, without the weak and the sick what happens to hospitals, drug companies, nursing homes and professional caregivers?

 

[HenryBHough]

Darwin increasingly is proven correct.

Perhaps because his words of wisdom on protecting the insane and morally bankrupt were right on the money!

But fun, too:

Darwin Awards. Chlorinating The Gene Pool.

 

[Votto]

Lol, the fucking bible somehow explains it better.

You people are truly backwards like the islamic state in way too many ways.

Tell us, what is scientific about being noble?

 

[Votto]

One way to look at it is to compare a primitive colony to an advanced western civilization. Even in primitive colonies that you would expect to be ruled by "only the strong survive" you will find that is not the case. The members of the colony will accommodate the old, weak and sick. I don't believe this is nobility, it is simple human compassion. You love your baby, you love Grandma.

In an advanced civilization, the responsibility of the sick shifts from individuals to the medical community. There is still the human compassion element as no one wants to see their loved ones suffer. But the difference is the medical community has a vested interest in caring for the sick. Individuals working within the medical community may be compassionate but they are part of a much larger entity that is not. The medical community at some level actually works together to keep the weak and sick people alive because it is profitable, not because it is noble. After all, without the weak and the sick what happens to hospitals, drug companies, nursing homes and professional caregivers?

But if the weak and sick are making the gene pool weaker, is "love and compassion" making humanity weaker?

According to science, love and compassion is doing just that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Darwin wrote the following

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.”
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

In other words, if we killed off those who contribute to a weak gene pool, the human race would be better off. However, he then says that we have a noble nature that prevents us from doing so? Where is the science here? As he says, in the animal kingdom we have no issues with eugenics. The weak are stricken from the gene pool, yet we are suppose to allow humans to contribute to the demise of the human race by not regulating it?

What does "noble nature" have to do with science? It seems to me that this is simply an adaptation to the Christian culture from which he came, even though he rejected Christianity. However, chaps like Hitler had no problem simply embracing the science of eugenics, and hurling the anti-science aspect of having a "noble nature"

All I can say about Darwinism is, if it's true, then stupidity must be a survival trait. It's the only explanation.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Sad to see so many stupid fucking idiots wish to turn America into another backwards shit hole.

There's no evidence for god and with this kind of bullshit I'll say that he is probably a myth.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I am starting to hate you radical fucks as I much as I ever did the islamic state or the taliban...Probably because you're in my country and doing great damage to its freedom.

 

[Votto]

Darwin increasingly is proven correct.

Perhaps because his words of wisdom on protecting the insane and morally bankrupt were right on the money!

But fun, too:

Darwin Awards. Chlorinating The Gene Pool.

Yea, Darwin was full of wisdom

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state as we may hope, than the Caucasian and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

Thanks for that you racist pig.

 

[Votto]

Darwin wrote the following

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.”
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

In other words, if we killed off those who contribute to a weak gene pool, the human race would be better off. However, he then says that we have a noble nature that prevents us from doing so? Where is the science here? As he says, in the animal kingdom we have no issues with eugenics. The weak are stricken from the gene pool, yet we are suppose to allow humans to contribute to the demise of the human race by not regulating it?

What does "noble nature" have to do with science? It seems to me that this is simply an adaptation to the Christian culture from which he came, even though he rejected Christianity. However, chaps like Hitler had no problem simply embracing the science of eugenics, and hurling the anti-science aspect of having a "noble nature"

All I can say about Darwinism is, if it's true, then stupidity must be a survival trait. It's the only explanation.

My only attempt is to extract from someone how "nobility" is scientific. IF science has shown mankind that eugenics can strengthen the gene pool, then why not pursue it at all costs? Why not do as Hitler did and empty the hospitals by killing off the weak?

To date, no one has come close to an answer.

 

[Votto]

I am starting to hate you radical fucks as I much as I ever did the islamic state or the taliban...Probably because you're in my country and doing great damage to its freedom.

Speaking of hating religion, Margaret Sanger attempted to use religion to get blacks to embrace the eugenics of abortion through Planned Parenthood which she founded. Listen to what the little racist witch had to say

"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

 

[jon_berzerk]

One way to look at it is to compare a primitive colony to an advanced western civilization. Even in primitive colonies that you would expect to be ruled by "only the strong survive" you will find that is not the case. The members of the colony will accommodate the old, weak and sick. I don't believe this is nobility, it is simple human compassion. You love your baby, you love Grandma.

In an advanced civilization, the responsibility of the sick shifts from individuals to the medical community. There is still the human compassion element as no one wants to see their loved ones suffer. But the difference is the medical community has a vested interest in caring for the sick. Individuals working within the medical community may be compassionate but they are part of a much larger entity that is not. The medical community at some level actually works together to keep the weak and sick people alive because it is profitable, not because it is noble. After all, without the weak and the sick what happens to hospitals, drug companies, nursing homes and professional caregivers?

so do elephants for example

Elephants aid their scared, sick and dying

12 facts to change the way you see elephants

 

[Votto]

One way to look at it is to compare a primitive colony to an advanced western civilization. Even in primitive colonies that you would expect to be ruled by "only the strong survive" you will find that is not the case. The members of the colony will accommodate the old, weak and sick. I don't believe this is nobility, it is simple human compassion. You love your baby, you love Grandma.

In an advanced civilization, the responsibility of the sick shifts from individuals to the medical community. There is still the human compassion element as no one wants to see their loved ones suffer. But the difference is the medical community has a vested interest in caring for the sick. Individuals working within the medical community may be compassionate but they are part of a much larger entity that is not. The medical community at some level actually works together to keep the weak and sick people alive because it is profitable, not because it is noble. After all, without the weak and the sick what happens to hospitals, drug companies, nursing homes and professional caregivers?

I disagree. I think mankind should have compassion no matter what role in society he or she plays, and no matter how "civilized" it is deemed to be by you.

We are all held to the same innate inner voice that provides to us what is right and wrong.

Try again.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Animals show 'nobility'. Dogs take in orphaned kittens, cats take in orphaned squirrels or mice. Normally these are predator/prey relationships. There is a video that is maybe 20 years old that shows a group of elephants at a watering hole. One elephant is standing on the bank drinking water and a large turtle/tortoise is just at it's rear 'foot'. The elephant without looking down gently picks up it's hind leg and carefully moves the tortoise a short distance away so as not to be under foot. You can tell by the video the elephant did not want to harm the tortoise. Why? Why not just smash it or pick it up and hurl it away? Certainly that is the treatment a lion would get if it got that close. The great apes accept humans into their group and actually protect them. Dolphins protect humans from sharks. Crows, when a person gives them food, will bring back trinkets like rings and give them to the human. The affinity that humans have for other animals is not a one way street. Love and caring ARE a natural part of the animal kingdom, including in human beings.

I would say that in a Darwinian setting caring for and helping the physically weak does lead to a diluted gene pool in general, but the numbers are so small it has minimal impact on species survival. Also, affinity and, as you would put it, 'nobility' has it's rewards as well. The leader of a group gets seriously injured in a fight and the others care for him/her and nurse the person back to health. Good for the group and their survival. And social animals fend off single or groups of predators better than an individual. There is survival benefit to selflessness.

There is a reason affinity evolved in animals, it IS a survival benefit. Otherwise it would be absent.

 

[Votto]

Animals show 'nobility'. Dogs take in orphaned kittens, cats take in orphaned squirrels or mice. Normally these are predator/prey relationships. There is a video that is maybe 20 years old that shows a group of elephants at a watering hole. One elephant is standing on the bank drinking water and a large turtle/tortoise is just at it's rear 'foot'. The elephant without looking down gently picks up it's hind leg and carefully moves the tortoise a short distance away so as not to be under foot. You can tell by the video the elephant did not want to harm the tortoise. Why? Why not just smash it or pick it up and hurl it away? Certainly that is the treatment a lion would get if it got that close. The great apes accept humans into their group and actually protect them. Dolphins protect humans from sharks. Crows, when a person gives them food, will bring back trinkets like rings and give them to the human. The affinity that humans have for other animals is not a one way street. Love and caring ARE a natural part of the animal kingdom, including in human beings.

I would say that in a Darwinian setting caring for and helping the physically weak does lead to a diluted gene pool in general, but the numbers are so small it has minimal impact on species survival. Also, affinity and, as you would put it, 'nobility' has it's rewards as well. The leader of a group gets seriously injured in a fight and the others care for him/her and nurse the person back to health. Good for the group and their survival. And social animals fend off single or groups of predators better than an individual. There is survival benefit to selflessness.

There is a reason affinity evolved in animals, it IS a survival benefit. Otherwise it would be absent.

But animals kill each other, much like the lion kills his prey, but is this a crime?

Humans kill animals and usually is not a crime, so why is it a crime when people kill other people?

Is this just an imaginary morality created to try and keep society civil or does it go deeper than that?

 

[IsaacNewton]

Animals show 'nobility'. Dogs take in orphaned kittens, cats take in orphaned squirrels or mice. Normally these are predator/prey relationships. There is a video that is maybe 20 years old that shows a group of elephants at a watering hole. One elephant is standing on the bank drinking water and a large turtle/tortoise is just at it's rear 'foot'. The elephant without looking down gently picks up it's hind leg and carefully moves the tortoise a short distance away so as not to be under foot. You can tell by the video the elephant did not want to harm the tortoise. Why? Why not just smash it or pick it up and hurl it away? Certainly that is the treatment a lion would get if it got that close. The great apes accept humans into their group and actually protect them. Dolphins protect humans from sharks. Crows, when a person gives them food, will bring back trinkets like rings and give them to the human. The affinity that humans have for other animals is not a one way street. Love and caring ARE a natural part of the animal kingdom, including in human beings.

I would say that in a Darwinian setting caring for and helping the physically weak does lead to a diluted gene pool in general, but the numbers are so small it has minimal impact on species survival. Also, affinity and, as you would put it, 'nobility' has it's rewards as well. The leader of a group gets seriously injured in a fight and the others care for him/her and nurse the person back to health. Good for the group and their survival. And social animals fend off single or groups of predators better than an individual. There is survival benefit to selflessness.

There is a reason affinity evolved in animals, it IS a survival benefit. Otherwise it would be absent.

But animals kill each other, much like the lion kills his prey, but is this a crime?

Humans kill animals and usually is not a crime, so why is it a crime when people kill other people?

Is this just an imaginary morality created to try and keep society civil or does it go deeper than that?

I just went through a list of instances contrary to the 'red in tooth and claw' and noted it's because this has evolved in animals because it benefits them. Otherwise it would not be a trait that evolved in them. You can't think of a physical reason it's better to not kill your fellow man? Why don't lions kill each other over an antelope eight of them just brought down and are feeding on? They have skirmishes but no real mortal fights (or exceedingly rarely). They all benefit from peaceful coexistence and mutual effort to catch food for the group. A mutually operating 'society' of lions allows offspring a much better chance of surviving than if they each hunted alone.

Society IS a beneficial trait. Not randomly killing one another allows their offspring to survive and pass on their genes. And that is the entire purpose of natural selection. Those organisms that have developed traits that allow them to reproduce and pass on their genes. It isn't 'the strongest, or fastest', it is the traits that allow that organism to survive and pass on it's genes. A walking stick isn't fast or strong. But you can't tell it from a stick so it is well 'adapted' to survive.

 

[Votto]

Animals show 'nobility'. Dogs take in orphaned kittens, cats take in orphaned squirrels or mice. Normally these are predator/prey relationships. There is a video that is maybe 20 years old that shows a group of elephants at a watering hole. One elephant is standing on the bank drinking water and a large turtle/tortoise is just at it's rear 'foot'. The elephant without looking down gently picks up it's hind leg and carefully moves the tortoise a short distance away so as not to be under foot. You can tell by the video the elephant did not want to harm the tortoise. Why? Why not just smash it or pick it up and hurl it away? Certainly that is the treatment a lion would get if it got that close. The great apes accept humans into their group and actually protect them. Dolphins protect humans from sharks. Crows, when a person gives them food, will bring back trinkets like rings and give them to the human. The affinity that humans have for other animals is not a one way street. Love and caring ARE a natural part of the animal kingdom, including in human beings.

I would say that in a Darwinian setting caring for and helping the physically weak does lead to a diluted gene pool in general, but the numbers are so small it has minimal impact on species survival. Also, affinity and, as you would put it, 'nobility' has it's rewards as well. The leader of a group gets seriously injured in a fight and the others care for him/her and nurse the person back to health. Good for the group and their survival. And social animals fend off single or groups of predators better than an individual. There is survival benefit to selflessness.

There is a reason affinity evolved in animals, it IS a survival benefit. Otherwise it would be absent.

But animals kill each other, much like the lion kills his prey, but is this a crime?

Humans kill animals and usually is not a crime, so why is it a crime when people kill other people?

Is this just an imaginary morality created to try and keep society civil or does it go deeper than that?

I just went through a list of instances contrary to the 'red in tooth and claw' and noted it's because this has evolved in animals because it benefits them. Otherwise it would not be a trait that evolved in them. You can't think of a physical reason it's better to not kill your fellow man? Why don't lions kill each other over an antelope eight of them just brought down and are feeding on? They have skirmishes but no real mortal fights (or exceedingly rarely). They all benefit from peaceful coexistence and mutual effort to catch food for the group. A mutually operating 'society' of lions allows offspring a much better chance of surviving than if they each hunted alone.

Society IS a beneficial trait. Not randomly killing one another allows their offspring to survive and pass on their genes. And that is the entire purpose of natural selection. Those organisms that have developed traits that allow them to reproduce and pass on their genes. It isn't 'the strongest, or fastest', it is the traits that allow that organism to survive and pass on it's genes. A walking stick isn't fast or strong. But you can't tell it from a stick so it is well 'adapted' to survive.

IF killing your own kind is so beneficial to society, then why the long dark history of humans killing other humans?

So IF a world leader sees a benefit in mass genocide then it is OK?

 

[IsaacNewton]

Animals show 'nobility'. Dogs take in orphaned kittens, cats take in orphaned squirrels or mice. Normally these are predator/prey relationships. There is a video that is maybe 20 years old that shows a group of elephants at a watering hole. One elephant is standing on the bank drinking water and a large turtle/tortoise is just at it's rear 'foot'. The elephant without looking down gently picks up it's hind leg and carefully moves the tortoise a short distance away so as not to be under foot. You can tell by the video the elephant did not want to harm the tortoise. Why? Why not just smash it or pick it up and hurl it away? Certainly that is the treatment a lion would get if it got that close. The great apes accept humans into their group and actually protect them. Dolphins protect humans from sharks. Crows, when a person gives them food, will bring back trinkets like rings and give them to the human. The affinity that humans have for other animals is not a one way street. Love and caring ARE a natural part of the animal kingdom, including in human beings.

I would say that in a Darwinian setting caring for and helping the physically weak does lead to a diluted gene pool in general, but the numbers are so small it has minimal impact on species survival. Also, affinity and, as you would put it, 'nobility' has it's rewards as well. The leader of a group gets seriously injured in a fight and the others care for him/her and nurse the person back to health. Good for the group and their survival. And social animals fend off single or groups of predators better than an individual. There is survival benefit to selflessness.

There is a reason affinity evolved in animals, it IS a survival benefit. Otherwise it would be absent.

But animals kill each other, much like the lion kills his prey, but is this a crime?

Humans kill animals and usually is not a crime, so why is it a crime when people kill other people?

Is this just an imaginary morality created to try and keep society civil or does it go deeper than that?

I just went through a list of instances contrary to the 'red in tooth and claw' and noted it's because this has evolved in animals because it benefits them. Otherwise it would not be a trait that evolved in them. You can't think of a physical reason it's better to not kill your fellow man? Why don't lions kill each other over an antelope eight of them just brought down and are feeding on? They have skirmishes but no real mortal fights (or exceedingly rarely). They all benefit from peaceful coexistence and mutual effort to catch food for the group. A mutually operating 'society' of lions allows offspring a much better chance of surviving than if they each hunted alone.

Society IS a beneficial trait. Not randomly killing one another allows their offspring to survive and pass on their genes. And that is the entire purpose of natural selection. Those organisms that have developed traits that allow them to reproduce and pass on their genes. It isn't 'the strongest, or fastest', it is the traits that allow that organism to survive and pass on it's genes. A walking stick isn't fast or strong. But you can't tell it from a stick so it is well 'adapted' to survive.

IF killing your own kind is so beneficial to society, then why the long dark history of humans killing other humans?

So IF a world leader sees a benefit in mass genocide then it is OK?

You apparently aren't following what I post at all so we'll just say I'm not clear enough and leave it at that. Perhaps the 'answers' you seek are elsewhere.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Darwin did not turn away from christianity. He did question various tenets, including the incredible cruelty he saw, in both the natural world and in what humans did to each other and to other animals. More Than anything, he was wounded to his core by what stronger humans did to the weaker among them and he was horrified at the treatment of slaves.

While humans are animals, we have choices that other animals do not. It's true that animals kill for food, territory and to keep their genes in the pool.

Humans can choose kindness and compassion. We make choices every day that do harm and good. But, they ARE choices.

I find it funny and beyond mere hypocrisy that the usual RWNJs have cursed eugenics as espoused by Margaret Sanger in her support of birth control ... But if you can use it to support your vile, vicious lies ... Well, now, that's quite different.





Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com