Social Darwinism

[Baron Morte]

I had this discussion with my friends about whether we are just puppets of our genes or not.
I argued that people unconsciously do all the things they do in life with the ultimate goal of reproducing.
You like to be surrounded by friends. Such a thing happens because once there were people who did not like to be with other people, and because they would receive no help, and be a lot more vulnerable to the enviorement and predators, they disappeared. So, in part, we have friends due to sex.
Why people get so happy when their grades are high? It means you are going to have a good carreer and have more money to spend on your offspring. The same counterpart with our evolution was to be happy by a well seeded crop, or a very well built tool to hunt animals.
I know that nobody thinks about it directly. Much like You dont go to work everyday thinking about the money you are getting to buy a house in 2 years time.
Its like a 50 storey building, where the last floor is to reproduce. Nevertheless you get a "reward" for each stair you climb. You receive this reward in seretonins and other chemicals expelled by the brain in order to make you happy. Thats why kissing a girl or being amongst friends makes you feel good;


I´ve read things about social darwinism and it seems that people have a very negative impression on this. it appears that it has been used to support racism and the like. Well thats fake darwinism, as for darwin, the more pure the race, the weaker the individual is, because when you mix races, you have a bigger genetic library, and therefore such individual is more prepared to face any threath that may occur.

What are your impressions on the issue?

[Dante Hicks]

Birth control.

[queball]

[JonnyBGood]

Isn't social darwinism on a much larger scale than individuals and what affects them?

[mbushell]

a better question, who gives a ****?

[Baron Morte]

actually social darwinism is not about that. You see, if you let people have sex left and right, theoretically speaking, its the best way to ensure our survival.
If an idiot, fat, bold man manages to have children, he must have something that the others dont, and according to the laws of nature, it doesnt matters what made him have sex, or which situation, the only thing that matters is that he managed to pull the stunt.

I know that in cases of rape and the like it is very hard to comply with it and think that it is the best thing for our species, or in the case of a extremely stupid and ugly guy having lots of babies, but:
Supose there is a virus that kills people who are smart ( i dont know what exactely determines inteligence, i supose that brain size/architeture and the way the informations are handled inside) Then only stupid people would survive...

i know it sounds far-fetched, but thats how it works

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Isn't social darwinism on a much larger scale than individuals and what affects them?

He's confusing Evolutionary Psychology with Social Darwinism, probably deliberately to cause some sort of argument.

[Baron Morte]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Isn't social darwinism on a much larger scale than individuals and what affects them?

actually i think that a more accurate description would be "the belief that darwins laws are also applyable to the social enviorement"


Hence having babies, not personal satisfaction, carrer, love, friendship, work, whatever, is the most important thing ever

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Baron Morte

actually i think that a more accurate description would be "the belief that darwins laws are also applyable to the social enviorement"


Hence having babies, not personal satisfaction, carrer, love, friendship, work, whatever, is the most important thing ever

You seem almost as confused as I am on this issue. You seem to be concentrating on how events in the social world affect individuals which doesn't make much sense to me at all

[G_frog]

Originally Posted by Baron Morte

What are your impressions on the issue?

That you've avoided some of the more common misconceptions, but you should read some more about evolutionary biology (only, for the love of god, not Dawkins).

Originally Posted by Baron Morte

actually i think that a more accurate description would be "the belief that darwins laws are also applyable to the social enviorement"

Hence having babies, not personal satisfaction, carrer, love, friendship, work, whatever, is the most important thing ever. What are your impressions on the issue?

Darwin's laws are applicable everywhere that certain conditions are met*. Your conclusion doesn't follow at all though.

*i.e. the existence of reproducing individuals, under conditions of finite resources, whose extent of reproduction is related to heritable characteristics that vary across their population.

[JC]

Why do people with no understanding of genetics bother trying to talk about this?

[W]

Fact: most people who kill themselfs do so to remove their inferior genes from the human gene pool.

[Baron Morte]

Originally Posted by W

Fact: most people who kill themselfs do so to remove their inferior genes from the human gene pool.

someone comiting suicide is someone sad
it can hapen due to a pathology (the reward mechanism doesnt work all that well, and/or the punishment mechanism is hiperbolous)
or such a person has triggered the punishment mechanism too many times and its dealing with excruciating emotional pain.
(in another words this individual has not stepped any of the 50 storey building that leads to sex, and the reproduction mechanism is doing a desperated effort to make this bloke do something about it)

due to extreme complicated processes that happen in the brain, our intelegince, also a tool, comes up with one solution to ease the pain


completely understandable

dwell on it

[Bloomers III]

social darwinism is the belief that the stronger races will prosper. So for instance a social darwinist would adopt a laissez-faire attitude when it comes to social policy, because they would think that poverty is caused by genetic inferiority rather than lack of social welfare. I did a bit about it in history when we studied the Liberal reforms in the early 1900s. What you're talking about is not social darwinism.

edit: here is a good source http://www.everyforkintheroad.org/hi...ldarwinism.htm

[Vermillion]

Ok, Clearly you know litle about Social Darwinism, which is applying the competetive elements of evolutionary theory to a social, racial or national level.

(EDIT: Seems Bloomers just said that, though it does not have to be only races, it can be applied to cultures, nations, whatever you like)

Equally clearly, you do not have much knowledge of the longstanding nature vs. nurture debate, or for that matter much about the mechanics of evolution itself.

We do not get happy because of good grades due to evolutionary theory, we are happy to get good grades more by pavlovian conditioning than anything else, and the structure of reward/punishment established by our education system.

Even if your example held any water, that somehow our genes made us happy so we could procreate, it does not apply to darwinistic evolution, as you have made the most basic (and most common) error with regards to basic evolutionary thory. We do not evolve to survive, we survive to evolve.

So, trying not to sound too patronishing here, but you should really read up a bit on the basics of Evoution, and social darwinism (like what it is) before you get into discussions about either.

[Nodrog]

so what potential action could a human perform that would falsify your theory?

[Baron Morte]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

Ok, Clearly you know litle about Social Darwinism, which is applying the competetive elements of evolutionary theory to a social, racial or national level.

(EDIT: Seems Bloomers just said that, though it does not have to be only races, it can be applied to cultures, nations, whatever you like)

Equally clearly, you do not have much knowledge of the longstanding nature vs. nurture debate, or for that matter much about the mechanics of evolution itself.

Too much presumptions, too little knowledge about my persona

We do not get happy because of good grades due to evolutionary theory, we are happy to get good grades more by pavlovian conditioning than anything else, and the structure of reward/punishment established by our education system.

The pavlovian, piaget, and the like base on key elements of evolution theory. As you could not understand the basic point of why do children get sad when getting low grades, I will try to make it clearer
It is that their parents will tell them off or do things that will undermine the confidence of the children in the love of their familiars. People need to be with people to feel allright, for evolutionary purpuoses.
Thats a clear way to prove that in the end it all comes down to this.
Another simple way is that actually it does not matters what makes people feel allright with good grades, because if the reward/punishment system on our educational system works, it happens because this system has been engineered to fit the results of evolution.
LiKe, if someone is a bad student, then lay him on the corner. He will feel bad because not only he is alone, but he is shown in front of the "pack" as "inferior" what inevitably will, in one way or the other, make him not copulate, or to do so with the most undesirable females.

Even if your example held any water, that somehow our genes made us happy so we could procreate, it does not apply to darwinistic evolution, as you have made the most basic (and most common) error with regards to basic evolutionary thory. We do not evolve to survive, we survive to evolve.

as you said "we survive to evolve"
How could I be more right than using that example? certainly amongst the steps of the 50 storey building one of the key floors is feeding yourself, for instance.
You get more happy when eating meat then when eating cauliflower (except if you are a hippie or the like)
you dont know why, but once there where blokes that loved eating vegetables, and they didnt turned out as good as the hunters, that feasted on a much more nutritions meal.
In short, you get the most important rewards when you are keeping yourself alive

So, trying not to sound too patronishing here, but you should really read up a bit on the basics of Evoution, and social darwinism (like what it is) before you get into discussions about either

You did sound patronising and underestimated me greatly

[W]

You registered just to post this thread? Where'd you come from, got flamed on usenet or something?

[Marilyn Manson]

You apparently know very little about Social Darwinism. You appear to be feeling for some sort of debate on evolution, but haven't quite grasped it yet.

[Baron Morte]

actually im from the game, used to play, and for the lack of a place to have people discussing my theory i remembered this little warm fuzzy place

[Baron Morte]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

You apparently know very little about Social Darwinism.

"try me"
Its easy to say that.
Try proving me.

[W]

Originally Posted by Baron Morte

someone comiting suicide is someone sad
it can hapen due to a pathology (the reward mechanism doesnt work all that well, and/or the punishment mechanism is hiperbolous)
or such a person has triggered the punishment mechanism too many times and its dealing with excruciating emotional pain.
(in another words this individual has not stepped any of the 50 storey building that leads to sex, and the reproduction mechanism is doing a desperated effort to make this bloke do something about it)

due to extreme complicated processes that happen in the brain, our intelegince, also a tool, comes up with one solution to ease the pain


completely understandable

dwell on it

Nonsense, as I said, they kill themself to remove their genes from the gene pool. It's a known survival mechanism for the species, in the same vein as other altruism.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Baron Morte

"try me"
Its easy to say that.
Try proving me.

I can't really expand that statement other than to say that all that you have posted so far has very little to do with theories on Social Darwinism. SD has more to do (usually) with politics and political theory than anything else, E.g, Liberal economic theory, etc.

Vermillion and Bloomers have already posted definitions of Social Darwinism (Although Bloomers' was flawed a tad.) that are totally at odds with what you're blathering on about; what else do you want?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Baron Morte

as you said "we survive to evolve"
How could I be more right than using that example? certainly amongst the steps of the 50 storey building one of the key floors is feeding yourself, for instance.
You get more happy when eating meat then when eating cauliflower (except if you are a hippie or the like)
you dont know why, but once there where blokes that loved eating vegetables, and they didnt turned out as good as the hunters, that feasted on a much more nutritions meal.
In short, you get the most important rewards when you are keeping yourself alive

This goes nowhere when you consider the fact most people enjoy sweets and chocolate more which just makes you fat and spotty and hardly keeps you alive or makes you attractive to the opposite sex for reproduction or anything else. Your taste buds happen to like it. I know many people who prefer vegetables or fruit to meat. Personally after a 16oz steak i don't feel like eating more meat but some fat ****er who'll probably die from heart failure aged 30 does. He is getting more happy (heh) from eating more meat than me but I'm going to live longer than him. Plus vegetables are far more nutritious that meat speaking as the son of a qualified nutrionist so I really don't know what the **** you're talking about.

[Baron Morte]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

This goes nowhere when you consider the fact most people enjoy sweets and chocolate more which just makes you fat and spotty and hardly keeps you alive or makes you attractive to the opposite sex for reproduction or anything else.Your taste buds happen to like it.

what you have to realise is that civilization has been "invented" in the last 1%¨of all the time humans are around.
Back in the old days there was hunger, and people died from it.( a lot more than now) Something sweet is something that will give lots of energy really fast, and/or create a adipose tissue that will help to endure hardship. Sweet things where something of a rare treat back then, thats why we all enjoy it. (some dont, because of evolution)

I know many people who prefer vegetables or fruit to meat.

Again, for evolutionary purpuoses people are different. You have got to agree that most people enjoy a sweet nice beef. Some will say they dont, because they want to be thin, or they dont think its healthy, but we are "made" to enjoy the taste of meat.

Personally after a 16oz steak i don't feel like eating more meat

A diversified diet is also important and healthy.

but some fat ****er who'll probably die from heart failure aged 30 does.

read above

He is getting more happy (heh) from eating more meat than me but I'm going to live longer than him.

If you both lived in the other 99% of the time, when there was no civilization, i would bet on the fat bloke (which most likely wouldnt be fat at that time)

Plus vegetables are far more nutritious that meat speaking as the son of a qualified nutrionist so I really don't know what the **** you're talking about.

Indeed vegetables have more vitamins and minerals than meat, but "back then" a source of protein and calories as abundant as meat was crucial.

[W]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

so what potential action could a human perform that would falsify your theory?

[Nodrog]

You've still not explained how to test your theory, or what makes it different from all the other silly 'in this essay we explain everything humans have ever done ever" gimmicks like Marxism/Freudianism/Objectivism/etc.

edit: woah, beaten by like, 20 seconds.

[Nondescript Human]

Originally Posted by Baron Morte

Too much presumptions...blah blah blah...

Is English your first language?

[W]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

You've still not explained how to test your theory, or what makes it different from all the other silly 'in this essay we explain everything humans have ever done ever" gimmicks like Marxism/Freudianism/Objectivism/etc.

edit: woah, beaten by like, 20 seconds.

I felt you comming.

[Baron Morte]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

You've still not explained how to test your theory, or what makes it different from all the other silly 'in this essay we explain everything humans have ever done ever" gimmicks like Marxism/Freudianism/Objectivism/etc.

edit: woah, beaten by like, 20 seconds.

One of the main arguments about social studies is if it consists a science or not. One of the main reasons people say that it isnt is exactly due to the inability to make experiments on large scale. On small scales, you dont really get what you wish.( read kant, kelsen, carrara, Émile Durkheim and the like)

I cant really make an experiment and *prove* that i am right.
On the other hand I can make empiric observations of our reality. And thats how far we can get.

My observations made me construct this theory. This is one way of understanding human behaviour. So far it has worked.


care to explain a little more on which, exactly, kinds of tests do you want me to run on this theory?

[Baron Morte]

Originally Posted by Nondescript Human

Is English your first language?

so it should be many

so what?
praise our public schools

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by Baron Morte

Too much presumptions, too little knowledge about my persona
As you could not understand the basic point of why do children get sad when getting low grades, I will try to make it clearer
It is that their parents will tell them off or do things that will undermine the confidence of the children in the love of their familiars. People need to be with people to feel allright, for evolutionary purpuoses.

I never commented on your persona, only on your points such as they were, and the knowledge, or lack thereof, they demonstrated about the topic you chose.

As for your point, still makes no sense. How exactly does emotional state/likes and dislikes tie into evolution? And if that were the case, why am I extatic when I find out my girlfriend is NOT pregnant, why do I enjoy eating candy-cane even more than meat? Why do I enjoy nothing more than laying in bed late on weekends doing nothing? Some of our precepts were determined by instinct, true. But the VAST majority of them are based on nurture. Evolution does not make you want to be smarter, evolution at best gives you the capacity to BE smarter, it does not then tell you what to do with it. Evolution is not intelligent, it does not have forsight, it does not think things over.

You have chosen one or two things that you feel might make some people happy (meat makes people 'more happy' than vegetables? Where did you get that from?) and based some wild psudo-evolutionary theory on with no demonstrated links whatsoever.

Another simple way is that actually it does not matters what makes people feel allright with good grades, because if the reward/punishment system on our educational system works, it happens because this system has been engineered to fit the results of evolution.

That is getting silly. Now our modern education system was tailored to fit the results of evolution? Impressive considering early educational tracts were laid out before the development of the theory of evolution.

There are some things you should be aware of. Progress is not evolution. Evolution is a very specific process, you seem to be assuming anything done to improve anything qualifies as 'evolution'. As if, when i lose my regular pencil, and buy a mechanical pencil, have I just evolved?

as you said "we survive to evolve"
How could I be more right than using that example? certainly amongst the steps of the 50 storey building one of the key floors is feeding yourself, for instance.

Because you are trying to propose some kind of pattern to what is a random process. There is no specific building and set of stairs, what we are is a result of random mutation, weeded out occasionally by periods of crisis in which only the best adapted to the particular situation prosper. If a diferent situation had arisen, evolution would have gone in a different direction. Evolution is random happenstance in which situational crises occasionaly force specific situational advantages to the fore.

Early Humanity did not eat meat because our 'precognitive' genes told us it would be a good idea, we ate meat because agriculture was a much later invention, and meat was in plentiful supply, and we were omnivorous. Circumstance, not genetics. So given that it was circumstance, how would we have 'evolved' a love for eating meat? Or could it be we were just part of an omnivorous branch of life, the primates, to begin with, and that has never changed?

Your concept of evolution is way off base, and as a total aside, NONE of this discussion has anything to do with social darwinism.

You did sound patronising and underestimated me greatly

As to the former, yes I did. As to the latter, the jury is still out on that.

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by Baron Morte

One of the main arguments about social studies is if it consists a science or not. One of the main reasons people say that it isnt is exactly due to the inability to make experiments on large scale.

Wow no. Before I got my doctorate I worked for a Social Sciences Research council, which on a daily basis administered research projects from thousands of academics conducting large scale emprical research and experimentation, or gathered data from situations to attempt to prove or disprove a theory. Not only is it possible, it happens. And not only does it happen, it happens routinely.

I cant really make an experiment and *prove* that i am right.
On the other hand I can make empiric observations of our reality. And thats how far we can get.

My observations made me construct this theory. This is one way of understanding human behaviour. So far it has worked.

Your theory lacks any kind of logical foundation. Your theory consists essentially of noticing that some things make you feel all warm and tingly inside, and that of these things, a few of them could be construed to be beneficial to people as a whiole. Hardly what i would call a sound foundation for a hypothesis.

Now I am happy to admit you may have thought this through more than that, and your theory may have a deeper foundation than you have presented here, but all we can react to is what you type here, nothing else. And what you have typed here shows a lack of understanding of the basic ideas upon which you have formed your "theory".

Lastly, in sciences or in social sciences, the development of a hypothesis must be accompanied by a way to test this hypothesis. Its a pretty basic principle. I believe that is what Nodrog and W are referring to. With your current position, that the theory is somehow untestable, then your premise becomes tautological.

[Baron Morte]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

As for your point, still makes no sense. How exactly does emotional state/likes and dislikes tie into evolution?

After having sex, for instance, your brain is flooded with seretonin so you feel good. Emotions are a reflex of the chemical state of the brain. Thats how the reward/punishment system works.

When you eat, have friends and do any other thing that leads to reproduce, your brain also receive a certain ammount of seretonin so you enjoy doing this kinds of things.

And if that were the case, why am I extatic when I find out my girlfriend is NOT pregnant,

as I pointed out it is a unconscious process. Like I said, you dont go to work everyday thinking "humm, im buying a house in 3 years with the money im making here" instead you think about the problems that are at hand.
Clearly you are happy because you interpreted this situation as a potention distress to the resources that you have, or either you are not in the mood for raising children right now, or whatever. I dont know exactly why you dont want to have a children so its hard to presume the reason properly.

why do I enjoy eating candy-cane even more than meat?

it was explained above.

Why do I enjoy nothing more than laying in bed late on weekends doing nothing?

I hardly think that you would rather do that than to have sex

Some of our precepts were determined by instinct, true. But the VAST majority of them are based on nurture.

Yes, our survival depended on following the rules of the pack, thats why we learn things. How to behave and the like

Evolution does not make you want to be smarter, evolution at best gives you the capacity to BE smarter, it does not then tell you what to do with it. Evolution is not intelligent, it does not have forsight, it does not think things over.

It was on my first post. I said that it doesnt matter if the ugliest fella reproduce, or the most dumbest of all. At some point being ugly as a horse and dumb as a squirrel might prove usefull.

You have chosen one or two things that you feel might make some people happy

I can extend to any field. These were the most accesible examples

(meat makes people 'more happy' than vegetables? Where did you get that from?)

When you eat meat(insert hi cal, hi protein natural food here) your brain rejoices itself on hormones that make people feel good

and based some wild psudo-evolutionary theory on with no demonstrated links whatsoever.

I would be most pleased if you were to find more flaws on this theory

That is getting silly. Now our modern education system was tailored to fit the results of evolution?

Yes. We are smarter than animals due to evolution. We learn due to evolution. So lets create a place to make children learn things. There, the school has been created due to evolution.


The reward/punishment system that works on that is also based on evolution, as I pointed out before.

Impressive considering early educational tracts were laid out before the development of the theory of evolution.

I dont know where you are trying to get here, but if i understood you properly, my response would be
"evolution happend since the first cell evolved. the ignorance of such law does not mean you can evade it".

There are some things you should be aware of. Progress is not evolution. Evolution is a very specific process, you seem to be assuming anything done to improve anything qualifies as 'evolution'. As if, when i lose my regular pencil, and buy a mechanical pencil, have I just evolved?

As i said before i never faced evolution as something that make things better. Read above.

Because you are trying to propose some kind of pattern to what is a random process.

Im doing nothing more than taking the "survival of the fittest" law above and beyond. It is a pattern.

There is no specific building and set of stairs,

The building example was something that i imaginated in order to make myself clearer. I failed miserably at that, because at this point it seems no one fully understands what I am on about.

The building is related to one person only. In order to have sex, you have to eat. Thats floor one. In order to have sex, you have to "convince" a partner. Thats step two. And so on. The last stair is the sucessfull reproduction.

what we are is a result of random mutation, weeded out occasionally by periods of crisis in which only the best adapted to the particular situation prosper. If a diferent situation had arisen, evolution would have gone in a different direction. Evolution is random happenstance in which situational crises occasionaly force specific situational advantages to the fore.

Yes, this is right.

Early Humanity did not eat meat because our 'precognitive' genes told us it would be a good idea, we ate meat because agriculture was a much later invention, and meat was in plentiful supply, and we were omnivorous.

We chose to eat meat. Again, there were people who did not like meat. Meat is a hi-cal hi-protein food. It is meat that give predators its powers to overcome large preys. It is meat, and its abundant resources that made possible to wield a organ that consumes 20% of the body resources, the brain, key to our sucess as a species.(there are some theories that show that our brain only developed when we started fishing, due to the minerals) Have you seen the brain of a vegetable animal? It is blatantly smaller than one of a similar-weight predator.

Circumstance, not genetics. So given that it was circumstance, how would we have 'evolved' a love for eating meat?

people who ate meat had crucial advantages on people who dont.
So the people who liked eating meat reproducted more than the others.

Or could it be we were just part of an omnivorous branch of life, the primates, to begin with, and that has never changed?

No.

Your concept of evolution is way off base, and as a total aside, NONE of this discussion has anything to do with social darwinism.

Perhaps. Prove me wrong.

As to the former, yes I did. As to the latter, the jury is still out on that.

On a last note. I dont know what have you done in order to missunderstand every statement I made. Was that intentional? Did you even read my posts?
OR
Am I absolutely unable to express myself in a clear way?

[Baron Morte]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

Wow no. Before I got my doctorate I worked for a Social Sciences Research council, which on a daily basis administered research projects from thousands of academics conducting large scale emprical research and experimentation, or gathered data from situations to attempt to prove or disprove a theory. Not only is it possible, it happens. And not only does it happen, it happens routinely.

Emile(one of the social scholars i dont think you read) studied suicide and its impacts. Mind "experimenting" this situation, sil´s voul plâit?

Your theory lacks any kind of logical foundation. Your theory consists essentially of noticing that some things make you feel all warm and tingly inside

Yes, the reward mechanism, triggered by a explosion of just the right chemicals on the brain.

and that of these things, a few of them could be construed to be beneficial to people as a whole.

Yes, everyone wants to be happy.

Hardly what i would call a sound foundation for a hypothesis.

I disagree.

Now I am happy to admit you may have thought this through more than that, and your theory may have a deeper foundation than you have presented here, but all we can react to is what you type here, nothing else. And what you have typed here shows a lack of understanding of the basic ideas upon which you have formed your "theory".

Actually i dont think I made myself clear. This is the origin of this situation.

Lastly, in sciences or in social sciences, the development of a hypothesis must be accompanied by a way to test this hypothesis. Its a pretty basic principle. I believe that is what Nodrog and W are referring to. With your current position, that the theory is somehow untestable, then your premise becomes tautological.

You can test something on what has already happen. You see someone lying in the ground, dead, without the head, and someone that shot this guy in the head.
Do you really need to get some other guy, and shoot him on the head, in the same conditions, to prove that being shot in the head with a shotgun is enough to die?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Baron Morte

what you have to realise is that civilization has been "invented" in the last 1%¨of all the time humans are around.

So why don't I have all the urges that fish have seeing as I evolved from then? Do they get bred out over time? What sort of time period are we talking? What sort of proof are you giving for your theory?

Back in the old days there was hunger, and people died from it.( a lot more than now) Something sweet is something that will give lots of energy really fast, and/or create a adipose tissue that will help to endure hardship. Sweet things where something of a rare treat back then, thats why we all enjoy it. (some dont, because of evolution)

I'm not getting why you're explaining both sides, those who do and those who don't, in evolutionary terms. I'm sure lots of things affect us. If this causes everything what exactly is the point to it? Hey guys I've discovered a grand unified theory of everything that can't be proven or disproven. Great, what does it do? Erm, nothing. Okay, can you show it's correct? Erm, no.

Again, for evolutionary purpuoses people are different. You have got to agree that most people enjoy a sweet nice beef. Some will say they dont, because they want to be thin, or they dont think its healthy, but we are "made" to enjoy the taste of meat.

I'm not getting this at all. Everything gets explained in terms of evolutionary purposes, okay. What's your freaking point? And no most people I know don't actually like beef. And how the hell are we made to enjoy it? I know loads of people who don't enjoy the taste at all. Are they like genetic misfits or something?

If you both lived in the other 99% of the time, when there was no civilization, i would bet on the fat bloke (which most likely wouldnt be fat at that time)

I don't though. I live now. Evolution sounds like it pretty much sucks nowadays then.

Indeed vegetables have more vitamins and minerals than meat, but "back then" a source of protein and calories as abundant as meat was crucial.

How did they develop these yearnings anyway? Did they take countless years to come into existence or something? Why didn't mankind die out in the meantime without a reason to eat meat? How the hell did our original ancestors get anything done without all these genetic urges to do everything?

I'm sure your theory worked out well in your head but I don't really see a reason to believe it. That and I'm not well read up on evolution and what not so I don't tend to believe people who come along with theories that I in no way know enough about to make a qualified judgement on.

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by Baron Morte

Emile(one of the social scholars i dont think you read) studied suicide and its impacts. Mind "experimenting" this situation, sil´s voul plâit?

Why not, after all, Durkheim did. How do you think he came up with his famous definition of Suicide, and its classifications? Experimentation does not have to mean watching people leap to their deaths, it can also mean examining the situations, data and effects of suicide victims after the fact in order to prove or disprove a hypothesis, and/or try and determine a pattern. Experimentation and analysis take many forms, you seem preoccupied by the exprimentation of a chemist, who conducts his tests under sterile conditions. Experimentation in the social sciences and humanities takes different forms, but is notless valid.

And yes, not that it matters, but I have read all four of his primary works, and several of his essays, though I am sure not all of them...

Yes, the reward mechanism, triggered by a explosion of just the right chemicals on the brain.

Yes, and as has been pointed out, this reward mechanism is triggered by as many if not more negative actions and reactions as it is to ones which might be determined to be beneficial for 'humanity'. As I said earlier, you are closer to pavlov than darwin, as he proved that response reactions, even unconious ones, are easily affected and changed by nurture, not nature.

What you have yet to do is draw any kind of link between pleasure reactions, in particular obtuse ones like 'having friends' and evolution. Sex itself is physically pleasureable, THIS is a reaction you can tie to the need to procreate, hardwired into all animals. But the links you are trying to draw are one step removed, and it is not possible for them to be genetic, genetic reactions cannot ever be one step removed, because that would mean that had some ability to predict or reason responses, and they do not.

Your BEST case is that people seek out pleasure responses because they are pleasure responses, not because it leads to procreation. As such you cannot draw a line to any kind of darwinistic theory, people simply do what they like. They do what they like because they like it. In a few cases that can lead to productive results. (procreation). In other cases, and probably more cases, that can lead to detrimental results (sloth, gluttony).

And once more, none of this discussion has anything to do with Social darwinism, a well defined theme which deals with an entirely different issue.

[W]

Originally Posted by Baron Morte

Emile(one of the social scholars i dont think you read) studied suicide and its impacts. Mind "experimenting" this situation, sil´s voul plâit?

Easilly. Without causing any deaths.

You either lack any form of imagination and willingness to think, practical experience of experiments in science, or both.

[Baron Morte]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

So why don't I have all the urges that fish have seeing as I evolved from then?

You are different species.

Do they get bred out over time?

Fish reproduce from time to time.

What sort of time period are we talking?

Depends on the species.

What sort of proof are you giving for your theory?

The world as it is today.

I'm not getting why you're explaining both sides, those who do and those who don't, in evolutionary terms.

Because for the sake of the species, it is interesting that every specimen to be diferent from the other, so that a single change in the enviorement cant kill the whole species. Thats why some rules that i have come up to the humans dont apply to every single human.

I'm sure lots of things affect us. If this causes everything what exactly is the point to it? Hey guys I've discovered a grand unified theory of everything that can't be proven or disproven. Great, what does it do? Erm, nothing. Okay, can you show it's correct? Erm, no.

Yes, nothing happens for one reason only. I am trying to come up with something that explains a fair bit of today´s society.

I'm not getting this at all. Everything gets explained in terms of evolutionary purposes, okay. What's your freaking point? And no most people I know don't actually like beef.

Everybody I know like beef. (except this vegetarian girl, which i think that she likes it but wont admit)

And how the hell are we made to enjoy it?

You eat meat, seretonin is released on your brain, youre happy.

I know loads of people who don't enjoy the taste at all. Are they like genetic misfits or something?

Again, differences to ensure the survival of the species.

I don't though. I live now. Evolution sounds like it pretty much sucks nowadays then.

Evolution is now what it has ever been.

How did they develop these yearnings anyway?

There where people who had need of meet. They fed better, had more children and overcame the others.

Did they take countless years to come into existence or something?

It took a sizeable ammount of time so that meat eaters would be the majority.

Why didn't mankind die out in the meantime without a reason to eat meat?

I dont understand the question. Rephrase please.

How the hell did our original ancestors get anything done without all these genetic urges to do everything?

Much like in the same way we get things done even wanting to have sex all the time.

I'm sure your theory worked out well in your head but I don't really see a reason to believe it. That and I'm not well read up on evolution and what not so I don't tend to believe people who come along with theories that I in no way know enough about to make a qualified judgement on.

Its a pity that my theory fails to impress you. Nevertheless this discussion is proving to be very Usefull to me. I Will only be able to reply tomorrow. Can someone make a sucint explanation on what Social Darwinism is, and why it is completely unrelated to what I am posting?

[W]

Originally Posted by Baron Morte

You are different species.

So?
There's no law in genetics as far as I know that says that different species gotta have different instincts. Over time there's some diversification of course, or rather it's the diversification together with a few other factors that brings about speciation.

[Bloomers III]

conclusion:

Baron Morte is a big troll and does analyses posts too much. he needs to chill out and admit he's wrong and stop arguing