Darwinism and its meaning

[manic expression]

I've been wondering for awhile: How should one take the idea of evolution in respect to society? Many sick people have justified racism and bigotry by saying "survival of the fittest", and that some races are better than others and so they should be allowed to continue (Nazis used this a lot I think). Perhaps this is a shallow or wrong way of looking at evolution, but evolution is sometimes presented as: "One population is x, another is y. The population with x survives, and the one with y is wiped out". To me, this almost gives the slightest bit of validity to those who demand conformity.

I'm interested to see what people think.

[mcctatas]

1. Social Darwinism is hateful crap and perverts the theory...

Essentially evolution occurs through gene mutations in individuals of a species over a long period of time. Population x does not wipe out population y, it simply means that individuals with the genes for favorable adaptive traits will be more successful than those individuals with less favorable traits. Over time, the mutation will become the norm in the population, it is not an x or y thing. But you are right that "survival of the fittest has been co-opted for evil throughout the last century. Another reasons why fascists should stay away from science!!!

[manic expression]

4. So,

Evolution is because a population begins to mutate more frequently to an adaptive pressure?

I was just thinking about sickle-cell anemia, how it almost always occurs in human populations that are exposed to malaria (which sickle-cell anemia is resistant to). This would indicate that adaptations occur more frequently to a population under such an adaptive pressure. Does this mean people without the adaptation are "weaker"? Or merely that they have not adapted yet, and their offspring will eventually gain the trait through necessity.

However (this is all my theory), people without the disease are exposed to malaria, but have a different "strength": not having sickle-cell anemia. This could possibly lead to two different populations with two different adaptations (if speciation did occur, which it will not). That's just my wild speculation.

[SteppingRazor]

15. Discover magazine had a story on this...

To get sickle-cell, you need two copies of a certain gene. But just one copy of that gene grants heightened immunity to malaria.

So, those with no copies of the gene get malaria and die, leaving those with one copy. Many of those have children together, leading to sickle-cell.

It's a perfect example of evolution.

[manic expression]

22. Interesting

So is nature, in effect, wiping out the people who do not have any copies, just because of their genes? Or is that population merely adapting, and its individuals are contributing to the species' change?

It is a bit confusing, but I think it is imperative to get a clear view on this.

[SteppingRazor]

23. I think the two are one in the same.

Nature wipes out a certain portion of the population, which means that the population that is left has necessarily adapted. One begets the other.

[manic expression]

This is the hard part

does this give any validity to eugenicists?

On a tangent, I also think that speciation can occur if a portion of the population adapts to a different environment, which would suit its characteristics better. In this way, people without a copy of the gene would live in a way to minimize the threat of malaria (just an abstract example), making two different "populations".

[SteppingRazor]

27. Of course it doesn't give validity to eugenics...

The difference is in intent. Nature doesn't want to get rid of certain populations. It just does. It's capricious and morally neutral. Eugenics means consciously influencing populations to produce a desired result. It's that "conscious" bit that separates the two.
Then again, we are swiftly approaching the day when we will be able to remove things like sickle-cell anemia through genetic engineering. Does eugenics become morally justifiable when it is used against disease or birth defects? Or is this a terribly slippery slope? One could certainly see an argument for either side.

[manic expression]

36. OK, that makes sense

Thanks.

[Kraklen]

29. No.

Especially since the sickle cell anemia gene has nothing to do with apparent race.

In fact, the original sickle cell mutation likely originated in a Macedonian. Within a single generation it spread from eastern europe, to the middle east, to Northern Africa, and into the Indo-European subcontinent, all around 300 B.C.

All of these modern populations have sickle-cell to some degree or another, it thrived particularly well in malaria-infected areas. One of the areas was the same area the U.S. got it's slave population from. So eugenicists, being racist and stupid, falsely associate sickle-cell anemia with all black people. Black people have sickle-cell, sickle-cell is bad, ergo black people are genetically inferior.

Like I said below, it's all pseudoscience bullshit.

[manic expression]

34. Good points...

Thanks for the insight.

[Johonny]

53. No

Eugentics failed because it was based on an incorrcted thinking of the way genes worked. It was thought (hoped) there would be a 1 to 1 correlation between Genes and traits. However it quickly became apparent this was not true.

[mcctatas]

65. Since evolution occurs in individuals of a POPULATION of a given

SPECIES, the sickle cell example you have given makes absolute sense. For the population with high malaria exposure, it is adaptive to have the sickle cell gene. However, in populations without high levels of malaria exposure, sickle cell would be maladaptive and therefor would not become the norm. I guess that is the subtle distinction that must be made...population vs. species as a whole.

[Swamp Rat]

2. It's mind boggling to witness fundies readily accept the core concept

of Social Darwinism yet audibly denounce "Darwin" ... fucking blows my mind.

[manic expression]

5. Yeah, I never got that either

there are many things I will never understand about the RW.

[undergroundpanther]

3. Darwinism

is basically evolution
Eugenics is what you get when it is applied socially.

Evolution is a result of mass death,Nature ruthlessly tearing up the"unfit".
Evolution is apparently real and it occurs.
It is not concerned about how life feels about it,or the"selfish genes"
It is destruction Evolutionists imply all this death and decay is for a higher purpose ..To make for a more complex higher evolved more efficient species.This hasn't seemed to pan out as far as I observe species adapt but they do not become BETTER or more conscious or more sane beings really..Genetics does not bear this evolutionary theory out IF 99% of DNA is "junk"Than 99% of evolution is just fucking off. Apparently DNA can't withstand all that radical of a genetic mutation without the mutations sickening,disabling or killing us if it is left to chance and trauma and who lives and dies.. Physics also does not support the idea evolution is making things more complex and stable,they say the universe tends twords dissolution and entropy.Fancy that.Old books about gods also miserably fail to explain this issue of what the reason for all this brutality in survival and the absurdity of it all.Religion makes god look like a capricious bully destroying and picking favorites just to abuse them for fun.. Both areas of current thinking on evolution is a joke, religion and science have more holes than cheesecloth in their theories and their answers are not good enough for me to call anything as murderous as "might makes right" or survival of the fittest anything but perverse and insane..

I myself think evolution is basically senseless,yes things change,but for WHAT.. Why must things be born to suffer and die so others can suffer and die endlessly..Nature is and mankind is red in tooth and claw,because existence itself is all fucked up.It has been fucked because whatever forces made it occur is fucked up it is beauty and horror misshapen chaos and order it is insanity.I dunno if some mad supernatural thing,or just random chance or some bad dream of the cosmos started this chain of events leading to now, I do not care,because life feeding upon the death of the living to survive is perverse..And we do not have answers and as long as scientific disciplines stay compartmentalized arrogant and competitive and spirituality remains bound by books region or traditions we will never find out.. something about this sadistic ghastly,gorgeous contradictory mysterious very little understood existence we are in that has caused human beings and life itself untold existential pain and suffering and ecstasy.How do we GET OUT of this nightmare intact? Can we get out at all? Why exist? Why do we die? Better yet, why do we LIVE? What the Fuck IS reality and WHY? Why perceive our own deaths?Why imagine? Why Why Why? Religion and science BOTH have FAILED to answer this to my satisfaction.Philosophy and Heresy has gotten a little closer perhaphs..or maybe not.. But both religion and science hates the philosopher/heretics in their ranks who ask all those ego deflating, faith killing questions and remind them still none of us wear no clothes..

[Kraklen]

7. That's a rather disturbing post.

You're using the tired old saw about the 2nd law of thermodynamics arguing against evolution. You say "science has more holes than cheesecloth" but the only holes I see are the ones in this argument.

[Guaranteed]

10. Science has tons of holes in it. nt

[Kraklen]

11. The 2nd Law and Evolution isn't one of them.

Would you like to talk about that "hole" or something else?

[Guaranteed]

12. Yeah, could you tell me why, apparently,

the universe is actually accelerating in its expansion, by observation, when by the Big Bang theory it's supposed to be decelerating?

Or why we can't reconcile the forces of gravity and electromagnetism?

Or why we can't find any observable evidence of tachyons, when, in theory, they're supposed to exist?

[Kraklen]

13. Can you tell me the 11 trillionth decimal of pi?

Oh my gosh! Math has holes!

[Guaranteed]

14. Well, at least that's not a contradiction.

That's an unanswered question.

Two of the questions I posed to you are contradictions.

On edit: The third is nearly so, it's sat as it is, unsolved, for so long.

[Kraklen]

16. You posted three unanswered questions.

And for some reason claimed they were holes in science.

[Guaranteed]

18. No, it's a contradiction when the universe is accelerating

in its expansion, by our observation, while the theory behind the Big Bang says that it's supposed to be decelerating.

It's a contradiction when theory also says that there should be tachyons, and no matter how we try to find and observe them, we can't (because they don't exist).

And, lastly, this problem that we have with gravity and electromagnetism butting heads with each other has been around for quite awhile. They seem to be "incompatible," if they don't explicitly contradict each other.

[Kraklen]

20. It's an unanswered question.

How does gravity reconcile with the apparent acceleration of large, distant objects.

How do you propose answering such a question, with science or by calling Madame Cleo and asking what she thinks?

As for tachyons, they're hypothetical particles which may or may not exist. You can't say they don't exist because you've never looked into it.

Yes, there's problems at a quantum mechanical level reconciling gravity and the other forces. How do they reconcile? That's just another unanswered question. String theory is one possible answer, it just hasn't been tested yet.

[SteppingRazor]

19. On the contrary, your questions are very similar to Kraklen's

There are theories that unify all four forces (gravity, electromagnetic, and strong and weak nuclear), but they are still only theoretical and can't be tested with current technology -- string theory is a perfect example.

While we have not directly observed tachyons, neither have we directly observed many subatomic particles -- for example, all the super-particles that the aforementioned string theory predicts. But that doesn't mean they aren't there and, in fact, may be measured soon, when the huge franco-swiss particle accelerator goes online in 2006.

As for the universe accelerating, in fact, it has been shown to be accelerating toward certain points, which has lent credence to theories regarding super-massive black holes.

In other words, there are answers for all of your questions. Just not answers that can be specifically quantified at this point in time -- much like specifically quantifying the trillionth decimal of pi cannot be done at this time by you or me (though, certainly, by someone with a halfway decent PC and the right software).

[Guaranteed]

21. Sounds like you're working on a lot of faith, there.

There are a lot more questions- and contradictions- where that came from, too.

[SteppingRazor]

24. Oh, I'm the first to agree...

that a lot of this is little more than speculation, and I don't necessarily buy into all of it myself. I'm just pointing out that, in fact, science DOES have answers to the questions you pose. It's just that the answers are frsutratingly unscientific, in that they cannot be measured through empirical evidence. For string theory to be directly confirmed, we would have to be able to create a small universe, independent of ours, in a laboratory and test it out. That being a definite impossibility, we're left with putting together various data points to come to a likely conclusion, which is more or less the basis of cosmology at this point.

[Kraklen]

25. Faith?

In what, the trillionth decimal of pi? You can calculate any decimal of pi rather simply. That's not faith, it's knowledge.

Existence of subatomic particles? Disbelieving in subatomic particles takes as much faith as believing in them, only more so since there's evidence suggesting they exist.

[SteppingRazor]

32. And, one could point out...

similar naysayers abounded in the beginnings of the atomic era. But then, we invented the electron microscope. Funny that no one denies the existence of atoms today -- well, no one who isn't befuddled by fundamentalism or insanity, in any case.

[Kraklen]

33. Oh, I don't know.

Given the nature of this crowd I wouldn't be surprised if they'd deny the existence of electrons while reading text off of their CRT monitors.

[Guaranteed]

44. LOL

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2964444

[Guaranteed]

43. LOL atoms

Here's my thread on atoms and theoretical science:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2964444

[Egalitariat]

62. I can. Or could. Your question is one that would take some time

but would not be a challenge.

The other 3 questions are challenges that nobody has been able to live up to yet.

[Peregrine]

64. We learn more each day

Our tools improve, the amount of data increases, and the quality of the data increases.

Hypoteses are formulated with the information we know at that time. As we learn more these hypotheses may need revision or discarded. The Big Bang is still the accepted theory inspite the discovery of the accelerating expansion. The question is was less mass in the singularity, or is there more energy that we have yet to discover such as Einstein's anti-gravity.

I am also interested in the problem between gravity and electromagnetism. I'm not saying there isn't one, just interested in what it is. It has no mass, and isn't affected by gravity.

[undergroundpanther]

61. Than you think survival of the fittist

Nature red in tooth and claw and everything that is born dies so more can be born to die.. is somehow sane or for the good? How can you prove this is all gonna work out for the good,and we will evolve into better species isn't that a kind of Faith too Mr.Scientist??
I am no fundamentalistof religion or science I don't believe in god,or intellegent design"evolution" as if it was good and had a goal or purpose because if it did God and evioolution/nature would be a ghastly monster for making a world to work like this.

[Guaranteed]

8. Wow.

Nice. Especially the last line.

I'd rec'd your post if I could.

[KittyWampus]

28. Darwinism Is NOT Evolution. It's Nothing But A Flawed Theory That TRIES

to explain the physical evidence that indicates Evolution.

[Kraklen]

41. Nonsense.

But I think every one here knows that.

[puerco-bellies]

46. cryingshame gets the cigar.

Darwinism was the first widely accepted theory of evolution. The current (refined) theory is by Niles Eldredge and Steven Gould which is know as Punctuated Equilibrium.

Paleontologist have observed the fossil record to be somewhat stable for periods of time then suddenly there are changes in the flora/fauna. It is thought that sudden changes in the enviorment cause different selection pressures in the surviving species which result in the creation (through evolution) of new species as they radiate into new niches, filling in where animals or plants that did not survive the enviromental change or filling in new types of habitats.

Heres a good site
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html#summary

[muriel_volestrangler]

50. That FAQ says that PE fits nicely in with Darwin's writings

Nothing can be effected, unless favourable variations occur, and variation itself is apparently always a very slow process. The process will often be greatly retarded by free intercrossing. Many will exclaim that these several causes are amply sufficient wholly to stop the action of natural selection. I do not believe so. On the other hand, I do believe that natural selection will always act very slowly, often only at long intervals of time, and generally on only a very few of the inhabitants of the same region at the same time. I further believe, that this very slow, intermittent action of natural selection accords perfectly well with what geology tells us of the rate and manner at which the inhabitants of this world have changed.

[HereSince1628]

55. Isn't P.E. theory limited to macroevolutionary events?

Not to say that microevolutionary events aren't punctuated in some sense, but I think the whole point of P.E. was to account for changes in the array of species in the landscape. Which is to say it mostly is used to explain patterns in events that aren't typically observable in ecological time. In particular, he was interested in applying concepts such as selection on species or clades, rather than selection on individuals.

Gould obviously accepted microevolutionary theory, but as a paleontologist he really work around rather than through population genetics. He even called biologist studying microevolutionary events "neontologists" a term which in some of his writings seemed at times to be a put down.

I also seem to remember reading in Gould's _Structure of Evolutionary Theory_ that he wasn't satisfied with any model attempting to link microevolutionary events with P.E. which may indicate that he didn't think the two scales of evolutionary explanation had yet been successfully unified.

[undergroundpanther]

63. Evolution how does it happen

And what happens if"nature" sez Hey YOu! outta the gene pool.
What ways can itt take you out,A predator eats you,you get sick and die,you starve,you die in birth,Age,you die of an injury, you mutate and die.. And tell me how is this NOT darwinism,it's just in my view darwinism without mankind's bigoted inputs "helping it to be more insane than it already is.We still get born,to breed (or not)and to die so more can keep doing the same shit suffering all the while competing and winning and losing,just to DIE in PAIN.How is this proof of anything but a designer gone mad,or random acts of insane sociopathy and might makes right and competition to live off of the corpses of the once alive who's life was torn apart so you could live another day.. and remember,no one gets out of this torture chamber alive no matter how high their body count or how kind they are..it is FUTILE .And if you get religious on me,remember no one comes back to say what happens after nature or the ghastly creator of this ghastly creation kills you.ALL RELIGIONS GUESS.
And a guess is not certainty considering NO ONE in the entire world has come back to animate themselves to give us a scoop after their own corpse is half rotted and bothered to take their stinking carcass to a TV station to tell us about life after death. When they are decomposing kinda dead..Yet we all hope??? For what..To dream that this is NOT futile and homicidal suicidal existence has purpose! But what if it DOESN'T have a purpose ,order or reason,,people? What then? It means we have been fighting each other over BULLSHITand that DEATH and suffering and strife,lack of wisdom foresight,greed,and lack of empathy that kind of overweening ambition to win that fascists love to glorify All of that and more in of itself IS our REAL enemy to happiness, homeostatis, and all that other stuff we pine for but dare not imagine.

[hatrack]

52. You are mangling the 2nd Law of Thermodyamics

A common misconception is that the behavior of energy makes biological evolution impossible, or, as you put it, "Physics also does not support the idea evolution is making things more complex and stable,they say the universe tends twords (sic) dissolution and entropy."

Well, no, it doesn't.

What the Second Law states is that the amount of disorder in CLOSED systems invariably increases over time.

So, the question you need to start asking, before you dissolve into a puddle of existential goo is a simple one - is the Earth a closed system?

Uh, no, it's not. Since we constantly receive energy from the Sun, there is nothing about evolution which violates the 2nd Law. Sorry to sound so harsh, but hearing people misquote this drives me nuts.

[mixedview]

71. it is more dangerous to deny natural/biological tendencies

by pretending they don't exist.

Social darwinism is/was the abuse of scientific truth.

But understanding nature and biological tendencies can help us to design policies to protect the vulnerable and curb the bullies.

Just like with capitalism. If we ignored the natural dynamic - that the strong individuals at the top have a tendency to abuse those at the bottom, we would never have a progressive tax system, anti-trust laws, and other business regulations.

By embracing the biological/natural truths about individual behavior, social behavior and group dynamics, market dynamics, etc - we can improve society, the world - humanity.

Heck - American ideology itself is rooted in libertaranism and humanism - which are natural law concepts - eg. "unalienable rights" Jefferson believed came not from any government or any religion's "god", but from a common, natural Creator (ie. "mother nature"). Our founding fathers' adherence to objective scientific truth and not mysticism is the only reason libertarian democracy exists - as imperfect as it was and still is.

:kick:

[Kraklen]

6. Darwinism is based on science.

Social darwinims has been around for a hundred and fifty years and everytime it's been subjected to scrutiny it's been shown to be innately flawed and based on the racist views of its proponents, instead of actual data.

[KittyWampus]

30. No, Darwinism Is Based On The Philosophy Of Materialism. It's The Attempt

to explain Evolution using nothing but the Material world and it ignores not only the role but the very existence of Consciousness/Intelligence.

[SteppingRazor]

35. Precisely.

Why introduce some intelligent design when the facts are easily explained without this deus ex machina?
To do otherwise would suggest twisting the facts so as to arrive at a desired end. Occam's razor, and all that.

[Kraklen]

38. Darwinism is the study of how organisms evolve over time.

Since organisms are material, Darwinism is naturally materialistic.

If you want to come up with some provable theory about how organisms evolve because of Casper the Friendly Ghost, you're welcome to it. Just don't expect to be taken seriously.

[lildreamer316]

9. The bottom line is

how do the fascists know beforehand which way genetics are going to mutate? Sorry, but Mother Nature's diversity and capeablitiy are far too wide for anyone to presume to know what "she" is "thinking" i.e. which genes she is going to combine & discard. Such egos!

[rman]

17. Survival of populations depends more on culture

then on genetics. And there's evolution in culture to; a culture can evolve, ours has.

[KittyWampus]

26. Darwinism= Materialism & Reductionism. Man & Nature As Machines

it is a theory that posits the Universe as solely Material.

Consciousness is merely some inconsequential epiphenomenon that is best ignored.

That is it's greatest flaw and why Liberals need to stop their unthinking kneejerk reaction to Intelligent Design.

Darwinism is based in Materialism... the very mindset/worldview we supposedly abhor.

[Kraklen]

31. You're right.

Darwinism has absolutely nothing to say about chemtrails. I've no idea how they get away with teaching that stuff.

[SteppingRazor]

37. Intelligence is easily explained in evolution --

the stupid did not survive. We're left with the smart ones. Who have smarter children, ad infinitum.

And to suggest that liberalism must by necessity adopt some sort of mystical worldview I personally find rather disturbing. You seem to be confusing materialism (the belief that physical well-being and world possessions represent the greatest good) with the philosophical theory of Materialism (the belief that the physical reality is the only one).
Perhaps an argument can be made that liberalism should be opposed to the former, but one can hardly state that liberalism is unequivocably opposed to the latter.

[manic expression]

39. But isn't intelligence

an aquired characteristic? So genetic essentialism is incorrect.

Furthermore, those who are stupid can survive just as well as those who are smart.

[Kraklen]

40. Intelligence has nothing to do with genes.

You're leading towards the Bell Curve, aren't you?

[manic expression]

42. Well,

I'm not sure what a Bell Curve is (I know what a Punnett Square is!), but I do think an individual's behavior (whether in society or nature) and choices can dictate their own life, not just genes.

For instance, if there is bug x and bug y; bug x is better suited for grass, while bug y is better suited to inhabit trees. The two species (although possibly once members of the same population) will adapt differently. That's just my theory.

[Swamp Rat]

47. Sir Francis Galton

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Francis-Galton

See also "Gauss."

[muriel_volestrangler]

48. Of course intelligence is connected to genes

Humans are more intelligent than dogs, which are more intelligent than cod, etc. That comes from the genes.

[Kraklen]

49. Thanks, Muriel.

But if you're arguing that black people are stupid because they're closer to chimpanzees than white people, which is what eugenicists say and what we're talking about, than you're shit out of luck.

[manic expression]

57. Adapted to different uses

dogs are smarter when it comes to finding scents. Also, if a human is left to its own means (no parents, culture, etc...), it will not develop "intelligence", as acute as we are accustomed to. I think there is something to be said for acquired characteristics.

[rman]

67. selfdeleted

[SteppingRazor]

45. Not true...

In today's world, one can be weak, strong, stupid, or smart and survive. But a few hundred thousand years ago, being stupid would get you killed.

[manic expression]

56. A few thousand years ago...

having a strong sword arm would get you a kingdom.

[Kraklen]

58. How?

[manic expression]

60. Ever hear of...

a lot of rulers that weren't too bright? The only reason they got in power was through their family, who undoubtedly had a strong predecessor that acquired land holdings/influence by power. The fact that a father's traits are usually absent in a son (besides physical) shows the fact that many traits are acquired.

[rman]

69. Intelligence is not exclusively aquired

Humans are inherently more intelligent then other species, because of genes.

[Zhade]

51. Until you have one shred of evidence supporting your belief...

...don't expect people to accept it as fact.

To date, every time ID is discussed and you bring this up and are challenged on it, you have not posited ONE IOTA of evidence aside from your personal beliefs.

[HereSince1628]

59. I think there is a subtle difference between Materialism and Material

that you are mixing.

I think that science in general is interested in empirical phenomena which occur in a physical universe. In the physical universe material is the stuff that the universe is made of. I suppose it is fair to say that most empiricists would argue that the phenomena they experience can be related to the presence or activity of such stuff and to refer to empirical science as a philosophy of materialism in the sense that the universe is made of stuff is correct.

But materialism, particularly in its popular sense, and the way you use it in your last sentence deals with a doctine of lifestyle that emphasizes comfort, pleasure, wealth etc. as its goals. I don't think that science, particularly evolutionary science, is driven by this sense of materialism.

It is nevertheless also true that scientists need jobs and so to maintain their lives while pursuing the questions they ask requires some level of accumulated wealth that an individual or society is willing, at least fractionally, to dedicate to paying scientists.

[rman]

68. Theory of evolution does not claim to be a complete 'theory of life and

human existence'. It is a theory about biological evolution only.

"Consciousness is merely some inconsequential epiphenomenon that is best ignored."
The theory of evolution does not say that, nor does it imply that. It's just that it doesn't say anything about consciousness, much like Quantum Mechanics doesn't say anything about gravity.

[K-W]

70. Propaganda bullshit.

Give this materialism and reductionism talk a rest.

The material world is everything that actually exists in the world. If something exists, it is in the material world. The fact that you want to pretend things exist that actually dont doesnt mean scientists wouldnt be happy to accept its existance if there was ANY evidence.

[Johonny]

54. Not Darwinian

How should one take the idea of evolution in respect to society?

Societies in general do not experience Darwinian evolution mechanism of survival of the fittest. The answer to why this is true is easy to answer. Darwin’s mechanism requires lots of time. It's a mechanism of slow change due to disproportional survival rates due to variance in heretical traits inherent in a population. Social change is almost all due to Lamarckian evolution mechanism.

[mixedview]

66. Social darwinism is bad. That doesn't mean we should ignore nature.

By understanding biological and sociological tendencies, we can help people, and make society better.

Remember, ANY type of belief system (religion, politics, science, whatever) can be corrupted and used to harm. Doesn't mean the belief system itself is bad.

All that should matter is discovering scientific truth and understanding reality. The truth is what should matter, and we shouldn't be afraid of it. Only then can policy be truly designed to help the individual, society, and ultimately the world.