Struggle for Existence

[Kai]

I must have a misunderstanding of the term "social darwinism".

I took it to describe a naturally occurring process in human society by which groups of humans seek to establish a stable social contract that generally enabled that group to thrive (by whatever it's definition of 'thrive' is; my concept of this idea is value-neutral).

everyone else seems to be viewing it as a system which can be imposed or not on humanity at large.

Thats never been the description in my experience.

[Kai]

why the aversion to the idea of social darwinism, kai?

I imagine you've got a well-reasoned answer.

1. Because I don't like how the name of an esteemed biologist and the founder of evolutionary biology has become a buzz word for many unrelated topics in unrelated fields to the point where few people understand what Charles Darwin's original observations and hypotheses were about.

2. Because "social darwinism" is a rather vague corruption of the "survival of the fittest" statement that Henry Spencer coined back in Darwin's day, a term that Darwin never liked and ultimately only associated it with his work when the public use had become too large to ignore. Such ideologies in social darwinism lead to nasty amoral practices like eugenics. Fact: Human society is emergent from evolutionary biology and cannot be reduced to the theory of natural selection or even a bad reading of Darwin's work.

3. Because of Roger's answer.

In summary, it pisses me off, and for good reason.

Hi There Kai,

I'm sorry for pissing you off.  I didn't mean to but probably should've known better.  I was really more interested in getting thoughts on The Law of Requisite Variety?  Quoting Darwin at the beginning was a bad idea.   

I am not an Evolutionary Biologist & I appreciate your knowledge in this area. 

When you try to see things as they are, you see them as you are.
-Anais Nin

Seeing evolution as a reflection of my (admitted) mythology, is (in my mind or imagination) as if the Universe is waking up!

Right, wrong, true, false, up, down - these are all relative terms.  Science, religion, philosophy, psychology, all of the arts & sciences are compelling on many levels to me.  Curiosity & desire lead me to travel to places I wouldn't normally go.  "The unexamined life is not worth living" & all.

Inductive reasoning is necessary when you are attempting to tease information from your observations of the natural world.  & sometimes when people torture the data long enough, it will eventually confess. 

Communal reinforcement is the process by which a claim becomes a strong belief through repeated assertion by members of a community. The process is independent of whether the claim has been properly researched or is supported by empirical data significant enough to warrant belief by reasonable people. Often, the mass media contribute to the process by uncritically supporting the claims. More often, however, the mass media provide tacit support for untested and unsupported claims by saying nothing skeptical about even the most outlandish of claims.

Communal reinforcement explains how entire nations can pass on ineffable gibberish from generation to generation. It also explains how testimonials reinforced by other testimonials within the community of therapists, sociologists, psychologists, theologians, politicians, talk show hosts, etc., can supplant and be more powerful than scientific studies or accurate gathering of data by disinterested parties.

Communal reinforcement explains, in part, why about half of all American adults deny evolution occurred and believe that God created the universe in six days,* made the first man and woman out of clay, and a snake talked the woman into disobeying an order from God thereby causing all our problems. It also explains how otherwise rational and intelligent people can be persuaded to accept such stories as true when they are provided by a comforting community in a time of great emotional need. Every cult leader knows the value of communal reinforcement combined with isolating cult members from contrary ideas.
From
http://skepdic.com/comreinf.html

I see Humanity as continuing to evolve. I imagine (my mythology again) a Peoples who use art, science, technology, & information for the benefit of all Humanity. Technological & scientific advances (especially in recent history) occur faster than biological evolution. We, as a Peoples, struggle to make sense of the information that comes to light. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean that thing should be done.  I continue to struggle to make sense of this world.  There is so much beauty here too!  My mind gets boggled! 

I would be interested in your views on specialization?  From the point of view of Evolutionary Biology or from any other place.   

Sorry for being hard on you. I have a tendency to overreact (though I think I did pretty good this time), and I should really get a handle on that. That being said, Communal Reinforcement is an /excellent example/ of social selection (IMO; I'm not a sociologist so that basically means shit in the main scheme of things). I would caution you though. Selection in any form (biological or social) seldom leads to perfection or Utopia. The fossil records have plenty of long gone examples of this, and human history does as well.

Onto speciation. Essentially, speciation is the point when populations within a species of organism begin to differ so much that they no longer reproduce together, either due to some sort of barrier, separation in time or place, in food source, genetic differences leading to infertility, or something as simple as the genetalia not fitting together (the "lock and key" metaphor is used very often in entomology to describe how male genetalia will only fit the female genetalia of that species, which would explain why there are so many species of insects. One odd genetic variation in genetalia that makes it to the next generation can lead to a new species occuring).

Now, biologists talk of two different sorts of speciation: anagenesis and cladogenesis. Anagenesis is a sort of linear evolutionary event. As gene frequency changes in a population over time, the population may become so different from the ansestral population that we call it a new species. Cladogenesis is like the lock and key example above. When a population splits, the gene frequency in both populations changes individually and differently from the other, either by natural selection or genetic drift. As the two show more differences over time, we would then deem them new, separate species.

The difficulty is, determining the exact point when speciation occurs. Biologists have been working on that for years and no one seems to know still. It does, however, happen; there is plenty of evidence for that.

Any more questions?

[Cain]

Social selection sounds like an excellent alternative term, I must say.

[Honey]

Hi There,

Thanks Kai & thanks Cain for expanding on these things for me.  I really am interested in different perspectives on things & sometimes end up going all over the place & getting a bit scattered in the process.  & I don't mind taking a well-deserved hit now & again, actually a well placed one helps me to focus. 

bitw several years ago I got a pretty nice reproduction of The Great Wall off Kanagawa by Hokusai at a garage sale.  It's one of my favorites - hanging in my living room.  I got that & 2 Salvatore Dali, well, I dunno what to call them?  They're reprints of 2 of his paintings from shows he had in the 1960's in France, La Divine Comedie, the reprints are printed on top of ads for the shows in 2 different hotels.

Anyway, thanks again!