Another Human Nature (Social) Thread

[superberkut]

They say that 'survival of the fittest' is a method for ensuring that the best genetic specimens live to reproduce with each other and thus create natural evolution. However, today's society and its rules appear to have eliminated that long-standing law altogether, and today we have complete idiots on YouTube and people suing all life from each other- sometimes literally. Is this a cause for concern, or a real issue at all? I think I may be a bit paranoid, but this is what I believe is happening, and yes, it is very pessimistic, but all the same, I cannot help but notice it every now and then. As of now, the issue is coming back at me with alarming frequency.

All that said, is there an imminent danger in this, if it exists? No doubt in in other social matters it does (the alleged 'rat-race' and such), but for life, it seems to have disappeared.

Edit: I am asking if this problem exists, and if so, if there really is danger for the human population in it happening. MINICOOPER120, natch.

 

[Sage]

I’m not sure I understand what you’re asking…?

 

[Keef]

Only the best survive. I don't believe there's an argument to that point...

 

[dylansan]

Sage: Has survival of the fittest stopped working (at least in social aspects)?

I'm not sure, but I always wonder if there were big idiots like that in the past.

 

[the Interceptor]

I think that the natural concept of "the survival of the fittest" has stopped for humans, simply because we've reached a state where the average human doesn't have to fight for his survival on this planet anymore. We've found methods to defend against nature, animals and similar former threats. And that will and already has raised problems, such as the excess of population.

However, in the long run, I suppose nature will reinstate stable relations again. Taking my previous example, I think there will be birth control in several countries, increased death rates by food shortages and probably even more deaths by an increased number of natural disasters, indirectly caused by the human race. These effects are too low in frequency for the lifespan of a human being to be felt as an actual change, so we just don't experience them as such.

Regards
the Interceptor

 

[superberkut]

(to the Interceptor) Your theory is very viable, but does it reduce the population indiscriminately or selectively? The concern here is for the selectivity of this elimination, but perhaps the idiots will take care of the other like people.

 

[the Interceptor]

That depends. Natural disasters for example can hit any nation and therefore decimate the clever and the dumb. Of course there are places where specific kinds of disasters tend to happen, floods will prevail in coastal regions for example. Still, there is no kind of natural selection in such disasters.

The major thing that has changed through evolution of mankind is that intelligence is no criterion for survival anymore. I'd even go as far to allege that the "simple" do reproduce at a higher rate than the clever beings, which would mean that the human race is doomed to be dumb, if you will. As I said before, nature will also balance this effect sooner or later by the appropriate means. It may well be that within our life however, we will experience the very peak of "human dullness".

 

[Sage]

Sage: Has survival of the fittest stopped working (at least in social aspects)?

But what definition of “fittest” is being used?

I subscribe to Dawkins’s and Williams’s gene-centric view of evolution – i.e., natural selection is best framed at the gene level, and that living organisms simply evolved out of genes naturally protecting themselves. “Fittest” in that sense just means the ability to transfer the most number of genes (and, somewhat counter-intuitively, not on the individual scale, but on a global scale).

In that sense, yes, humans are avoiding “natural selection”, since we practice artificial birth control and adoption of others’ children. But that has nothing to do with idiots on YouTube and suing.

 

[CraftyLandShark]

I tend to agree with Sage insofar as the correct way to picture true natural selection - at the genetic level.

That said, there historically has been an analogous phenomenon in human culture that you could call "social natural selection". The "strong" (i.e. the influential, the intelligent, the beneficent - those who contributed most to humankind's general wellbeing) tended to be valued more so than the "weak". This seems to be polarizing, though. An atmosphere of guilt among the successful regarding the plight of the unsuccessful has resulted in programs and attitudes in most of the civilized nations that tend to attempt the redistribution of not only wealth, as in the socialist model, but of general regard and moral rightness, from the "strong" to the "weak". The best way to look at this is the prevailing social attitudes that reflexively classify a rich well-educated entrepeneur as a money-grubbing capitalist weasel who tramples the poor. The same attitude reflexively classifies a poor man, poorly educated, with no other noticeable (i.e. criminal) faults as a hardworking blue-collar hero upon which society is built.

My point here is NOT that all rich people are good, or that all poor people are bad - obviously that's not true. My point is that if you truly want to ascribe the principle ideas of natural selection to society as a whole, then yes, there does seem to be clear evidence for the fact that a shift has occurred, at a level far deeper and potentially more disturbing than the proliferation of the youtubeiots and the litigious.

 

[Venari]

"There is no sociological problem that cannot be solved without the judicious use of heavy firearms."

This is a misquote, the original was funnier (no problem / nuclear weapons) but the principle may apply.

Yes. I worry about the same thing. If you know, deep down, that you personally are 177 times smarter than one or two of the most powerful people in the world, you have to worry.

But this assumes that we're on a path to self-destruction. Let's be nice for a moment and suggest not.

Fittest at its most literal means both the ability to process food, water and oxygen more effectively, and the ability to fight illness. Ultimately, the people with high levels of fitness will be best suited to survive the next plague or a natural disaster. If you're smart, that will help as well. You'll be better placed to avoid the plague altogether or seek the high ground. Of course, if you avoid a plague, your survival against pathogens has not been tested - so it's possible the next one will getcha. Can't rely solely on brains.

As far as the downward spiralling nature of social interactions goes, well, stay out of trouble. And be smarter than the next guy. If even dumb lawyers can make money nowadays, best try not to do anything which might have to involve them. And if all else fails, employ heavy firearms.

 

[CraftyLandShark]

But this assumes that we're on a path to self-destruction. Let's be nice for a moment and suggest not.

I think in this case "nice" should be "correct"...

Most every generation has its elements that feel that they're living in the end-times, whether it be out of religious zeal or fear of ineffective leadership.

Humanity has survived a WHOLE lot of really REALLY bad stuff. If we made it through the middle ages and every major plague to date, I think we're pretty well-equipped to recover from, for example, eight years of the world's most influential nation falling under the leadership of a simian.

Yes, society may have made a perilous shift in what we consider socially valuable and morally correct, but as history has demonstrated time and time again, humanity is not a constant progression of ideas. It's more like the stock market - dips and rises, the death of good ideas in favor of bad ideas, the eventual rebirth of the good and the death, again, of the bad. And sometimes, bad ideas die permanently. Lucky for us, the good ones rarely do.