SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Darwin Day is a celebration of Charles Darwin's birthday, the theory of evolution and science in general. This year marks his 210th birthday and 160 years since the publication of The Origin of Species. Those looking to celebrate or learn more about Darwin and evolution will find a wealth of events going on, or if you'd rather not leave the house, try a Darwin Day card with designs generated by simulated evolution.
Recently, an important finding in man's evolution was announced; the so-called Missing Link was confirmed. Australopithecus Sediba fossils were found in 2010 but it took a decade of research and debate for scientists to confirm that this was indeed the missing link that connects man's evolution in an unbroken chain back to primate ancestors.
Not everyone is down with Darwin. The Pew Research Center reports, "In spite of the fact that evolutionary theory is accepted by all but a small number of scientists, it continues to be rejected by many Americans. In fact, about one-in-five U.S. adults reject the basic idea that life on Earth has evolved at all." In Indiana, senator Dennis Kruse introduced a bill that would, among other things, "require the teaching of various theories concerning the origin of life, including creation science."
(Score: 3, Interesting) by meustrus on Monday February 11 2019, @04:46PM (9 children)
I wouldn't go for the full 4/5 there, but racism is definitely an element of evolution. Not the science, of course. "Adaptability" is not equivalent to superiority, and any attempt to scientifically define "superiority" is a pseudo-scientific waste of effort.
But too many serious scientists have tried to dismiss "social Darwinism" as a real and dangerous idea. It took German hubris and over-engineering to convince the world that the "final solution" to racial inferiors was inevitably barbaric.
I happen to believe that different people are wonderfully diverse, by genes, ethnicity, upbringing, personality, and many other ways. I also happen to believe that whichever groups have the best adapted traits are not inherently superior, and that we are stronger as a species for the wide diversity of potentially less well-adapted traits.
But I understand that most people are not like me. Most people seem to think that monocultures are great. Agriculture has certainly moved in the direction of killing diversity, and scientists are rightly worried about one disease wiping out the entire food supply as a result. Until we can all give up on our superiority, we will never reconcile survival of the fittest with the overwhelming diversity of the human species.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday February 11 2019, @04:54PM (8 children)
That doesn't sound so logical. I think you're trying to say something like "not being a jerk to your inferiors is an inherent virtue worth cultivating" is probably what you're trying to say; I could agree with that. Actually the much maligned Christians who used to permeate government had some wise things to say about the topic of not Fing people over. Takes deep separation of church and state to support a really effective Holocaust.
I may be a better evolved creature than an oak tree in the sense that we're dominating the planet better than they are, that doesn't mean I feel a compulsive need to chop a tree down merely because "hey tree, fuck you, because i can". Coexistence, especially with physical separation, seems quite possible.
On one hand, WRT "inevitably barbaric", the milk cow on "Little House on the Prairie" seemed to have a nice life, on the other hand, horrific stories about treatment of livestock by industrial agriculture is kinda making your point about "inevitably barbaric".
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Monday February 11 2019, @05:17PM (2 children)
whichever groups have the best adapted traits are not inherently superior
That doesn't sound so logical. I think you're trying to say something like "not being a jerk to your inferiors is an inherent virtue worth cultivating" is probably what you're trying to say;
No, I interpret his comment differently. Superior traits in one situation may be inferior in a different one. Your genetically typical African is likely ill-suited to an arctic environment. Your average Inuit poorly suited to the savanna.
Genetic diversity gives a species flexibility. Look at cheetahs - they are extraordinarily vulnerable, which in this sense.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday February 11 2019, @05:36PM (1 child)
That gets questionable in terms of colonialism; if imperialistic colonial forces can fight the natives on native land better, they deserve that ivory or crude oil for being superior.
Colonial imperialistic invasions never seemed to fail because the invading army wasn't diverse enough; Why if we had just brought along some Koreans or Hawaiians we'd still be holding Rhodesia today, etc.
(Score: 4, Informative) by cubancigar11 on Monday February 11 2019, @07:12PM
You get 0 for history and advice to do more homework. Colonial armies were very diverse. In fact, all over history, any army that was successful was incredibly diverse.
Seriously, you didn't think a bunch of British people were enough to defeat the whole world without enlisting locals, right? In fact, the Chinese name for Indians is translated to 'red turban' because it was Sikhs wearing red turbans that fought all the wars (and also fought in Afganistan, and there is a memorial for them in London for their contribution in WW2). Genghis Khan was famously tolerant of all religions and people of all religious fought and rose to become prominent leaders in his army. Alexander assimilated every army he could get its hands on.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Monday February 11 2019, @10:25PM (4 children)
My argument is that "superiority" is a statement of moral authority, and such a statement is inherently unscientific. Human beings lack the moral authority to even make such a statement about ourselves. This is why morality is always attributed to divine proclamation.
If you are a Christian, only God can tell you who is "superior". Not any human being, and certainly not Darwin or any of the hacks that sought to use his theories to prove themselves better than everyone else.
By the same logic, if you an atheist, nobody has the moral authority to declare any person or people "superior" to another. Science can tell you who is better adapted to the cold. It can tell you who is objectively smartest. Science can even tell you that historically, the strong have always killed the weak and stolen their resources. But science can never give you moral authority to do so yourself, because science can never give anybody moral authority to do anything.
P. S. This is a philosophical argument, not a practical argument. I am not arguing that God exists or that any religious morality system is correct. I am merely arguing that any morality system can only be valid when it is based on a belief in a higher authority.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 4, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday February 11 2019, @11:39PM (1 child)
Please keep doing this! But please also understand that you're probably never going to change VLM's mind, nor any of the other "scientific" racists'. They've started with a conclusion and are desperately slurping "data" that confirms it; their entire worldview is based on the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
It's necessary to do what you do for the sake of others who might be infected by their noetic plague germs, but they themselves are too far gone. We can only contain and neutralize them.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @12:42PM
This is the authoritarian way of "thinking", you start with the conclusion and then try to prod it up with any and all crutches you can find.
https://www.theauthoritarians.org/options-for-getting-the-book/ [theauthoritarians.org]
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday February 12 2019, @01:58PM (1 child)
Oh interesting, probably part of whatever disagreement we have is I was reading superiority as hierarchy not as some sort of moral issue.
Its very unusual in any human society I'm aware of for hierarchy to correlate with morality. Things work better when it does, however minimally, of course.
Your "never" bit for scientific moral authority seems to exclude some vast swaths of agnostic philosophy. "Do onto others as you would do to you" various wordy utopian rants starting with Plato quite a bit of Buddhist thought, etc.
Thats if you read moral authority with the Moral capitalized. If you read it with the Authority capitalized that means nothing more than hierarchy and dominance and logical fallacies, which is kinda boring, so I focused on capitalized Moral in the phrase moral authority.
Theres a strong argument that moral authority as a phrase is an inherent oxymoron, just another logical fallacy to control people for unjust purposes. If not in theory then certainly in fact.
If you want real controversy, I'd propose that there are tiers of IQ where cultures can only handle a God or can handle their own morality. Much like libertarianism where it can only be implemented practically and safely in a (sub)culture with an average IQ above 120 or so. Now there is huge room for argument on the lowest IQ a society can have before it can't function agnostically... 140? 110? 100? 90? 50? Interestingly that rolls us back into race discussions.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Tuesday February 12 2019, @03:47PM
I would characterize such ideas as "ethics", not "morality". But I could well be wrong; I'm not particularly connected with the academic traditions here.
It's absolutely possible to have a system of ethics without a higher authority. But the basis of such systems is more explicit: perhaps we are trying to maximize personal liberty, or personal happiness, or respect for one's profession, or the power and influence of one's nation. Regardless, the motive behind an ethical system is open to choice and argument, which makes it different from a moral system, which is always concerned with nothing more specific than what is "good".
Basing the right to resources on racial superiority is exactly this kind of moral system. What is the ethic behind it? One could argue that it is to maximize natural selection. That, however, is a paradox: how does one accentuate a natural process when doing so takes away its "natural" quality?
More likely, the ethic is to maximize personal authority, using natural selection as an argument for racism but not as its basis. Doing so creates exactly the kind of Morality that you decry: a system meant to manipulate the dumb into supporting a hierarchy that works directly against their own interests.
I didn't realize when I started writing this that I'd arrive at how racism maintains an underclass of the dominant race, but here we are. White supremacists really love to tell poor whites that they deserve special treatment because their whiteness is Good. This racist ideology lacks the debatable basis of an ethical system, and largely serves to keep poor whites from joining other underclasses in pursuit of economic justice.
In this case at least, the hierarchy that results has very little to do with morality or ethics. It has more to do with ambition, ruthlessness, and access to resources. It's my general impression that this is the basis of almost all human hierarchies. I am not aware of any moral or ethical system that prizes these values above all others; the closest I can think of is the Ferengi from Star Trek, who function more as a caricature of capitalism than an actual coherent ideology.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?