Evolutionary extinction of Socialism ???

[ComradeMan]

An ad on RevLeft drew me to this site...

http://www.livingwithevolution.com/

Extract:-

Human Social Policy Failures Abound!
Western Civilization on the Verge of Collapse!
History Repeating Once Again! Why?

A Failure To Acknowledge Evolutionary Reality As Natural Selection Continues To Run Its Course For Humankind.
Learn why:

The pursuit of self-interest should not be condemned within society; it should be promoted—conditionally.
Competition is just as important as cooperation within society.
Too much compassion can easily be more of a problem than too little within society.
The power of the scientific method, the free market, and natural selection derive from the same dynamics.
Human “values” are only valuable to the extent that they promote societal survival.
All within a society cannot be maximally and equally prosperous.
Social safety nets can be evolutionarily sound, but social subsidies via government redistribution cannot.
The ad seemed to suggest that evolutionary progress will see the extinction of.... Socialism??????:confused:

Seems like a scientific justification of capitalism?:confused::crying:

Any more info on this?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Never heard of this but it sounds like Social-Darwinism for the Ayn Rand set.

[Manic Impressive]

This is what happens when you have advertisements on Revleft :rolleyes:

[Jimmie Higgins]

This is what happens when you have advertisements on Revleft :rolleyes:What, free giggles? Better these ads show up here than on a site where someone might not know any different.

[Leonid Brozhnev]

I just heard Darwin facepalm

[ComradeMan]

Seriously- does anyone have any more serious information on this book, content, author etc.

These are the arguments that will inevitably be used against socialism so it's important to know what they may be.

Came across this too...

http://thepeoplescube.com/images/lenin/Shakedown_Soc_Cover_300.png

[Revolution starts with U]

The creative force of hierarchical material self-organization by which the physical realm has given rise to the chemical realm, the chemical realm has given rise to the biological realm, etc

Well, evolution has nothing to do with that. One could make the argument that is a form of evolution, like the evolution of material rather than the evolution of species. But he clearly says "evolution by means of natural selection" deals with that. And that is patently false, so why should I believe another word he says?


The good news is this comprehensive understanding of natural selection provides both a wake-up call and the means to predict generally what policies and actions will be favored by natural selection forever, and even ultimately

Obviously this guy is very mistaken in his understanding of evolution. I would like to see what his "ultimate eternal" positive selections are...
Maybe if there was a "Dr KR.." writing this I could take it seriuosly, but it would just make me wonder how someone with such a fundamental misunderstanding of natural selection could get a job at a university.
Maybe if there were some Dr's reviewing his book I might take it seriously. BUt his two positive reviews are from a FOX tv exec and a winner of a humurous writing award... hardly scientific credentials.


While the author’s capacity to view the material world as a grand system that abides by principles of engineering shines through in this work, at least as important to the success of this project has been the author’s lack of any traditional credentials—such as an advanced degree and/or higher professorial position. For both the specialization and “groupthink” that academia tends to promote, especially at its higher levels, will inevitably make it very difficult for anyone within it to step back and focus on the “big picture” with the required independence and objectivity

Obviously the lack of scientific credentials makes one's scientific arguments more legitimate :laugh: His religious background of psuedo using science to try to debunk science stuck with him. what a joke :laugh:
This claim on the "un-objective" nature of the academic community is easily debunked by the history of Piltdown Man. If he cared at all about science he would know this. This is simply another psuedo scientific fraud.
http://www.livingwithevolution.com/Pages/EvolutionReviews.html
^ not a single review by anyone with any kind of scientific credentials.
Just another right wing crank trying to justify greed using aged and outdated methodologies and psuedo science. In short...
Fuck Off! :thumbup1:

[ComradeMan]

I've never even heard of this guy. Hence my question.... It's worrying that people might buy into this believing it to be scientific.

[Revolution starts with U]

He's trained as an engineer. It says he has a degree, but not what kind, nor from where. So, I'm assuming it's at most equivalent to a bachelors (I dont know how the school of engineering does their degrees).

[Revolution starts with U]

http://www.livingwithevolution.com/blog/

Seriously, the first 4 articles on his blog; anti immigrant, anti gay, anti women, anti internationalism. This guy is just a right wing shill who's credentials are so lacking he can't even list them, merely allude to them.
Fuck this guy, fuck him in the ass :p

And then this;


On September 29 in Obion County, Tennessee, USA, the local fire department stood by and watched a house burn to the ground because the homeowner did not pay the $75 annual fee for local fire-department services. Many are outraged at the lack of compassion and humanitarianism that was on display. But the problem is not the lack of compassion that was on display here, it is the excess compassion on display almost everywhere else—a problem that is in any number a ways leading to the demise of Western civilization

[ComradeMan]

And his book was being advertised above RevLeft- perhaps Edelweiss should adjust the ad bar, I think he can do that if he is informed.

[#FF0000]

Yeah you can report "inappropriate" ads to him.

Like anybody promoting social darwinism, the guy sounds like a true mook.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Seriously- does anyone have any more serious information on this book, content, author etc.

These are the arguments that will inevitably be used against socialism so it's important to know what they may be.

I was being half-serious. It seems from the Ad and a scan of the website that he is promoting some kind of Social-Darwinism. It makes sense considering that we are living through a new Victorian age of inequality that Victorian-era ideologies to explain and excuse inequality could come back into vogue with some people.

The short answer to his list above is that humans are not subject to the same kind of pressures that other animals are because rather than having to adapt to a new environmental situation or die-off, humans (to a certain extent) can change their environment and situation to one in which we can survive.

In addition, his book blurbs claim he can use evolution to explain why some cultures survived or died off and what values led them to thrive or die. That's idiotic from an evolutionary point of view since there is not enough change in humans between the fall of Rome, or the fall of civilizations in the Americas or anywhere else, and our time to make a difference biologically.

If he is talking about how people organized themselves to thrive or die, then wtf is he also talking about Darwin for because Darwin was not talking about the effect of evolutionary pressures on human organization.


this 11-year-old declared that someday he would write a book that could describe truth and rules of interaction—based on a standard of evidence alone—that could in turn gain the consensus of and unite the world’s various peoples.:laugh::lol::laugh: Wow, social-darwinism is correct and this guy must be a motherhumping superman to have such knowledge and drive from youth! All hail the master race!

[Jimmie Higgins]

http://www.livingwithevolution.com/Images/KoratskyEvolutionPhoto.png
What's this expression supposed to be anyway? Make a caption anyone?

"Peh-hah-hah... I'm sorry... fheh-pah-pah... I'm sorry, I had to run all the way here because my Segue broke down."

or

"Yes Dr. Frankenstein... I have the brain you wanted me to steal from the morgue"

or

"Gnahhhhh... kicked in the balls again!"

[Revolution starts with U]

"I'm wearing glasses, how much more research do I need to do?!"

[Jimmie Higgins]

"Hi, are you here to listen to my Jazz band, The Electric Cool?"

[Revolution starts with U]

"I am soooo high right now :blink:"

[Jimmie Higgins]

^Me too... oh wait, was that a quote for that guy?:lol: I forgot that we were doing that... :blink:

But seriously folks, here are some quotes from the glowing 5-star Amazon.com reviews of the book:


Koratsky's no nonsense writing address so many issues such as how we deal with criminals, our puzzling use of welfare, and our very current arguments about healthcare and provides solid paths to rethink what we reward and how our protection of the weakest is contrary to the survival of the fittest. `A society will get more of what it rewards and less of what it punishes'. Swallow or gulp before finishing this book because it is bound to change minds in a natural way for those strong enough to admit Koratsky is right!
For me it was the last chapter and beginning on page 56o The Final Firewall that is a must read, because we can see where we have been, but also need to ponder where we are going.

'Another possible scenario is that the West will remain in a stupor long enough for Islamic civilization to finally achieve global domination as part of a 1400 year project, creating an alternative by which top-down totalitarian control would be established under sharia law instead of relativistic principles. Indeed, while having fallen far behind the West in most respects, the Islamists have never abandoned their long-term outlook. And the fact that Islamists still both understand and adhere to Total War theory, remining highly attuned to the combat SVU in this regard, could give them a considerable edge as the West continues to disarm both economically and militarily. Clearly, if this were to play out the Enlightenment ideals would likely fall out of favor for a longer time, perhaps centuries'.
A great book written by K.D.Koratsky with the most appropriate title. A factual book that chronologically takes the readers through the journey of evolution. There are 7 reviews and they are all 5 stars, so this book must be good... and it's factual to boot!

[ComradeMan]

^Me too... oh wait, was that a quote for that guy?:lol: I forgot that we were doing that... :blink:

But seriously folks, here are some quotes from the glowing 5-star Amazon.com reviews of the book:

There are 7 reviews and they are all 5 stars, so this book must be good... and it's factual to boot!

See what I mean...... :crying:

[NewSocialist]

This book seems to be nothing more than a more vulgar version of Michael Shermer's 'The Mind of the Market' and Larry Arnhart's 'Darwinian Conservatism'. By no means is this the first justification of capitalism employing Darwinian logic, nor will it be the last. Social-Darwinism is a very old theory that has been debunked time and again, but it still retains a certain appeal. We should really keep in mind that in this age of a sudden revival in the popularity of Darwinism (due in no small part to Richard Dawkins), these books can do a lot to persuade people that socialism and communism are unfeasible.

Ironically, one of the foremost theorists of Social-Darwinism was a Marxist, Karl Pearson. Pearson probably would have agreed with much of Koratsky's thesis, excluding his defense of capitalism on the basis of natural selection. Peter Singer in 'A Darwinian Left' argues against the past attempts at creating a society of equality, but in an interview about his book at least didn't go so far as to claim that capitalism is some sort of end of history.

I suppose the innumerable socialist scientists who work(ed) in fields actually pertaining to evolutionary biology and cognitive science (Kropotkin, Haldane, Gould, Lewontin, Chomsky, Kamin, Rose, Flynn and so on) just overlooked the fact that human nature is incompatible with socialism, and just needed to be corrected by this Koratsky genius..

This is just another example of Darwinists overreaching their grasp. Too much about human behavior remains unexplained and we have no reason to believe what remains unknown can be attributed exclusively to genes. Evolutionary pressures most likely drive a number of human behaviors, but even then it says nothing about whether or not we *should* give into those impulses. This book is the naturalistic fallacy writ large and as such, it's an embarassment to the philosophy of science.

[CartCollector]

And the fact that Islamists still both understand and adhere to Total War theory, remining highly attuned to the combat SVU in this regard, could give them a considerable edge as the West continues to disarm both economically and militarily. Clearly, if this were to play out the Enlightenment ideals would likely fall out of favor for a longer time, perhaps centuries'.

According to this review, Muslims will make the West abandon Enlightenment ideals if the West doesn't abandon Enlightenment ideals. Heads Muslims win, tails liberals lose, essentially.

[Revolution starts with U]

I don't think we should lump people who have a fundamental misunderstanding of darwinian selection as "darwinists over-reaching their bounds."

[NewSocialist]

I don't think we should lump people who have a fundamental misunderstanding of darwinian selection as "darwinists over-reaching their bounds."

I disagree. I'm sure that Koratsky, like Herbert Spencer (and most other Social-Darwinists), understands evolution by natural selection quite well, he just expands the theory into domains where it doesn't belong -- or plays less of a role than he would have people believe.

Judging by the thesis of his book and the links on his website (for example, John Stossel's homepage and the Cato Institute's site), he's playing the old game of using Darwinian theory to explain and (worst) justify capitalism. This is problematic for a whole host of reasons, but to put the matter simply..

*BOLENDER: I know that science is severely limited in the issues it can address: we can't study humans in groups the way we study molecules. On the other hand, there are some interesting data found in Christian Buys that indicate tight constraints on sympathy. Here is a short version of my question: As William Godwin suggested, might true democracy and compassion only be possible in small groups? Might many of our woes be the result, perhaps even an unavoidable result, of high population densities?

*CHOMSKY: It's conceivable. So is the opposite. It's conceivable that the founder of what's now called "evolutionary psychology" (Peter Kropotkin) is right, and that there are evolutionary pressures leading to his version of communist anarchism. Or to Parecon. Or -- take your pick. These topics just are not understood. What is understood, pretty well, is how institutions function and set constraints on policy choices. And that tells us quite a lot about how the world works.

[Revolution starts with U]

The pursuit of self-interest should not be condemned within society; it should be promoted—conditionally.
Competition is just as important as cooperation within society.
Too much compassion can easily be more of a problem than too little within society.
The power of the scientific method, the free market, and natural selection derive from the same dynamics.
Human “values” are only valuable to the extent that they promote societal survival.
All within a society cannot be maximally and equally prosperous.
Social safety nets can be evolutionarily sound, but social subsidies via government redistribution cannot

If you can find something in there resembling an understanding of natural selection, I would like to know where it is.

[NewSocialist]

The pursuit of self-interest should not be condemned within society; it should be promoted—conditionally.
Competition is just as important as cooperation within society.
Too much compassion can easily be more of a problem than too little within society.
The power of the scientific method, the free market, and natural selection derive from the same dynamics.
Human “values” are only valuable to the extent that they promote societal survival.
All within a society cannot be maximally and equally prosperous.
Social safety nets can be evolutionarily sound, but social subsidies via government redistribution cannot
If you can find something in there resembling an understanding of natural selection, I would like to know where it is.

Obviously you won't find a understanding of natural selection in this short excerpt of his ridiculous public policy proposals. I would imagine that you would have to actually read his book to see if the man has an accurate understanding of evolution by natural selection, which I presume he does (since it's a very simple concept to grasp). Again, understanding natural selection and applying it in domains where it doesn't belong are two separate issues.

Let's not derail the subject at hand here over such meaningless hair splitting. We both agree that this guy is full of shit.

[Revolution starts with U]

, understanding natural selection and applying it in domains where it doesn't belong are two separate issues.


Ya, I was saying the same thing, but from the other direction really. I was just saying, if you try to apply it to where it doesn't belong, you really don't understand it.

[NewSocialist]

What's this expression supposed to be anyway? Make a caption anyone?

http://yfrog.com/julivingwithevolutionphttp://img714.imageshack.us/img714/5003/livingwithevolution.png

LIVING WITH EVOLUTION OR DYING WITHOUT IT:
A Darwinism Even Tea Baggers will LOVE!

[Jimmie Higgins]

^This is why we should be able to give multiple positive reps to the same post.:lol: