Theory of Natural Selection

[Colombia]

Can one make an argument that this theory does not contradict what communism is all about?

The Theory of Natural Selection
One of the prime motives for all species is to reproduce and survive, passing on the genetic information of the species from generation to generation. When species do this they tend to produce more offspring than the environment can support.
The lack of resources to nourish these individuals places pressure on the size of the species population, and the lack of resources means increased competition and as a consequence, some organisms will not survive.
The organisms who die as a consequence of this competition were not totally random, Darwin found that those organisms more suited to their environment were more likely to survive.
This resulted in the well known phrase survival of the fittest, where the organisms most suited to their environment had more chance of survival if the species falls upon hard times. (This phrase if often associated with Darwin, though on closer inspection Herbert Spencer puts the phrase in a more accurate historical context.)
Those organisms who are better suited to their environment exhibit desirable characteristics, which is a consequence of their genome being more suitable to begin with.

[Janus]

The theory of natural selection is not the same as Social Darwinism. Darwin never wanted natural selection to be applied to society in general. Therefore, the theory of natural selection doesn't directly contradict communism as it is based on the animal non-technological world rather than modern society.

[Colombia]

But did the theory not include humans as animals?

[Janus]

Yes. But this theory wasn't originally intended to be applied to human society. It was manipulated by capitalists so as to justify the certain system which is quite common.

Natural selection mainly deals with non-technological environments. For example, certain good traits such as large brains have been passed down due to the success of large-brained hominoids. Thus it can be used in that aspect to analyze genes.

Survival of the fittest applies to those who have the best genetic traits. Therefore, it does not reciprocate in a capitalist environment when survival is influenced by many other factors. Do you think that the Walton kids are the fittest to survive? No, they got a lot of money left from their rich dad. Hardly survival of the fittest to say the least.

[Ander]

Yeah, but some would say that the Walton kids ARE the fittest because they have the means to survive therefore being the strongest, blah blah.

A load of bullshit. Natural selection and/or Social Darwinism are shitty ideas.

[LoneRed]

Natural Selection a shitty Idea?? its the idea, that led way to you being able to post that on this board, if Natural Selection was just shitty, humans would never have came to be.

[Communism]

Natural selection is against communism, some guy got banned from this forum (quite rightly) for saying that disabled people should be killed, in the theory of natural selection disabled people wouldn't survive as they are physically incapable of it. E.g. Not being able to walk.

[Janus]

How many times must this repeated.

Natural selection applies to the natural world and was never meant to be applied to society. Social Darwinism is against communism

In a truly naturalistic environment, a disabled person would probably die. However, due to technology etc. he/she would not.

[TC]

One of the prime motives for all species is to reproduce and survive, passing on the genetic information of the species from generation to generation.

Thats wrong. Species don't have "motives", natural selection isn't driven by motive or purpose anymore than changes in the weather patterns or continental drift implies motive on the part of the earth, it is simply a consequence of reproduction of organisms in environments that constrain their reproduction.

Human population growth however is constrained overwhelmingly by social factors and we know how to artificially control it, as such natural selection does not practically apply to humans, especially not humans in advanced industrial societies.

[PRC-UTE]

I'm not sure, but I thought natural selection analysed biological traits, whereas human intellegence sort of cancels this out.

Anyway, there are many cases of living creatures sacrificing themselves so that the rest of the gene pool continues, so it's way more complex than social darwinism so crudely portrays the theory, and there are ongoing raging debates about this in mainstream science.

[greymatter]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 08:50 PM
How many times must this repeated.

Natural selection applies to the natural world and was never meant to be applied to society. Social Darwinism is against communism

In a truly naturalistic environment, a disabled person would probably die. However, due to technology etc. he/she would not.
Funny that people don't just agree with you and move on. Maybe there's some "ulterior motive" there. What do you guys propose as an alternative theory to evolution? Maybe intelligent design is right up your alley?

[KickMcCann]

You have to understand natural selection as it relates to humans from a non-individualistic perspective. Natural competiton does exist, but it's understanding is related to how you apply and to what species.

Humanity is a naturally communal species, like bees or ants. Inside of a bee or ant colony you do not find "survival of the fittest" battles between ants or bees of the same colony, you find the colony as a whole competing against other colonies, other species, or inhibiting conditions of the outside world (cold, draught, etc...).
How that competition relates to humanity is all about how humans have organized themselves. One could find 100 different human tribes or groups all in competiton against each other for space and resources. But if those 100 tribes unite into a single tribe, then the allocation of space and resources will take place within the dynamic of the tribe's system of order. The "survival of the fittest" competition then changes to a conflict between that united tribe and all other remaining tribes, species, and worldy conditions.
We can see this throughout history as technology and intelligence has improved, humans have organized themselves into larger and larger groups, creating greater peace and prosperity for those within the groups, but conversely, a fiercer, deadlier competition between the larger groups and more dire circumstances regarding natural resources and space.
If the pattern is to continue, humans will theoretically evolve into one big colony, one universal order involving everyone.

This is dependent on Darwinian evolutionary choice. How well we evolve all depends on the choices we make, more specifically, how we compete and who or what we choose to compete against. Evolution and the "survival of the fittest" shows that the humanity as a whole succeeds best not when it competes against itself on the lowest common denominator of individualism, but when it cooperates in larger groups and directs its competitive forces away from other humans or species and toward more intelligent pursuits.
For example, 100 people could all fight a "battle to the death" over access to a drinking well, and the one that survived could have unfettered access, but be left with little or no gene pool with which to reproduce with--making him a failed species. Or the 100 people could all put there heads together in cooperation and develop a system of access for everyone and build technologies that perhaps will find more water for everyone. The people prosper, allowing for a large gene pool that will be able to reproduce in great number--making them a successful species.

In conclusion, Commuism is "evolutionarily correct" as its development will allow for the long term success and reproduction of the human species. Evolution proves there can be no other way.

[EusebioScrib]

Natural Selection AND Social Darwinism apply perfectly with human society, although a particular kind of human society; class society.

I've been argueing points entirely relevant to this debate in the Theory forum in this (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=50122) thread.

Colombia said:

The lack of resources to nourish these individuals places pressure on the size of the species population, and the lack of resources means increased competition and as a consequence, some organisms will not survive.
The organisms who die as a consequence of this competition were not totally random, Darwin found that those organisms more suited to their environment were more likely to survive.

We are told that an abundance (which capitalism produces) will bring us the material conditions capable of communism. That is the primary distinction between us and other primates, that we can create an abundance for ourselves so that a "natural selection" is not necessary to our species.

Something went "wrong" during our primitive communism epoch and there was a sudden reason for classes to exist. I base this on overpopulation. There was not enough to go around for everyone, so competition ensured and natural selection became a reality. Because of this classes developed and hence we are at class society.

But when we produce an abundance, we will have classlessness again.

Humans, as I see it, have two basic natures:
1. Surival
2. Happiness

We're natrually meant to be self-centered and to be concerned with ourself before others. We want to make ourselves happy. However, it is in our best self-interest (under normal, abundance, circumstances) to cooperate with other humans. Cooperation with others helps us survive and if we become happy when we make others happy.

Remember, the key to all of this is BEING DETERMINES CONSCIOUSNESS!

When there is not enough for everyone to go around, complete self-interest will ensue and it will be the most practical means of survival. When there is an abundance it is most practical to cooperate and live equally with others.

[emma_goldman]

Natural selection for one is not a theory it is observable and scientific. Evolution, however, is a theory. Natural selection involves small changes. Evolution involves radical mutations. Natural selection does not work for or against a given system. Evolution, well, I would argue, doesn't even occur. :P

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Natural Selection doesn't "go against" communism any more than the observed blue-shift of the Triangulum galaxy does.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Evolution and natural selection are both well established within scientific fields. Darwin himself was against Social Darwinism so the argument that it is the same as natural selection is out. If I remember correctly, Marx was an admirer of evolution and Darwin's work.