Humans, mammals, Darwin and the circle of life - let's try t

[Supermodel]

See, you learn something every day. I did not know that the reason Darwin was discredited is that the "survival of the fittest" is a racist and a white supremacist theory.

You see, the opposite is proving to be true today.

OK I've said before that human nature is to spread your little seeds around and have as many kids as you can. For men, that is.

Women try to make sure that the only seeds they let in are the ones that will produce the cutest babies so the other moms will be jealous.

Woman also want strong, dominant men so they will be better taken care of, as if they needed that. Also to provide for their kids. Also to have strong kids to support them in old age.

Now here's where the theory takes a diversion. If I'm a pigmy woman in Brazil and I meet a tall handsome German man, will I want to mate with him? Probably not. He, however, will spread his seed without a moment's pause. Especially when he sees how good I look in my pigmy wonderbra.

Here comes the next fork in the road: in a simplistic sense, the survival of the fittest (genes) means that there will be the most people in the tribe with the strongest, physically and productively, people. Under one branch of economic theory more people equals more productivity, equals more wealth.

Therefore:

strongest=mostbabies=most productivity=most wealth.

However, global conditions today prove the opposite. It is the poorest economically who are breeding the fastest.

It is the women with the least emancipation and liberty who have the most children, have them earlier, and are less capable of giving them a healthy lifestyle. (True in all countries)

Countries with very poor healthcare experience both high birthrates and high infant mortality rates.

Thus instead of the formula above, we get:

weathiest=fewer offspring + better health and nutrition =concentration of wealth

poorest=more offspring for survival + poor healthcare and malnutrition=dilution of wealth=cycle of poverty.

Question: should the poorest in the world be limited in terms of offspring? Answer no, that is completely ridiculous. First of all, they have a basic human right to breed that can never be taken away under any circumstances.

Secondly, they need to produce more healthy offspring to produce higher productivity.

So, here is the hypothesis:

Darwin's theory, while useful in examining human behavior, is very flawed from an economic standpoint and leads to economic imbalance.

To redress the balance among all people of the world, we must address:

First: healthcare and nutrition
Second: full emancipation and right to work for all women so their only source of support is not their offspring:
Third: Child and eldercare safety nets to offset the Darwinistic tendencies of the "survival of the fittest".

Thus when examining Darwin's theory we must put together economics and feminism to arrive at a global solution.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Well, I think that if a nation allows an uneducated, oppressed populace to continue to breed outside of their resources' means, then that country should be responsible, not the rest of the world's (ie USA, of course).

Also, in todays world, physical strenghth is not the only mating variable. The rich themselves have alpha-status just due to their wealth. In this respect, social darwinism fits like a glove. As for the Pigmy/German hypothesis, I think a [pigmy woman could very well be impressed enough with a tall, strong european in a mating capacity, but that is pure opinion.

And "opposite being true today", what does that mean?

[RedCeltic]

See, you learn something every day. I did not know that the reason Darwin was discredited is that the "survival of the fittest" is a racist and a white supremacist theory.

I did not say Darwinism was a white supremist theory, and did not say it has been proven wrong.

I said SOCIAL DARWINISM was a white supremist theory that has been proven wrong. That is the theory that Capitalist Impirial is leaning on, and the theory the Nazis believed strongly in.

Darwin's theory of evolution influenced many sciences. Mainly Biology and Geology, however also into social sciences like anthropology.

While biological (or Physical) anthropology still strongly leans on Darwin's theory, cultural anthropology has undergone a shift away from the evolutionary theories that where manifest in it throughout the Victorian era.

Herbert Spencer was a major influence in cultural anthropolgy of the Victorian era. British philosopher and sociologist, Herbert Spencer was a major figure in the intellectual life of the Victorian era. He was one of the principal proponents of evolutionary theory in the mid nineteenth century, and his reputation at the time rivaled that of Charles Darwin. Spencer was initially best known for developing and applying evolutionary theory to philosophy, psychology and the study of society -- what he called his "synthetic philosophy"

It was widely believed that societies evolved from primitive societies to eventually become as highly advanced as the white society was in Victorian age.

It was Franz Boaz from Germany who revolutionised cultural anthropology and proved that theories of evolution are not adaptible to the study of cultural groups and society.

Each cultural group, and each individual within a group/society are influenced by numerous intrinsic aspects of that society and the envoroment in which that society exists.

Am I wrong about this? Franz Boaz theries today influence how schools around the world teach cultural anthropology. Curently I'm mearly a 31 year old anthropolgy student who plans on a becoming an historical archaeologist. So I'm by no means an expert, however I think I know what I'm talking about.

[RedCeltic]

strongest=mostbabies=most productivity=most wealth.

However, global conditions today prove the opposite. It is the poorest economically who are breeding the fastest.

It is the women with the least emancipation and liberty who have the most children, have them earlier, and are less capable of giving them a healthy lifestyle. (True in all countries)

Countries with very poor healthcare experience both high birthrates and high infant mortality rates.

Thus instead of the formula above, we get:

weathiest=fewer offspring + better health and nutrition =concentration of wealth

poorest=more offspring for survival + poor healthcare and malnutrition=dilution of wealth=cycle of poverty.

This is why Darwinism, while good in explaning many things, is out of place in the sciences that study society.


Darwin's theory, while useful in examining human behavior, is very flawed from an economic standpoint and leads to economic imbalance.

Exactlly.

To redress the balance among all people of the world, we must address:

First: healthcare and nutrition
Second: full emancipation and right to work for all women so their only source of support is not their offspring:
Third: Child and eldercare safety nets to offset the Darwinistic tendencies of the "survival of the fittest".

Thus when examining Darwin's theory we must put together economics and feminism to arrive at a global solution.

agree 100%... ok maybe I'll become a Supermodel fan now ;)












(Edited by RedCeltic at 10:15 pm on June 11, 2002)