Page 1 of 1

The problem with social Darwinism and competition.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 5:30 am
by Zero_Sum
To illustrate this I am going to use an allegory.

Imagine the world is a pond and the people within it are fishes of all different sizes.

Overtime through social or existential Darwinism the large fish through predation eat all of the smaller fish and other smaller lifeforms within the pond as well. The social Darwinists will exclaim, "Ah, this good and perfectly natural as the weak deserve to be destroyed where the strong deserve success in life where all of this is perfectly natural or acceptable."

Of course what has really happened which will become known overtime is that the larger fish have exhausted their food sources through over-predation where they're now facing the reality of food scarcity with starvation. Their only choices now is starvation or self cannibalizing to merely survive overtime. Indeed initially many do starve to death and those that do not overtime adapt in self cannibalizing each other. With cannibalism they survive just a little bit longer until there are just two fish that are left. For one to live for a little bit longer the other one must die but even by killing the other fish the final remaining vertebrate has practically damned itself since it is left alone to die by itself and with that all life of the pond becomes extinguished until there is nothing living within it any longer.

I guess what I am concluding here is that with the discussion of social Darwinism, game theory, or competition there is no long term objectivity concerning the concepts and almost all references of over-predation is completely lacking.

Image

Re: The problem with social Darwinism and competition.

PostPosted: Sat Nov 16, 2019 2:46 am
by promethean75
yeah but we'd have to reach something like a malthusian omega point before what you describe would ever put the species in jeopardy. if the little fish are multiplying at a more or less same rate as the big fish, the mechanism is balanced and the social darwinism continues to work.

another thing you gotta be careful to avoid is thinking of 'social' darwinism in the same terms as darwinian selection. nietzsche somewhat made this same error. he took a vision of 'greater man' and claimed that because these are fewer, natural selction is not working in their favor. ah but natural selection cares nothing about great or worse men in a moral, valuative sense.... but only in a fitness sense, an ability to survive and reproduce sense.

being virtuous and noble and principled and whatever else is extra-curricular to natural selection.

Re: The problem with social Darwinism and competition.

PostPosted: Sat Nov 16, 2019 5:17 am
by Zero_Sum
promethean75 wrote:yeah but we'd have to reach something like a malthusian omega point before what you describe would ever put the species in jeopardy. if the little fish are multiplying at a more or less same rate as the big fish, the mechanism is balanced and the social darwinism continues to work.

another thing you gotta be careful to avoid is thinking of 'social' darwinism in the same terms as darwinian selection. nietzsche somewhat made this same error. he took a vision of 'greater man' and claimed that because these are fewer, natural selction is not working in their favor. ah but natural selection cares nothing about great or worse men in a moral, valuative sense.... but only in a fitness sense, an ability to survive and reproduce sense.

being virtuous and noble and principled and whatever else is extra-curricular to natural selection.


How do you know that we haven't already reached the beginning of a Malthusian omega point now? :-k

Outside of the African continent fertility rates are dropping around the world as fast as throwing a rock in the Grand Canyon. And what about this period of time where reproduction has been its lowest ever in recorded history?

Are we talking about physical fitness, mental fitness, or both?

One could argue morality and ethics is necessary in natural selection because without both human beings would savagely destroy themselves very quickly. Savagery or the bestial nature of human beings needs regulation and a guiding principle of some kind otherwise without we would eat and consume each other.

Re: The problem with social Darwinism and competition.

PostPosted: Sat Nov 16, 2019 6:04 am
by Meno_
We have not reached an Omega point, because demographics do not bear out.

China reversed its policy of restricting the number of kids to 1, and certain European shrinking populations are offering benefits to enhance population growth.

The reason demographic, medical science allows people to live longer, and major wars are a thing of the past.


World wide employment is about 60 %, which means apart from forced euthanasia, the Darwinian formula is no longer definitive, in my opinion.

Re: The problem with social Darwinism and competition.

PostPosted: Sat Nov 16, 2019 9:56 am
by Karpel Tunnel
Zero_Sum wrote:I guess what I am concluding here is that with the discussion of social Darwinism, game theory, or competition there is no long term objectivity concerning the concepts and almost all references of over-predation is completely lacking.
The trick is to keep herds of the small fish alive. Predation as master/slave relations, but the modern version where even the slightest paternal responsibility of the masters for his property are taken way. The ugly trick, that is.

Re: The problem with social Darwinism and competition.

PostPosted: Sun Nov 17, 2019 7:24 am
by Urwrongx1000
That's an apt analogy.

I think right now in the US, the pond is full of big fish, hardly any small fish, and so the big fish are starving and cannibalizing.

Re: The problem with social Darwinism and competition.

PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:46 pm
by Karpel Tunnel
promethean75 wrote:yeah but we'd have to reach something like a malthusian omega point before what you describe would ever put the species in jeopardy. if the little fish are multiplying at a more or less same rate as the big fish, the mechanism is balanced and the social darwinism continues to work.

another thing you gotta be careful to avoid is thinking of 'social' darwinism in the same terms as darwinian selection. nietzsche somewhat made this same error. he took a vision of 'greater man' and claimed that because these are fewer, natural selction is not working in their favor. ah but natural selection cares nothing about great or worse men in a moral, valuative sense.... but only in a fitness sense, an ability to survive and reproduce sense.

being virtuous and noble and principled and whatever else is extra-curricular to natural selection.
though virtues have proven helpful, so far, to social mammals, in terms of natural selection. Taking care of others (as one potential virtue) is something many apex predators do, including humans. IOW fitness may include being virtuous, not just being the toughest creature on the block, intraspecies or interspecies. This doesn't mean evolution has a moral sense - whatever that would mean - but then natural selection 'care nothing' about anything. It is not just that it doesn't care about people in a moral sense, it doesn't care about anything. It doesn't even care if people procreate.

It does however weed out things that don't do well.

Re: The problem with social Darwinism and competition.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 26, 2019 2:40 pm
by mannequin01
once you remove the possibility of a supreme deity then you can create any theory to describe evil/disbelief, even to point of world delusion and justify it all perfectly.

Re: The problem with social Darwinism and competition.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 26, 2019 8:34 pm
by Zero_Sum
Meno_ wrote:We have not reached an Omega point, because demographics do not bear out.

China reversed its policy of restricting the number of kids to 1, and certain European shrinking populations are offering benefits to enhance population growth.

The reason demographic, medical science allows people to live longer, and major wars are a thing of the past.


World wide employment is about 60 %, which means apart from forced euthanasia, the Darwinian formula is no longer definitive, in my opinion.

You believe official global unemployment figures? :lol:

This has not much to do with reproduction so much as it does with social dynamics.

I would argue that the 'omega point' has already been breached.

Re: The problem with social Darwinism and competition.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 26, 2019 8:37 pm
by Zero_Sum
Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Zero_Sum wrote:I guess what I am concluding here is that with the discussion of social Darwinism, game theory, or competition there is no long term objectivity concerning the concepts and almost all references of over-predation is completely lacking.
The trick is to keep herds of the small fish alive. Predation as master/slave relations, but the modern version where even the slightest paternal responsibility of the masters for his property are taken way. The ugly trick, that is.


Given excessive wealth inequality, reduced fertility, and reduced lifespans in the United States it looks like most of the small fish are being slaughtered wholesale. I imagine it is the same much around the world.

Then there is always the introduction of artificial intelligence, the real chaotic and dangerous disruptor..

Re: The problem with social Darwinism and competition.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 26, 2019 8:43 pm
by Zero_Sum
Karpel Tunnel wrote:
promethean75 wrote:yeah but we'd have to reach something like a malthusian omega point before what you describe would ever put the species in jeopardy. if the little fish are multiplying at a more or less same rate as the big fish, the mechanism is balanced and the social darwinism continues to work.

another thing you gotta be careful to avoid is thinking of 'social' darwinism in the same terms as darwinian selection. nietzsche somewhat made this same error. he took a vision of 'greater man' and claimed that because these are fewer, natural selction is not working in their favor. ah but natural selection cares nothing about great or worse men in a moral, valuative sense.... but only in a fitness sense, an ability to survive and reproduce sense.

being virtuous and noble and principled and whatever else is extra-curricular to natural selection.
though virtues have proven helpful, so far, to social mammals, in terms of natural selection. Taking care of others (as one potential virtue) is something many apex predators do, including humans. IOW fitness may include being virtuous, not just being the toughest creature on the block, intraspecies or interspecies. This doesn't mean evolution has a moral sense - whatever that would mean - but then natural selection 'care nothing' about anything. It is not just that it doesn't care about people in a moral sense, it doesn't care about anything. It doesn't even care if people procreate.

It does however weed out things that don't do well.


Natural selection without morals or ethics becomes self destructive very quickly. this is why natural selection needs principles, regulations, and moral codes, unfortunately for us all of that has been abolished where none of it any longer has any meaning. We've turned the entire west into zero sum game societies, eventually when you run out of lives to destroy, enslave, or slaughter to empower your society with it's only a matter of time until the remaining members of such a society turns on one another.

An area where all prey have been vanquished the apex predators left standing will turn on each other in predation.

At this point, all the easy prey or easy hanging fruit has been picked clean where this now an era of extreme social scarcity.