25-07-2004 11:21									#91
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Actually, it is natural selection, it's just natural selection by means of selective mating

That's not Natural Selection, that's Sexual Selection, which is considered a different beast.

	25-07-2004 11:55									#92
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker quote: Wealth is a natural characteristic? Why not?

I'm interested in finding out how many queen bees you think have Swiss bank accounts because of all that expensive Royal Jelly that's sold through health shops.


What an absurd notion, that wealth, which is an artficial human concept, is somehow natural, or occurs in nature.


Social position in the animal world differs from that of the human world- unless you think Diana, Princess of Wales was there because she secured choice bits of wildebeest for the Royal pride or was the offspring of a particularly successful aristo wolf pack alpha male and female.

	25-07-2004 12:04									#93
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

wealth isnt a natural characteristic... intelligence (or some other attribute which leads to wealth) is a natural characteristic.

now, of course, the end of wealth is artificial... it isnt a natural end (the only natural end being survival to procreate)... i'm not seeing how the fact that wealth is an artificial end is of significance. those with traits that help them acquire wealth are bio-socially better (bio-socially in that they possess a biological trait which helps them succeed in society to acquire the specific society's end) than those who don't have traits that help them acquire wealth. a society under social darwinism will, thereotically, only have people who possess the traits which help the society (and humanity) advance.

i'm not understanding this naturalistic fallacy and how the fact that the end of wealth is artificial means Darwinism doesn't apply to society... animal societies only allow the alpha males to reproduce... thats the animal society creating a limited social construct. but if humans create social constructs, suddenly darwinism is invalid? what?

	25-07-2004 12:13									#94
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Albert Speer those with traits that help them acquire wealth are bio-socially better (bio-socially in that they possess a biological trait which helps them succeed in society to acquire the specific society's end) than those who don't have traits that help them acquire wealth.

Ah, yes, those well-known bio-social success stories, Emperor Bokassa, Mobutu Sese Seko, Papa Doc Duvalier and Alphonse Capone.

What tremendous assets to society they were, as they accrued their wealth.

	25-07-2004 12:14									#95
	Remove this text

Albert Speer,

Let's forget for a moment that you have already said that the rich are not smarter than the rest of us. Another point that no one is questioning you about is your claim that wealth creation is beneficial to the species. Also, you seem to be ignoring the fact that the greatest determinant of wealth creation is wealth itself, not some kind of intelligence that you are talking about.

	25-07-2004 12:23									#96
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

look the fact is, we live in a capitalist society. the acquisition of wealth is our replacement of mere survival... those who acquire wealth, by whatever genetic talents they have, become the alpha males... why do yall question human social constructs but not animal ones? should wolves allow non-alpha males to reproduce?

	25-07-2004 12:33									#97
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Albert Speer look the fact is, we live in a capitalist society. the acquisition of wealth is our replacement of mere survival... those who acquire wealth, by whatever genetic talents they have, become the alpha males... why do yall question human social constructs but not animal ones? should wolves allow non-alpha males to reproduce?

Wolves act by instinct. There is no question about how they act. Humans make choices, specifically humans with the power to make decisions for the rest of us make the choices. Those humans can not be expected to make those decisions without bias. That is human nature.

	25-07-2004 12:38									#98
	Increase Your PM Length

frankly, i'm not seeing how the passivity of social darwinism is so harmful. why not let humanity duke it out trying to get money? why not? it'll ensure that the only one's who thrive and reproduce much are the ones with traits that are beneficial to our society. what does the fact that our idea of what is beneficial to society is socially-constructed matter?

	25-07-2004 13:37									#99
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Albert Speer frankly, i'm not seeing how the passivity of social darwinism is so harmful. why not let humanity duke it out trying to get money? why not? it'll ensure that the only one's who thrive and reproduce much are the ones with traits that are beneficial to our society.

We do let humanity 'duke it out.' The strong always win. That is, the wealthy always stay wealthy. The only problem is the there is no evidence that these wealthy people have this trait that you have made up since they were largely born wealthy in the first place.

quote: Originally posted by Albert Speer what does the fact that our idea of what is beneficial to society is socially-constructed matter?

Ummm.. Duh! Read a history book. This crazy stuff is dangerous.

	25-07-2004 13:41									#100
	Put an end to popups!

Kidicious:

some social darwinists like Carnegie (he himself a man born from poverty who became wealthy) emphasized public education in order to allow more non-wealthy people to become wealthy... and the wealthy staying wealthy isnt all that bad considering that the wealthy probably pass on their positive genes to their offspring... of course, the nature of Spencer who believed acquired traits were passed on, was proved wrong, meaning the wealthy do not so clearly pass on their wealth-causing genes but some genes (intelligence perhaps) are still passed genetically

	25-07-2004 13:50									#101
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Albert Speer Kidicious: some social darwinists like Carnegie (he himself a man born from poverty who became wealthy) emphasized public education in order to allow more non-wealthy people to become wealthy...

Public education doesn't make opportunity equal.

quote: Originally posted by Albert Speer and the wealthy staying wealthy isnt all that bad considering that the wealthy probably pass on their positive genes to their offspring...

What about Carnegie? Look, poor people are so much better at managing money that it's absurd. I don't even know where to start with this assumption of yours.

quote: Originally posted by Albert Speer of course, the nature of Spencer who believed acquired traits were passed on, was proved wrong, meaning the wealthy do not so clearly pass on their wealth-causing genes but some genes (intelligence perhaps) are still passed genetically

Of course it's not proven. You can't prove something like that. They never will be able too. The rich are rich because they were born that way. Even if they did isolate that gene it would only prove that these wackos are exactly what they are.

	25-07-2004 13:55									#102
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Albert Speer frankly, i'm not seeing how the passivity of social darwinism is so harmful. why not let humanity duke it out trying to get money? why not? it'll ensure that the only one's who thrive and reproduce much are the ones with traits that are beneficial to our society. what does the fact that our idea of what is beneficial to society is socially-constructed matter?

That's the most oblique suicide note I've ever read.

	25-07-2004 14:18									#103
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Why do you hate morality so much?

Did I say I hated morality? You sound like Sean Hannity... I dis-approve of your morality and you
dis-approve of mine. So the relevant question becomes:

would you still consider it moral to go around threatening people with violence to steal their possessions if no government existed? If not, this puts you in the position of arguing that government turns what is immoral into that which is moral, an ironic position given that many religious folk believe their
"god(s)", or more accurately, their convenient interpretation of their "god(s)" will, also turns what is immoral into that which is moral...

	25-07-2004 21:41									#104
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker Did I say I hated morality? You sound like Sean Hannity... I dis-approve of your morality and you dis-approve of mine. So the relevant question becomes:

You mean that you disagree with our ethics. Every democracy in the world has some sort of welfare system. You're the one with the strange morals.

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker would you still consider it moral to go around threatening people with violence to steal their possessions if no government existed?

You can't steal from someone who has no legal right to ownership.

	26-07-2004 08:43									#105
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Come on! Herds of animals have social positions!

Not all of them, just some, such as wolves, sea elephants, and gorillas. The thing is, these social positions are ultimately determined by physical characteristics such as size and strength, not because of who they know or who their parents know.

	26-07-2004 08:45									#106
	Tired of ads?

So?

How is it "unnatural"?

	26-07-2004 08:49									#107
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Albert Speer frankly, i'm not seeing how the passivity of social darwinism is so harmful. why not let humanity duke it out trying to get money? why not?

If you don't see anything wrong with money worshipping, crass materialism, and a wrongheaded list of priorities, I have nothing more to say to you.

quote: Originally posted by Albert Speer it'll ensure that the only one's who thrive and reproduce much are the ones with traits that are beneficial to our society.

You can't be more wrong. People who have the traits to accumulate great wealth are by definition selfish, bloodthirsty, and pretty much lawless. Rockerfeller sent thugs to burn his competitors' oil rigs. Bill Gates engaged in serious anti-competition activities. How are these traits beneficial to our society?

quote: Originally posted by Albert Speer what does the fact that our idea of what is beneficial to society is socially-constructed matter?

None, except your idea of what is beneficial to the society is wrong.

	26-07-2004 08:50									#108
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Albert Speer now, of course, the end of wealth is artificial... it isnt a natural end (the only natural end being survival to procreate)... i'm not seeing how the fact that wealth is an artificial end is of significance. those with traits that help them acquire wealth are bio-socially better (bio-socially in that they possess a biological trait which helps them succeed in society to acquire the specific society's end) than those who don't have traits that help them acquire wealth. a society under social darwinism will, thereotically, only have people who possess the traits which help the society (and humanity) advance.

And here is were it all falls down, right here, with this one fallacy.

Lets take YOU for example. You have made it clear to us that you live in a poor, high crime area- are you implying then that you are of a lower genetic stock to begtin with, due to the end results of your family's socio-encomic position? Maybe you will take this personall,y BUt I am trying to point out the fallacy you have- in the service of what you just said, would you consider perhaps all those limo liberals to be smarter than you? After all, they were genetically superior to be rich whereas you are not?

To test this therory, of course, you would have to follow the lives of kids of the rich for decades- but importantly, you would have to make sure they did NOT start wealthy, cause of course money makes money, and the wealthy have an advantage to stay wealthy..so to test whether Carnegie's kids would have been as genetically "superior" as the old man himself, we would have had to stick them in a similar situation and await similar results.

The fact is ambition is more important to wealth than intelligence.

quote: i'm not understanding this naturalistic fallacy and how the fact that the end of wealth is artificial means Darwinism doesn't apply to society... animal societies only allow the alpha males to reproduce... thats the animal society creating a limited social construct. but if humans create social constructs, suddenly darwinism is invalid? what?

It is invalid becuase human social systems are not, like wolve social systems, all the same. All beehives have the same general structures, the same classes, all through the world and time-their structure is predetermined becuase they are not sentient. HUman beings are sentient, and hence our systems are always different, hence artifical. For example, lets say we have a society in which you allow for debtors prisons, and then say no felon can reporduce. Lets say a young man gets rich of his work- but his partner defrauds him and runs..now the young man goes into a debtors prison, and is steralized. Would you defend this and sday tyhe kid was dumb becuase of his choice of partner?

	26-07-2004 08:51									#109
	Remove this text

quote: You can't be more wrong. People who have the traits to accumulate great wealth are by definition selfish, bloodthirsty, and pretty much lawless. How are these traits beneficial to our society?

Because actually, they're generally selfish, bloodthirsty, lawless, and talented.

	26-07-2004 08:52									#110
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker So? How is it "unnatural"?

Because as I said to Speer, all social groups within non-sentient animals are predetermined and they within a certain set of parameters always look alike.

Mankind is sentient, but more importantly, has created for itself an artificial environment- how can a "natural" social mode come into existence in a self-created artificial environment? Answer: it can't.

	26-07-2004 08:54									#111
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker quote: You can't be more wrong. People who have the traits to accumulate great wealth are by definition selfish, bloodthirsty, and pretty much lawless. How are these traits beneficial to our society? Because actually, they're generally selfish, bloodthirsty, lawless, and talented.

UR is wrong about how people collect welath-at the samke time, that person's one talent may onyl be wealth accumulation. I doubt Bill Gates would have gotten far in Genghis Khan's society and not have much time to breed- if he made it out of infancy that is.

	26-07-2004 08:54									#112
	Tired of ads?

So your argument that such social groups are "unnatural" boils down to "they were created by man".

DUH!

	26-07-2004 08:56									#113
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker So? How is it "unnatural"?

If wealth is accumlated by smashing against each other sumo style, and social position is determined by who can jump the highest, there is a natural basis to wealth and social position. However, as it stands now, wealth and social position has absolutely nothing to do with any natural characteristics. Thus they are unnatural.

While we are at it, please show that wealth and social positions are natural, as opposed to being artificial constructs.

	26-07-2004 08:57									#114
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

See above post.

	26-07-2004 08:57									#115
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker So your argument that such social groups are "unnatural" boils down to "they were created by man". DUH!

Actually, no.

A small huter-gatherer tribe is the natural human social structure. It was so for at least 95% of human existance.

99% of human beings today do not live in such bands. They live in permanent communities of sizes from a few dozens to tens of millions. These are artificial groups.

Artificial means created by man, as opposed to natural.

Sentience may have been arrived at naturally, BUT its fruits are not to be classified as such

	26-07-2004 08:57									#116
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker quote: You can't be more wrong. People who have the traits to accumulate great wealth are by definition selfish, bloodthirsty, and pretty much lawless. How are these traits beneficial to our society? Because actually, they're generally selfish, bloodthirsty, lawless, and talented.

Prove it.

	26-07-2004 08:58									#117
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker See above post.

Where's the proof?

	26-07-2004 08:58									#118
	Remove this text

Because anyone can be selfish, bloodthirsty, and lawless. It takes a special type of selfish, bloodthirsty, and lawless person to be a successful robber baron or whatnot.

	26-07-2004 08:58									#119
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger quote: See above post Where's the proof?

Proof of what?

	26-07-2004 09:01									#120
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by GePap Actually, no. A small huter-gatherer tribe is the natural human social structure. It was so for at least 95% of human existance.

So? How is our time not natural too? It is the natural progression of human society.

quote: 99% of human beings today do not live in such bands. They live in permanent communities of sizes from a few dozens to tens of millions. These are artificial groups.

By this definition

quote: Artificial means created by man, as opposed to natural.

so are small hunter-gatherer tribes.

Anyway, you conceded my point

quote: So your argument that such social groups are "unnatural" boils down to "they were created by man". DUH!

with this:

quote: Artificial means created by man, as opposed to natural.