Will Human Nature Ever Improve?

on fundamental matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind and ethics.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Will Human Nature Ever Improve?

#1  Postby jamest » Sep 04, 2018 12:22 am

It's the 21st century but according to the fucking experts 'we' have been strutting our stuff for a very long time.

So, it's the 21st century, Trump, etc..

Looks like some cunt like Darwin got it wrong, since as far as I can tell the survival of the fittest doesn't apply here, just the survival of the most popular/powerful idea/practise. Which, ironcally, over time, will be detrimental to the 'best physical model'.

Therefore, since Darwin's model isn't universal, as evident, I've decided to come on here and strip him of his crowns. The cunt was obviously a genius for his time of course, but there's only room for one God and that's just james. Just joking. Well, maybe not. I'll sleep on it.
Il messaggero non e importante.
Ora non e importante.
Il resultato futuro e importante.
Quindi, persisto.
jamest
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 18495
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Will Human Nature Ever Improve?

#2  Postby SafeAsMilk » Sep 04, 2018 12:26 am

Hey look, you're making another argument that creationists make with as little understanding of "survival of the fittest" as they have. What a shock. I mean, what's next? You're going to say I can't show how cats evolved from dogs, therefore evolution is wrong?
"They call it the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it." -- George Carlin
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 14393
Age: 40
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Will Human Nature Ever Improve?

#3  Postby jamest » Sep 04, 2018 12:41 am

The survival of the fittest model doesn't look rational, from a rational perspective, is what I'm saying.

If you want a serious debate about it, then stop acting the cunt.
Il messaggero non e importante.
Ora non e importante.
Il resultato futuro e importante.
Quindi, persisto.
jamest
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 18495
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Will Human Nature Ever Improve?

#4  Postby felltoearth » Sep 04, 2018 12:48 am

Your assumptions about The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection are the problem, not the theory itself.
See my comment in another thread about cunts people and confirmation bias.
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 13815
Age: 53

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Will Human Nature Ever Improve?

#5  Postby SafeAsMilk » Sep 04, 2018 12:51 am

jamest wrote:The survival of the fittest model doesn't look rational, from a rational perspective, is what I'm saying.

You don't have a clue what the survival of the fittest model is, is what I'm saying. Which makes your declarations about whether it's rational or not appear incredibly stupid.

If you want a serious debate about it, then stop acting the cunt.

If you want a serious response to something you say, then appear to have a clue about it first. Sounding like a generic day-one creationist doesn't do that, in case you didn't know.
"They call it the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it." -- George Carlin
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 14393
Age: 40
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Will Human Nature Ever Improve?

#6  Postby jamest » Sep 04, 2018 1:34 am

Spare me the bollocks. I've studied Darwin many times, via many contentious issues, even at university level. The issue here is that Darwinism cannot explain 21st century humanity. We're all physically weaker and more cuntish, so it doesn't wash.
Il messaggero non e importante.
Ora non e importante.
Il resultato futuro e importante.
Quindi, persisto.
jamest
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 18495
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: Will Human Nature Ever Improve?

#7  Postby Fenrir » Sep 04, 2018 1:52 am

Oh, I know, let's use the word 'fit' in a way that evolutionary science totally doesn't then claim some undefined corollary that makes some connection to an unrelated topic.

Winning!

It's the philosophical way*

*my usage of the word 'philosophy' may not relate to that used by philosophers, but that's ok right? Sauce for the goose and all that?
Religion: it only fails when you test it.-Thunderf00t.
User avatar
Fenrir
 
Posts: 3603
Male

Country: Australia
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (gs)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Will Human Nature Ever Improve?

#8  Postby surreptitious57 » Sep 04, 2018 1:55 am

Human nature is improving and exponentially so also. The further back in history you go the more extreme
it was. There is therefore causation between it and the technological advancement / social progress which
comes with the advancement of civilisation over time. And so the question is based upon a false assumption
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
 
Posts: 10195

Print view this post

Re: Will Human Nature Ever Improve?

#9  Postby SafeAsMilk » Sep 04, 2018 2:08 am

jamest wrote:Spare me the bollocks. I've studied Darwin many times, via many contentious issues, even at university level.

The unending litany of rudimentary errors you make, including the OP of this thread, flatly contradict this assertion. At least some creationists know they're making shit up to shore up their wishful religious thinking, but you don't even understand how dumb the things you're saying are.

The issue here is that Darwinism cannot explain 21st century humanity. We're all physically weaker and more cuntish, so it doesn't wash.

That you think being physically stronger always translates to better in terms of natural selection is possibly one of the clearest examples that you haven't even got the first clue how evolution works. Your sub-creationist blather is cringe inducing. Please, for the love of fuck, educate yourself.
"They call it the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it." -- George Carlin
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 14393
Age: 40
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Will Human Nature Ever Improve?

#10  Postby Hermit » Sep 04, 2018 5:12 am

jamest wrote:Looks like some cunt like Darwin got it wrong, since as far as I can tell the survival of the fittest doesn't apply here...

For someone claiming to have "studied Darwin many times, via many contentious issues, even at university level" you have learnt remarkably little about the theory of evolution. To start with, the expression "survival of the fittest" has never been written or otherwise uttered by Charles Darwin. It's been invented by Herbert Spencer, who, after reading On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection attempted to transpose Darwin's theory concerning the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life in biological terms to his own economic theories. The attempt to conflate those two spheres under the allegedly common dynamics of "survival of the fittest" became a favourite preoccupation of the later sociiologists and economists.

The first thing you would have learnt - had you benefited from your studies of Darwin's Theory of Evolution at all - is that biological evolution cannot be equated with economic/social evolution. In other words, when you wrote "some cunt like Darwin got it wrong, since as far as I can tell the survival of the fittest doesn't apply here" you are not talking about Darwin, nor the Theory of Evolution. You are talking about sociologists like Spencer and laissez faire capitalism theorists who misappropriated a biological process to explain social developments.
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Posts: 4102
Age: 67
Male

Print view this post

Re: Will Human Nature Ever Improve?

#11  Postby Animavore » Sep 04, 2018 5:49 am

No. Human nature will never improve. They may have periods of relative calm after recoiling from the horrors of their destructive paths leading to a great war, but after a couple of generations their ancestors will forget about the horrors, only seeing it in the abstract, believing that they could never be so stupid, as they repeat the same mistakes.
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 44384
Age: 42
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Will Human Nature Ever Improve?

#12  Postby zulumoose » Sep 04, 2018 7:03 am

Evolution simply means that those who are the BEST FIT in the current environment to survive to the point where they have the most offspring that become healthy, fertile, and independent of them, are going to be better represented in future generations. Traits that reduce that fit tend to diminish, for obvious reasons.

That's really all there is to it.
User avatar
zulumoose
 
Posts: 3623

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: Will Human Nature Ever Improve?

#13  Postby Fallible » Sep 04, 2018 7:18 am

Animavore wrote:No. Human nature will never improve. They may have periods of relative calm after recoiling from the horrors of their destructive paths leading to a great war, but after a couple of generations their ancestors will forget about the horrors, only seeing it in the abstract, believing that they could never be so stupid, as they repeat the same mistakes.


Descendants, my little ray of sunshine.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 47
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Will Human Nature Ever Improve?

#14  Postby Animavore » Sep 04, 2018 7:31 am

Fallible wrote:
Animavore wrote:No. Human nature will never improve. They may have periods of relative calm after recoiling from the horrors of their destructive paths leading to a great war, but after a couple of generations their ancestors will forget about the horrors, only seeing it in the abstract, believing that they could never be so stupid, as they repeat the same mistakes.


Descendants, my little ray of sunshine.


:pissed:
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 44384
Age: 42
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Will Human Nature Ever Improve?

#15  Postby Dolorosa » Sep 04, 2018 7:49 am

Hermit wrote:[...]the expression "survival of the fittest" has never been written or otherwise uttered by Charles Darwin.


Did he not adopt the term at least in some form later in his life? Wiki referred to the The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication, so I checked that copy. He does mention in the introduction that the term was coined by Herbert Spencer who essentially "expressed the same idea" as his own Natural Selection. Although he used the term sparingly in the book, it is clearly there, see the Chapter on Selection by Man. The most telling of all is his conclusion, which I will quote below (I chose a larger quote than necessary simply because I love his internal debate on the subject of predestination.)

And here we are led to face a great difficulty, in alluding to which I am aware that I am travelling beyond my proper province. An omniscient Creator must have foreseen every consequence which results from the laws imposed by Him. But can it be reasonably maintained that the Creator intentionally ordered, if we use the words in any ordinary sense, that certain fragments of rock should assume certain shapes so that the builder might erect his edifice? If the various laws which have determined the shape of each fragment were not predetermined for the builder's sake, can it be maintained with any greater probability that He specially ordained for the sake of the breeder each of the innumerable variations in our domestic animals and plants;—many of these variations being of no service to man, and not beneficial, far more often injurious, to the creatures themselves? Did He ordain that the crop and tail-feathers of the pigeon should vary in order that the fancier might make his grotesque pouter and fantail breeds? Did He cause the frame and mental qualities of the dog to vary in order that a breed might be formed of indomitable ferocity, with jaws fitted to pin down the bull for man's brutal sport? But if we give up the principle in one case,—if we do not admit that the variations of the primeval dog were intentionally guided in order that the greyhound, for instance, that perfect image of symmetry and vigour, might be formed,—no shadow of reason can be assigned for the belief that variations, alike in nature and the result of the same general laws, which have been the groundwork through natural selection of the formation of the most perfectly adapted animals in the world, man included, were intentionally and specially guided. However much we may wish it, we can hardly follow Professor Asa Gray in his belief "that variation has been led along certain beneficial lines," like a stream "along definite and useful lines of irrigation." If we assume that each particular variation was from the beginning of all time preordained, then that plasticity of organisation, which leads to many injurious deviations of structure, as well as the redundant power of reproduction which inevitably leads to a struggle for existence, and, as a consequence, to the natural selection or survival of the fittest, must appear to us superfluous laws of nature. On the other hand, an omnipotent and omniscient Creator ordains everything and foresees everything. Thus we are brought face to face with a difficulty as insoluble as is that of free will and predestination.


Bold and underlined emphasis being my own.
Dolorosa
 
Posts: 50
Age: 44
Female

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Will Human Nature Ever Improve?

#16  Postby Cito di Pense » Sep 04, 2018 8:00 am

We can condense it to fewer words: "Differential survival of replicating entities". See? Much less judgmental. Saying that the fittest survive is a tautology between 'fitness' and 'survival'. This isn't too bad, since we know what survival denotes. "Fitness" is just a way of saying 'differential' for people who can't handle so many syllables, or for people who like to preface their philosophical pronouncements with, "All things being equal..."

The fact that all things are manifestly NOT equal gives some people the willies, and leads them to suggest that the inequalities are only apparent, and not real.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Placebo Domingo
Posts: 29397
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Will Human Nature Ever Improve?

#17  Postby zulumoose » Sep 04, 2018 8:06 am

The Wiki entry on "survival of the fittest" puts it quite well:-


Herbert Spencer coined the phrase "survival of the fittest".
"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase that originated from Darwinian evolutionary theory as a way of describing the mechanism of natural selection. The biological concept of fitness is defined as reproductive success. In Darwinian terms the phrase is best understood as "Survival of the form that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations."
User avatar
zulumoose
 
Posts: 3623

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: Will Human Nature Ever Improve?

#18  Postby Cito di Pense » Sep 04, 2018 8:08 am

zulumoose wrote:The Wiki entry on "survival of the fittest" puts it quite well:-


Herbert Spencer coined the phrase "survival of the fittest".
"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase that originated from Darwinian evolutionary theory as a way of describing the mechanism of natural selection. The biological concept of fitness is defined as reproductive success. In Darwinian terms the phrase is best understood as "Survival of the form that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations."


And that's all well and good. What happens is that the environment changes. A lot of wibbling is done about humans having some special capacity ("Special Sauce™) which knows in a special way how to roll with the punches that the environment has to deliver. For a useful example that abstracts this away from the strictly human, look up "red tide".
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Placebo Domingo
Posts: 29397
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Will Human Nature Ever Improve?

#19  Postby Keep It Real » Sep 04, 2018 8:34 am

Image
You're only conscious when you're thinking about consciousness.
User avatar
Keep It Real
Suspended User
 
Posts: 9171
Age: 39

Print view this post

Re: Will Human Nature Ever Improve?

#20  Postby Hermit » Sep 04, 2018 8:49 am

Dolorosa wrote:
Hermit wrote:[...]the expression "survival of the fittest" has never been written or otherwise uttered by Charles Darwin.


Did he not adopt the term at least in some form later in his life? Wiki referred to the The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication, so I checked that copy. He does mention in the introduction that the term was coined by Herbert Spencer who essentially "expressed the same idea" as his own Natural Selection. Although he used the term sparingly in the book, it is clearly there, see the Chapter on Selection by Man. The most telling of all is his conclusion, which I will quote below (I chose a larger quote than necessary simply because I love his internal debate on the subject of predestination.)

And here we are led to face a great difficulty, in alluding to which I am aware that I am travelling beyond my proper province. An omniscient Creator must have foreseen every consequence which results from the laws imposed by Him. But can it be reasonably maintained that the Creator intentionally ordered, if we use the words in any ordinary sense, that certain fragments of rock should assume certain shapes so that the builder might erect his edifice? If the various laws which have determined the shape of each fragment were not predetermined for the builder's sake, can it be maintained with any greater probability that He specially ordained for the sake of the breeder each of the innumerable variations in our domestic animals and plants;—many of these variations being of no service to man, and not beneficial, far more often injurious, to the creatures themselves? Did He ordain that the crop and tail-feathers of the pigeon should vary in order that the fancier might make his grotesque pouter and fantail breeds? Did He cause the frame and mental qualities of the dog to vary in order that a breed might be formed of indomitable ferocity, with jaws fitted to pin down the bull for man's brutal sport? But if we give up the principle in one case,—if we do not admit that the variations of the primeval dog were intentionally guided in order that the greyhound, for instance, that perfect image of symmetry and vigour, might be formed,—no shadow of reason can be assigned for the belief that variations, alike in nature and the result of the same general laws, which have been the groundwork through natural selection of the formation of the most perfectly adapted animals in the world, man included, were intentionally and specially guided. However much we may wish it, we can hardly follow Professor Asa Gray in his belief "that variation has been led along certain beneficial lines," like a stream "along definite and useful lines of irrigation." If we assume that each particular variation was from the beginning of all time preordained, then that plasticity of organisation, which leads to many injurious deviations of structure, as well as the redundant power of reproduction which inevitably leads to a struggle for existence, and, as a consequence, to the natural selection or survival of the fittest, must appear to us superfluous laws of nature. On the other hand, an omnipotent and omniscient Creator ordains everything and foresees everything. Thus we are brought face to face with a difficulty as insoluble as is that of free will and predestination.


Bold and underlined emphasis being my own.

Yes, he did later on, and he also said it was a better expression. I stand corrected. Thanks for the links.

What remains, is that Darwin wrote exclusively in terms of natural - as opposed to social - evolution. Spencer, along with a multitude of later thinkers, made the mistake of likening the process to the latter, as does Jamest too. I think zulumoose's snippet in post #17 is apposite: "The biological concept of fitness is defined as reproductive success" In my mind it cannot be transposed in such a way that it explains human social, let alone economic developments.
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Posts: 4102
Age: 67
Male

Print view this post

Next

Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest