Humans come from nature so everything we do is natural and that includes inflicting poverty on people.
Nature exiles their weak and kills babies all the time. Its only natural.
Lazy
#NuclearBombsAreNatural
Well, I guess it’ll be funny when all the lower classes die off and the rich have to eat eachother to survive.
I think groups of lower classes will likely murder the rich and take their shit long before the rich have to think about eating each other.
Let’s hope
Maybe we can convince them to go hide in their bunkers sooner rather than later, then we just concrete them in and forget about them
Yes, that’s the plot of HG Wells’ The Time Machine. The rich evolve into beautiful but helpless and mindless little doll-people. The poor evolve into ugly, cunning, mechanically-inclined troglodyte people who hunt and feast on the doll-people.
It’s been a while since I’ve read the Time Machine but I’m pretty sure the Morlocks didn’t hunt the Eloi so much as trained them to head underground for slaughter when they heard air raid sirens. Maybe I’m remembering the old timey movie more than the book.
To be fair, the phrase “survival of the fittest” was coined by Herbert Spencer, who definitely did use it to describe dying from poverty.
His actual opinion was a little more nuanced than that, but Social Darwinism was kind of his whole thing, and that’s where the phrase “survival of the fittest” comes from. Darwin himself took it from Spencer and added it to later editions of On the Origin of Species.
The fittest psychological profile for the late-capitalist environment is a psychopath who is very good at imitating empathy. Change the environment XP
I mean why? Why is not survival of the fittest? It’s simply a matter of definition of “fit”. 🤷♂️ If the fittest means you have rich ancestors, then so be it, in some context. If it means being able to wrestle someone to the ground, that’s fine in another context. We live in many different contexts, as humans. It’s not black and white…
It turns out working together is a highly successful strategy. You can stretch the definition of “fit” to say that working together improves fitness, but if so, it still becomes much harder to justify Social Darwinism.
Whatever makes your genes more likely to spread goes into the definition of “fit” in this context.
Evolution doesn’t care how you managed to spread your genes. It only cares if you did it or not.
If you have great social skills, which ends up in you working together, which ends up in you being better than if you didn’t work together, which ends up in you spreading your genes, that counts towards your fitness.
Because we have all given into the social construct of “we won’t kill you and take all your shit”. That was the deal. We stopped playing by the “if you piss me off me and my community with bash in your knee caps”. Most the fuckers who chant “survival of the fittest” don’t understand what that really means. It means that _anything _ is fair game.
Evolution doesn’t really care about social constructs though. It will select on one thing and one thing only – offspring.
Can’t have off spring if you get murdered for being a dick :). Humans are special in regards to evolution, we know about it so we can force its hand. The reason the rich are rich is because the public let them, those who argue for survival of the fittest don’t get that. The rules were put in place so we don’t behave like animals. But if they want us to…
The reason the rich are rich is because the public let them, those who argue for survival of the fittest don’t get that. The rules were put in place so we don’t behave like animals.
But in the grand scheme of things, we are animals too, and we have this behavior. We are animals and we are all aligning with the social constructs of our species. Being “fit to survive” doesn’t need to mean “being able to kill someone weaker”. You could have a mental illness that leads to suicide. That’s not being fit to survive and spread genes. Doesn’t mean you were necessarily weak either, someone like that could be strong af, or a ninja.
You could also just be lucky as fuck. Maybe you happened to be a cave dwelling animal when WWIII happened with all the nuclear winter that followed. Or maybe you just dodged some other kind of evolutionary cataclysmic bullet. Surely the dinosaurs were “the fittest” – strong af, top tier predators and herbivores of their time – until they weren’t. They weren’t fit to survive a meteor.
In the grand scheme of evolution, it doesn’t matter what causes the survival. We are in the blink of an eye in the timeline of life, as humans. Evolution has barely had time to register our social constructs as a blip on its radar.
Now, our social constructs aren’t “fair”, but admittedly neither were all those villages who were burned by invaders before money was a thing, or tribes fighting and killing innocents, or people being eaten by sabertooths or some shit. Nothing in evolution needs to be “fair”.
And it sucks.
That’s exactly what time saying, we are currently “playing fair” but we don’t need to
That’s exactly what time saying
[Speech-to-text detected]
we are currently “playing fair” but we don’t need to
But we are. I’m sure there are plenty of examples of behavior in nature where the animals are doing shit they don’t need to be doing, that also affect their natural selection. But it’s their nature.
We might make the argument that we aren’t living according to our nature, but we made our nature this. Whatever we’re doing right now is effectively our nature.
Aliens visiting earth for the first time right now will look at us and conclude that what we are doing is our nature, and that we are surprisingly ill-equipped for our own nature and society. That we are working together in some aspects, and against each other in some, and it makes no goddamn sense.
“Survival of the fittest” is itself a naive view of evolution. “Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution”, by Peter Kropotkin, was a direct response to that shit over 100 years ago. It was a precursor to Kin Selection Theory developed in the 1960s. It gave the idea a firm mathematical foundation and is largely accepted by biologists today.
The idea itself isn’t wrong, the fittest individuals (those who have the most offspring) are always those whose genetic material will be best represented in the next generations. Kin Selection Theory just includes the fact that even selfish and thus fitter individuals which are helped by altruistic ones usually carry some altruistic genes which they propagate.
Fit and reproducing a lot isn’t mutually exclusive tho. Just look at Elon. Do you think he could hunt a deer with just his hands? I doubt he could even put up a shelf.
In evolutionary biology, fitness is defined as reproductive success, aka the number of viable, reproducing offspring
Which, in the context of Social Darwinism, still puts the idea to rest.
People don’t understand that fitness is related purely to the number of viable offspring, which isn’t a useful indicator of a person’s virtue. Anyways Social Darwinism is idiotic and a wonderful example of the appeal to nature fallacy. We’ve surpassed evolution for fuck’s sake, if we want to progress as a society we need to educate people.
We’ve surpassed evolution for fuck’s sake
We’ve become self-aware, but the evolutionary impulses persist. Ecological pressures don’t vanish because you begin to understand them. We can adapt rapidly - even within one or two generations - to enormous changes in the ecology. But these are still responses and they still exert evolutionary pressure on the population.
Nevermind that most people still don’t actually understand evolution in a manner that benefits them individually. The idea is only useful at the social level, via community-spanning collective actions and policies.
I meant that our goals aren’t aligned with the evolutionary “goal” of maximizing the number of offspring anymore. We are still deeply driven by evolved instincts, but we should recognize them as needs that our biology requires to be satisfied in order to achieve happiness, rather than goals in themselves. Of course we are still part of the biosphere and subject to evolution, but that evolution isn’t significant on our timescale or meaningful (in the sense that by our criteria of good people, we won’t evolve to be better). If we want to improve as a species, we should focus on a different, memetic, kind of evolution, passing knowledge and ideas instead of genetic material.
I meant that our goals aren’t aligned with the evolutionary “goal” of maximizing the number of offspring anymore.
More humans in one place have a real positive benefit. That’s why we congregate in office buildings and university centers, rather than spreading ourselves out as evenly as possible. And communities with large populations enjoy economics of scale that smaller that smaller, more diffuse populations can’t take advantage of.
evolution isn’t significant on our timescale or meaningful (in the sense that by our criteria of good people, we won’t evolve to be better).
Genetic drift isn’t significant on the span of decades or centuries, but it is still happening and will have consequences to population subgroups in tens of thousands of years.
And - as we’ve demonstrated with more manual efforts at selection - we can force the issue with technology. Modern corn and bananas are two classic examples of a species cultivated by human intervention. Modern methods of transportation and trade has given us record levels of miscegenation, producing enormous cohorts of the human population with combinations of biological traits heretofore unseen (mostly trivial and unremarkable in the moment, but wait another 10,000 years and we’ll see what we get).
The pressures we’ve placed upon the global ecology through industrialization are taking their toll as well. But these have feedbacks that shape our own populations. As the pressures we exert rise (via pollution, climate change, terraforming, deliberate scientific gene tampering) the consequences on our populations become more profound.
Even then, having said all of that, there is no real “better” from an evolutionary perspective. There is surviving to procreate and not surviving, but you’ll be hard pressed to name an existing species that hasn’t figured that out. What we have in cognition is the ability to evaluate the consequences of our actions. We don’t have any kind of measure for what direction we should aim, save in what we collectively choose to value.
But then you introduce parasitic organisms, which prey on the more selfless and mutualist functions of complex species. And you end up with a cyclical rise and fall of survival strategies.
Predator organisms proliferating in periods of organic wealth and collapsing when they’ve depleted the reserves.
Meanwhile, prey organisms trade their mutualist reproductive impulses for traits that are defensive and alienating from their kin… until the predator collapse, at which point they can open up again.
Optional survival varies with the historical movement, which is driven by the strategies that preceded that moment.
Fitness isn’t a solved problem, it is a constantly moving target.
You don’t have to be rich to have rich offspring, you just have to fuck the rich guy’s wife before he does.
Fitness can be seen as a phenotype trait, i.e. the kind of phenotype that will produce the most offspring. Of course that is dependent on the environment, but it is worth noting that the kind of adaptation you mentioned can also happen epigenetically or by other means. Basically organisms can have some adpatability built into their genotype.
the kind of phenotype that will produce the most offspring
That’s only beneficial when your children are an asset to community survival. Predators tend to produce fewer offspring, because every new member of the predator cohort is an eventual rival. Prey species benefit from large populations when the populations’ role is to terraform territory or otherwise synergize with their kin. This is a big fundamental difference between animal and plant reproduction, since plants generally benefit from more members of the species in the immediate area while animals have a soft ceiling on their population tied to how much food / shelter is available.
One could argue that the human habit of terraforming and the synergy enjoyed by a large population of active brains in a small area puts us more in line with plant species than animals.
The Survival of the Fittest trope is flawed on a whole host of levels. The idea that you want a small number of apex predators as a survival mechanic neglects all the instances in which a very large number of prey species perform significantly better.
even selfish and thus fitter individuals which are helped by altruistic ones usually carry some altruistic genes which they propagate.
It’s more useful to model the genes as selfish, not the individuals. A queen bee/ant won’t survive long enough to produce fertile offspring if her infertile offspring, each a genetic dead end, doesn’t provide for the hive/colony. That genetic programming isn’t altruistic because it doesn’t help rival colonies/hives, only their own.
So no, the individuals aren’t free riding on others’ altruism. It’s more that genetic coding for social groups is advantageous to the gene, even if localized applications of those rules might seem disadvantageous to the individual in certain instances.
There’s people who say this? That’s dumb, there are many ‘fit’ people who were born in a poor family, and there are ‘unfit’ people ahem Elon born wealthy. I’ve heard of the “Darwin award” for people who die by doing dumb shit but this is new to me.
[Family Guy skin color chart meme]
Is this an actual thing those researchers say? I’ve never heard a person with higher education saying shit like this.
In the same way that climate deniers think they know what they’re talking about because they have an elementary school-level understanding of the weather, flat earthers think they know what they’re talking about because they have an elementary school-level level understanding of physics, and antivaxxers think they know what they’re talking about because they have an elementary school-level understanding of medicine, social darwinists think they know what they’re talking about because they have an elementary school-level understanding of evolution. They heard “survival of the fittest” and were convinced that’s all the nuance there was to have about the topic.
Well, exactly, that sort of social Darwinism is just so antiscientific and also generally antisocial I don’t think a person with any self-awareness in a remotely serious academic context could put it to paper. I’ve seen it online, yes, but that’s not what OP tweet is addressing…
Poverty is a social construct caused by wealth hoarding
What?! As if non-human species don’t control access to resources… Keeping stuff for yourself (and your kin) rather than sharing with strangers is about as natural as a behavior can be. The social construct is actually the moral system that leads many humans to share.
I think “poverty” probably has a specific sociological definition which separates it from regular resource destitution.
not by some natural resource shortage you fascist.
Way to change the argument by leaving out half the sentence.
The natural resource shortage or lack thereof is irrelevant. Look at those nature documentaries where a pack of healthy, well-fed animals drives away a starving loner.
It might surprise you but animals too show social interactions. They also sometimes hoard resources to the detriment of others. This too is a socially constructed shortage of a resource not a natural one.
But just like we (mostly) stopped just punching each other to resolve conflicts we could probably benefit from behaving differently, i.e. using different social strategies than animals to distribute natural resources
Yeah, cause theyre still guarding their resources. Some animals may have a bit more than others, but they still have a pretty finite source.
Humans on the other hand have more than enough resources for everybody multiple times over. But instead of feeding and housing everyone, we would rather they go to waste then help out the “starving loner”
Show me animals in the wild that will happily let thier food rot (besides to make them alcholic) just to spite other animals and you kinda have an argument. But even those animals which are guarding thier resources are still going to use it.
The ironic thing about social darwinist types that want to cut any support for the poor on the grounds of poverty being some kind of proof of not being fit to survive, is that the same types will likely also object to things like labor unions or other means of large groups of poorer people banding together to collectively force better conditions from the wealthy, despite social cooperation being a common and successful enough evolutionary strategy.
Humans: Literally only exist because they banded together in larger communities than other contemporary hominids. One of the earliest indicators of civilization is caring for the injured and sick. The key characteristic of successful societies is how well they keep each other alive.
Some fuckhead who thinks he understands evolution: “We should let the financially weak die”
Prick a Libertarian and a neoliberal bleeds.
It is quite odd how many people say evolution is a liberal hoax yet are full throated social darwinists.
That’s because capitalism was created by God to
reward the faithfulpunish the wicked. /s
Hi, appliance repair man here who just fixes appliances in people’s home for a living. “Survival of the fittest” was a term coined by Herbert Spencer after reading Darwin’s Origin of species. And even I know that biologists and people who study evolution don’t like this term because it is vague and misleading. In this case the fittest refers to organisms that have the best reproductive success.
This term has been heavily misused to misrepresent evolution and the people who studied.
Right. Humanity is still evolving. But “fitness”, in the long term, will likely just mean “doesn’t like to wear a condom and is really convincing about it”
could mean rape, top sperm doner, or polygamist. it has nothing to do with democracy or capitalism for that matter.
Poverty is caused by a lack of money, and money isn’t real. Well, not really real.
Money is a type of private property. Private property is an arrangement of power relationships, and those are real. It’s real that you’ll get evicted if you don’t find a way to pay rent/mortgage.
They’re only as real as anything inside a mind. Which is to say not very real.
“natural resource shortage you fascist” is really difficult to say : D
Central bank monetary policy requires that we pay 2% more for goods every year as technology makes things cheaper and we exclude asset price inflation. They construct a wall of debt via low interest rates for inelastic goods like housing in order to provide a windfall to boomers in order to force the prices of goods upwards, every new mortgage new money supply being created.
That wall of debt that is gatekeeping inelastic shelter is what poverty looks like, prices can’t rise without providing new money supply, and some poor smuck holding that IOU for the first movers to consume. Blaming the rich, whose nominal asset value is inflated by this system, is a naive view; they are simply being spoon fed wealth in a desperate attempt to get them to consume a portion of it. Every bailout for any type of correction caused by an error or oversight in the system is then funneled back to them as wages are debased.
This likely explains the fanaticism around Bitcoin and gold, I think we can all see who is served by the existing system, and its definitely not the poor.
