DescentBB

link

I found this on slashdot - and over there people are going down the "politically correct" rabbit hole... but this story does beg a question: Upon what basis do you define the value of individuals? This guy writes a book about how genetics affect economic and social behavior, and gets flak for it because of the inherent racist implications. So, how do you resolve the apparent conflict between evolutionary fitness being a natural divisive force and the socio-political climate asking us to ignore these factors when it comes to our fellow humans?

I don't see there being any dilemma when it comes to how I value humans regardless of any validity to the conclusions the author reached or the arguments made by the scientists who want to refute his work.

Humans are all of the same value as far as rights go. Anything else is on a case by case basis.
I'm curious to know if those scientists actually have a substantive rebutall for his conclusions based on their work or they just don't like being a source for commentary that is considered taboo by the politically correct.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

unfortunately we have become a nation where character means nothing, probably because so few people have it.

Well, a society can either ignore the criminal, incapable and unfit among them and let them be parasites on everyone within that society, or that society can humanly take care of them, foster them, teach them or integrate them into their society at a cost to all the members of that society, or that society can get rid of them altogether like so much refuse or trash, as nature would do. Evolutionary fitness already has it's own solution and it's usually quite brutal, and final. It just gets rid of them or lets them feed of off each other to see who survives in the game of life, survival of the fittest. Make your choice out of the three, simple.

TC, I think the "Evolutionary fitness" is the one that is in effect and it includes degrees of all three choices. We earthlings are always delivering the fitness test/response based on our state of evolution at the given moment. There isn't uniformity in the response though. We are still a cauldron of bubbling love and mayhem.

.....at about $1.34 a pound, if they are healthy and not too fatty.

Will Robinson wrote:TC, I think the "Evolutionary fitness" is the one that is in effect and it includes degrees of all three choices. We earthlings are always delivering the fitness test/response based on our state of evolution at the given moment. There isn't uniformity in the response though. We are still a cauldron of bubbling love and mayhem.

True, humans are always trying to work around nature, and we may eventually do it with our big brains and technology. That brings about the fourth choice, eugenics and what I guess I would call "social sculpting". We deliberately eliminate ALL the malcontents, criminals, undesirables and the weak to keep them from polluting our gene pool and sucking off of society in general. Then make sure we only breed perfect humans with no flaws, weaknesses or illnesses. Not in the realm of impossibility and not my idea either.

ITT: People who don't understand evolution and natural selection.

vision wrote:ITT: People who don't understand evolution and natural selection.

yup.......hence my sarcastic response.

tc: So, I think that generally we think of your "care, teach, foster" option as the most modern/civilized option... and I agree that it's the right choice to make... - but why? The book brings back into our minds the reality that there is a stratification of individual abilities, tendencies, and "value" within the human race - a stratification that must be partially attributable to our individual genetic makeup. I'm guessing that vision and slick are going down the road of evolutionary mechanics applying to groups and populations along with its application to individuals - there are plenty of examples of animal groups that care for their young, for example... but nature out there is largely a dog-eat-dog proposition.

So, we're a rational group, and we can choose what we want to do... our current PC construct where everything has equal rights and some sort of equal human dignity doesn't really seem to me to match with the general themes of the evolutionary process. If we want to say well we evolved to this and it's what nature's brought us to (throw in "tenancies", etc.) that's okay I guess, but I like to think that I'm rational and in charge of my own actions - so I want to be able to rationally reason out why humans should be special and we should look out of each other's equality when the rest of nature (and, if we're honest with ourselves, much of the human race) seems to like the idea of the strong dominating and eliminating the weak. I think it starts with the idea that all people are equally valuable - but I just don't see how to scientifically or rationally justify that idea - maybe you could make some sort of empirical argument for it, but I'm not sure I'd completely buy that either.

[EDIT] I'll correct myself: I don't see a way to justify equality of people in absence of the Bible.

vision wrote:ITT: People who don't understand evolution and natural selection.

Wow, you made the most of the opportunity to teach didn't you? You taught us what a snarky anal retentive asshat does.

I don't believe that genetics are a driving force behind human behavior at all. Man is a living soul. I get a kick every time some idiot in some scientific field discovers that some small portion of the world he is focusing in on is actually different than he thought, because it always will be and it's because of where they are starting from. Correlation is not automatically causality, and they think it is because it agrees with their mistaken, preexisting beliefs about the origin of man. 31 years of paying attention (ok maybe not the entire time) has taught me that man is foolish and puffed up, and he can only hold his head up and take himself seriously because he measures himself against all of the other idiots (everyone else).

Genetics? No way. It's way more simple than that.

I value people based on how well I trust them. Lets face it, everyone is the same way. If you don't trust someone's word or think they might rob you, you're not going to care as much when you hear they've been put in prison or shot for burglary or fraud.

Now, if you grew up poor you might have a history of neighbors robbing you and might be slower to trust. If you grew up in a wealthy suburb, where all the neighbors hang out and have parties every sunday, you'll probably trust anyone until they cross you.

If the person in OP's link is trying to study anything, he should study poverty and edumcation.

/thread

snoopy wrote:tc: So, I think that generally we think of your "care, teach, foster" option as the most modern/civilized option... and I agree that it's the right choice to make... - but why? The book brings back into our minds the reality that there is a stratification of individual abilities, tendencies, and "value" within the human race - a stratification that must be partially attributable to our individual genetic makeup. I'm guessing that vision and slick are going down the road of evolutionary mechanics applying to groups and populations along with its application to individuals - there are plenty of examples of animal groups that care for their young, for example... but nature out there is largely a dog-eat-dog proposition.

So, we're a rational group, and we can choose what we want to do... our current PC construct where everything has equal rights and some sort of equal human dignity doesn't really seem to me to match with the general themes of the evolutionary process. If we want to say well we evolved to this and it's what nature's brought us to (throw in "tenancies", etc.) that's okay I guess, but I like to think that I'm rational and in charge of my own actions - so I want to be able to rationally reason out why humans should be special and we should look out of each other's equality when the rest of nature (and, if we're honest with ourselves, much of the human race) seems to like the idea of the strong dominating and eliminating the weak. I think it starts with the idea that all people are equally valuable - but I just don't see how to scientifically or rationally justify that idea - maybe you could make some sort of empirical argument for it, but I'm not sure I'd completely buy that either.

[EDIT] I'll correct myself: I don't see a way to justify equality of people in absence of the Bible.

One word, intelligence. We have the intelligence to surpass nature's will and rise above animal behaviors and create societies that nurture and support everyone, regardless of their abilities or intelligence. We have come up with the idea of humanity and the ability and desire to use it.

Webster's Dictionary wrote:3. The quality of being humane; kindness; benevolence; goodwill.

No other animal on the planet has our big brain and has used it to create the technology and infrastructure we humans have created, all in order to alter the land, sea and air just to cater to our needs and make life better. We use that intelligence, and the knowledge it gives us to feed, house, clothe and protect ourselves from the wiles of nature, other animals and even ourselves. We have actually altered, and many times subverted, the evolutionary pressures on our species. Not even primates come close to accomplishing that feat. We as humans can defy and rise above our own genetic programing, programing that was put there from our creation as basic survival code on a wild, brutal planet. We don't always succeed in that venture many times, but we always keep trying. THAT'S what makes us different and counter to evolution. We're SMART. Sure, nature will probably eventually win out if we fail at using our technology to harness and control it, because we've pretty much become dependent on that technology to feed our huge populations as it is.

As for the Bible, it knows NOTHING about evolution, so that's not a factor in it's teachings. It is, however, a product of our brains, just as any other thing we've written about in the past and future. I've already stated I believe that what it teaches, in many passages, is the ideal of a lesser gender and male dominance. As a female who fervently disdains the stereotypical female ideal, why should I give up some of my freedoms and individuality just to cater to the whims of the Biblical male ideal of dominance and inequality over the feminine sex? I like my life the way I've lived it. To give you an idea how strongly I feel about it, I would sooner DIE than return to what passed for female equality in the 1950's or earlier. Thank God for the 1960's.

I give all life the same value, and I don’t need any empirical study or the Bible to justify why.

Giving all life the same value solves all of the moral and ethical dilemmas, and quite frankly…it just works…period.

Once you start diddling around with this life has more value than that life, it leads to all kinds of bad things.

Gee Spidey, I didn't know you had some of that humanity in you. I guess you are human.

Spidey wrote:I give all life the same value, and I don’t need any empirical study or the Bible to justify why.

Giving all life the same value solves all of the moral and ethical dilemmas, and quite frankly…it just works…period.

Once you start diddling around with this life has more value than that life, it leads to all kinds of bad things.

I think you're at once right and wrong. Where did your values come from, Spidey? Whether you ever sat down and put it into a conscious construct or not, there was a reason you arrived at this conclusion (or accepted it, in which case the reason part goes back before your time). You're right in that people will get into "all kinds of bad things", but it's not because of the question but because they were either evil or out of their depth with the answer they give. Personally I think everyone is out of their depth on that one, myself included, but I accept that God created man, and shows no partiality to any of them (which means we're equal). That is how I was raised, but the Bible was the reason. I would bet money you got this opinion from the Bible, whether you can trace it to your own lifetime or not.

That’s a tough question, I doubt there is a simple answer, I can only imagine they come from 50 plus years of dealing with the consequences of my actions, and reasoning things out.

But I don’t doubt the lingering effects of my Christian background. But I have also rejected so much of it, that who can say how much remains.

The concept predates the Bible, so it's prior art.

snoopy wrote:I'll correct myself: I don't see a way to justify equality of people in absence of the Bible.

You don't see a way to ethically justify anything without the Bible, so this doesn't come as a surprise!

You plan to follow that pot-shot up with an answer/argument, Jeff? Been taking lessons from Ferno?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:You plan to follow that pot-shot up with an answer/argument...?

What is there to argue? All the best things people glean out of every religious text predate those texts while all the things filtered out follow social trends. This is some pretty basic stuff right here.

In other words, it's a fairly trivial exercise to construct a moral framework that isn't founded on the Bible in any way. Many, many people have done so, both centuries in the past and in the present day.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:You plan to follow that pot-shot up with an answer/argument, Jeff? Been taking lessons from Ferno?

My only point was that this problem reduces to one that we've hashed out together multiple times in the past.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:You plan to follow that pot-shot up with an answer/argument, Jeff? Been taking lessons from Ferno?

If by lessons you mean he uses his brain, then yes, I suppose so.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I think you're at once right and wrong. Where did your values come from, Spidey? Whether you ever sat down and put it into a conscious construct or not, there was a reason you arrived at this conclusion (or accepted it, in which case the reason part goes back before your time). You're right in that people will get into "all kinds of bad things", but it's not because of the question but because they were either evil or out of their depth with the answer they give. Personally I think everyone is out of their depth on that one, myself included, but I accept that God created man, and shows no partiality to any of them (which means we're equal). That is how I was raised, but the Bible was the reason. I would bet money you got this opinion from the Bible, whether you can trace it to your own lifetime or not.

Good values.

http://www.ranker.com/list/top-20-bible ... ivana-wynn

Sergeant Thorne wrote:..... I would bet money you got this opinion from the Bible, whether you can trace it to your own lifetime or not.

The bible was written by a bunch of men.
A couple of men wrote this too:

...1 In the beginning Man created God; and in the image of Man created he him.
...2 And Man gave unto God a multitude of names,that he might be Lord of all the earth when it was suited to Man
...3 And on the seven millionth day Man rested and did lean heavily on his God and saw that it was good.

So there is that whole conundrum to be solved before the "Bible" gets to automatically mean something.

Not automatically, Will. Historically. And don't try to blame the message of the Bible for some of the evils perpetrated in the name of God in modern history, because that's just a distraction, and it doesn't hold any water. I'm talking about things as simple as do unto others as you would have them do unto you. And I'm not naive--the whole of American history is not a tale of Christian faith, but there have been revivals throughout America's history which have been pivotal in setting back the degeneration of society, and some of the important values from it still linger to the benefit of society.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:--the whole of American history is not a tale of Christian faith, but there have been revivals throughout America's history which have been pivotal in setting back the degeneration of society, and some of the important values from it still linger to the benefit of society.

Cite a few of these revivals in American history. I'm curious.

Spidey wrote:I give all life the same value, and I don’t need any empirical study or the Bible to justify why.

Giving all life the same value solves all of the moral and ethical dilemmas, and quite frankly…it just works…period.

Once you start diddling around with this life has more value than that life, it leads to all kinds of bad things.

First, you're full of crap; second, I don't accept "it's just works" as valid justification.

You say that you give all life the same value: Have you ever swatted a fly? Have you considered that (mostly) everything that you eat comes at the cost of other life? Do you use anything made of wood? Do you use anti-bacterial soap? See, you don't really assign equal value to all life. In fact, you go about destroying quite a range of other life in the process of living and preserving your own.

"It just works" has about the same amount of reason (and scientific curiosity) behind it as the old "because the church says so" that you guys love to beat on. My point in the thread is to challenge us to explain a reasoned justification for the idea that we should value each other equally despite our differences - and in that context "it just works" is nothing short of a cop-out.

Jeff250 & Top Gun: I guess that's part of my point: Sure, it's easy to construct an arbitrary moral framework... and it can be based on whatever you want - but we're not really living in an arbitrary world. We're living in a world where science is held up as the basis upon which we ought to build our frameworks (I think - tell me if I'm wrong) - and we're also living in a world where we generally want to assign equal value to all people, which appears to me to be in contradiction with science. So, I'm asking: do you see the apparent tension between science and our social constructs? If so, how do you find a peace in fitting the two together? If not, help me understand how I'm misunderstanding things so I can see that there isn't any tension there?

snoopy wrote:We're living in a world where science is held up as the basis upon which we ought to build our frameworks (I think - tell me if I'm wrong) - and we're also living in a world where we generally want to assign equal value to all people, which appears to me to be in contradiction with science.

Ah, I see. Snoopy, I believe the tension you're describing is a false one, because you're setting up a comparison between two very different types of values.

On one hand, we have a set of quantitative scientific measures regarding the value of an individual or group; e.g. scientific work establishing the evolutionary fitness of one species as stronger than others, or regarding inherent strength/weakness of certain genes.

On the other, we have a set of qualitative measures regarding the value of an individual or group; e.g. any moral frameworks establishing the value of people/animals/etc.

The problem lies in people who make the mistake of using one to influence the other (e.g. using science to inflate or diminish the relative moral values of one group over another, or using a given moral code to twist scientific study).

snoopy wrote:My point in the thread is to challenge us to explain a reasoned justification for the idea that we should value each other equally despite our differences - and in that context "it just works" is nothing short of a cop-out.

Because, when we don't treat each other somewhat equally or fairly, there is resentment. When there is resentment, there is anger. When there is anger, there is hate. Hate can be the catalyst for the destruction of any society. It's not even from the Bible. It's hard coded into our brains.

Take note in this great video example. (Note, I used the video that's subtitled in Portuguese because it's the only one that had the full comments about equality and fairness at the end of the lecture.)

2 monkeys getting different rewards for doing the identical task. One of them gets very mad, and resentful.

[youtube]L4ZLth19t0g[/youtube]

Genesis 1:26

No snoopy, I’m not full of ★■◆●, it’s you who are making the mistake that one can't take a life and still value it.

As I have said many times, man doesn’t have a “right” to kill, man only has the “need” to kill, and this should be the sole basis for taking life.

And “it just works” is a personal perspective, I’m not trying to force it on anyone, you have every right to dismiss it, but not as it applies to me.

Burlyman wrote:Genesis 1:26

So?