After initial angst, would society benefit if the weak were not supported?

[mikem8634]

You really have a very poor grasp of human evolutionary reproduction and behaviour and because of this you don't realise how extraordinarily dangerous this proposition of yours is.

 

I could explain all of this ad nauseum, but instead I'm just going to focus upon 3 things- firstly primate reproductive evolution and where humans fit in, secondly social behaviour and thirdly how our economy effects human behaviour.

 

A. Primate reproductive evolution:

 

In general primate evolution is defined not as 'survival of the fittest' but as 'reproduction of the fittest' and 'fittest' here does not necessarily mean strongest.

 

Primates can be generally divided into two types of evolutionary reproductive behaviour:

 

1. 'Tournament' groups- (eg Gorillas) these tend to form hierarchical groups where the biggest/ strongest Alpha males produce 95% of the group's offspring. Females select reproductive partners based upon their greater size and take on all of the responsibility for raising their young. Mass infanticide is common because when a strong male challenges the Alpha and wins it's in his best interest to bring the females back into heat as quickly as possible so that he can reproduce his genes across the group before another challenger rises up and usurps him.

 

2. 'Pair bonding' groups- (eg Gibbons)- in these groups there is little size difference between males and females. Females select a partner, not based upon their greater size/ strength, but on their prospective parenting skills. The pairs tend to be monogamous but there is a higher incidence of females abandoning their offspring with the males if they find a partner that is more similar to themselves safe in the knowledge that the male will happily raise the infant.

 

So which group do humans fit into? Well we're quite unique in that we've developed a reproductive strategy somewhere in the middle. This has been incredibly advantageous to our species. Human males have average levels of strength and aggression, but don't systematically murder the offspring of previous males. Females take the main responsibilty for raising their offspring, but usually choose males that will assist them in this task.

 

If we were to systematically murder or reduce the 'weak' in society, we would gradually evolve into a 'tournament' group. Males would begin to develop greater numbers of 'imprinted' genes that ensure the strength and vitality of their own offspring, but often to the detriment of the female partner's reproductive system leading to increased cancer rates, still births and miscarriages in human females. Levels of male aggression would also increase dramatically. I think that from a reproductive perspective, it's clear that we would not benefit as a society from this.

 

B. Social behaviour.

 

There are some very simple rules that optimise human (and other species') social behaviour that when followed, provide us with the best possible strategy for preventing exploitation and ensuring group stability. It can be referred to as the 'Forgiveness Tit for Tat' model and in its most simplistic form it operates like this:

 

Round 1- Person A cooperates Person B cooperates

Round 2- Person A cooperates Person B cooperates

Round 3- Person A cooperates Person B cheats

Round 4- Person A cheats Person B cooperates

Round 5- Person A forgives and cooperates Person B cooperates

Round 6- Person A cooperates Person B cooperates

 

You will notice that cooperation (not competition) is the optimum default position for ensuring social stability, but within that humans will always attempt to exploit each other when given the opportunity. If one member or sub-group in society continuously cheats it forces the other members to continuously seek revenge and you end up with a completely destabilised society. We can as a society forgive occasional exploitation but not exploitation or a lack of compassion for its members on a systematic basis.

 

If the state were to continuously murder weak or disabled people, the families of those people and anyone else who found it as appalling as it would be, would continuously revolt until either the law was overturned or that society was destroyed and then recreated on the cooperative basis. So no, society would not benefit from this ideology.

 

C. The effect of Capitalism on human behaviour.

 

Human beings, in their most natural state, are highly cooperative and egalitarian because they follow the most optimum behavioural strategy of Forgiving Tit for Tat. Modern Capitalism does not follow this strategy, but rather promotes competition and hierarchy, and therefore it is unstable and crisis prone. In 1869 Francis Galton, inspired by Darwin's theories of evolution, wrote a book in which he suggested that the economically weak should be bred out of society. He stated:

 

 

 

His book was full of fallacies and errors about the lives of the working classes in Britain at the time because he never associated with them. This became apparent when in 1899 Seebohm Rowntree performed a real study of the working classes in York, in which he collected actual data, and was able to prove that the working classes were not permanently below the poverty line, they were in fact trapped within a cycle of poverty that sometimes raised them above the poverty line and other times pushed them back below it. He ascertained that the reason this was occurring was because businesses were paying wages that were too low for people to be able to improve their situations across the length of these cycles. Poverty had nothing to do with people being weak, it had everything to do with the exploitative behaviour of the Capitalist classes. This pattern of behaviour will eventually lead to the end of Capitalism because the behaviour strategy of chasing profit through competition rather than compassion through cooperation is far from optimised.

 

I hope this makes it clear to you that your ideology is not only too simplistic to be applied to human society, but far worse it is downright dangerous for all of society's members and could only lead to social destruction in the long term.

 

An excellent post, considered and informed - if you get a response I'd be surprised if it was of equal calibre. We'll see - the OP seems to have gone very quiet, perhaps in acknowledgement of his weak argument.

[High Green]

I've just read through this thread and it has left me very sad indeed

 

After all the events of the last century, how people can still offer up such views as that of the OP beggars belief. If anyone is in a postion of weakness, it is they.

 

I fully support his right though to discuss his views in public. Free speech, now there's a concept. I feel a slight tinge of irony in that we fought against the OP's contemporaries to preserve amongst others, his right to freedom of expression.

 

It leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

[I1L2T3]

I've just read through this thread and it has left me very sad indeed

 

After all the events of the last century, how people can still offer up such views as that of the OP beggars belief. If anyone is in a postion of weakness, it is they.

 

I fully support his right though to discuss his views in public. Free speech, now there's a concept. I feel a slight tinge of irony in that we fought against the OP's contemporaries to preserve amongst others, his right to freedom of expression.

 

It leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

 

It has to be one of the most clueless OPs I've seen for a long time but it's good to see so many well thought-out posts in response.

[AWOL]

Amongst all the lengthy posts I have decided to keep mine brief as I cannot be bothered to read through all the drivel that I wrote to answer some point other. It really becomes tiresome when others have opinions different to my correct ones.

[mikem8634]

Amongst all the lengthy posts I have decided to keep mine brief as I cannot be bothered to read through all the drivel that I wrote to answer some point other. It really becomes tiresome when others have opinions different to my correct ones.

 

Yep, it is odd that people disagree with drivel.

[Rupert_Baehr]

Have you considered, mikem8634 that Conrod might be using a different thought pattern to that which you choose to believe is God (or Bog) given and absolutely irrefutably right?

 

are you aware that Conrod's IQ puts him quite quite comfortably within the top 2% of people in the world?

 

...is it 'put your money where your mouth is' time Rupert, are you really stupid, do you know something we don't or am I stupid enough to take you up on the bet?

 

I'll give you 10 to one on, minimum bet £100,000. (That's cos I'm a lazy-arsed idiot and I'm quite prepared to take your money off you.)

 

You might not agree with Conrod (and i don't agree with everything he says) but his IQ is certainly in the top 2%

 

His brain does not work the way yours does (thank God, perhaps.)

[I1L2T3]

Have you considered, mikem8634 that Conrod might be using a different thought pattern to that which you choose to believe is God (or Bog) given and absolutely irrefutably right?

 

Conrod's IQ puts him quite qy within the top 2% of people in the world.

 

...is it 'put your money where your mouth is' time Rupert, are you really stupid, do you know something we don't or am I stupid enough to take you up on the bet?

 

I'll give you 10 to one on, minimum bet £100,000. (That's cos I'm a lazy-arsed idiot and I'm quite prepared to take your money off you.)

 

You might not agree with Conrod (and i don't agree with everything he says) but his IQ is certainly in the top 2%

 

His brain does not work the way yours does (thank God, perhaps.)

 

So what? Seriously.

[Conrod]

Bumble bees, ants, meerkats and monkeys.

 

Humans are unique only in our advanced tool use and written language really.

Nail on the head. And that's why there is nothing - nothing - special or sacred about human life.

[ronthenekred]

Nail on the head. And that's why there is nothing - nothing - special or sacred about human life.

 

Does that include the strong?

[mikem8634]

Have you considered, mikem8634 that Conrod might be using a different thought pattern to that which you choose to believe is God (or Bog) given and absolutely irrefutably right?

 

Conrod's IQ puts him quite qy within the top 2% of people in the world.

 

...is it 'put your money where your mouth is' time Rupert, are you really stupid, do you know something we don't or am I stupid enough to take you up on the bet?

 

I'll give you 10 to one on, minimum bet £100,000. (That's cos I'm a lazy-arsed idiot and I'm quite prepared to take your money off you.)

 

You might not agree with Conrod (and i don't agree with everything he says) but his IQ is certainly in the top 2%

 

His brain does not work the way yours does (thank God, perhaps.)

 

I am absolutely positive Conrod is using a different thought pattern to me.

 

Are you suggesting that a high IQ makes for a sound philosophy?

 

If you read back through the thread, whether you agree with the original premise or not, you will see Conrod continually ignoring or dismissing expert testimony that casts his point of view in a very dubious light.

 

Does the IQ test cover compassion?