Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Ethics And Evolutionary Strategy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ethics And Evolutionary Strategy

    This came up in another thread but was off topic, I thought I would ask the question here: The Europeans come to North America, pretty much decimate the native population, and in the process create, arguably, one of the most powerful countries in history. From the evolutionary stand point this was a very successful strategy, and in the end, isn't that the most important consideration? So in the evolutionary sense - it was "good." Correct?
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

  • #2
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    This came up in another thread but was off topic, I thought I would ask the question here: The Europeans come to North America, pretty much decimate the native population, and in the process create, arguably, one of the most powerful countries in history. From the evolutionary stand point this was a very successful strategy, and in the end, isn't that the most important consideration? So in the evolutionary sense - it was "good." Correct?
    It wasn't very good for the Native Americans. "Good" is a relative and very subjective term.

    It was also a cultural clash, nothing to do with biological evolution.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
      It wasn't very good for the Native Americans. "Good" is a relative and very subjective term.

      It was also a cultural clash, nothing to do with biological evolution.
      What else is there besides biological evolution? And no, it was not good for the the Native Americans. If a predatory bacteria comes in and destroys another species of bacteria that is bad for that particular species but good for the predatory species - and? Survival it always the main consideration - correct?
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by seer View Post
        What else is there besides biological evolution?
        In this case it was the same species with two very different cultures coming into conflict. Nothing to do with biological evolution.

        And no, it was not good for the the Native Americans. If a predatory bacteria comes in and destroys another species of bacteria that is bad for that particular species but good for the predatory species - and? Survival it always the main consideration - correct?
        Europeans and Native American are the same species.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
          In this case it was the same species with two very different cultures coming into conflict. Nothing to do with biological evolution.
          You mean like this, this has nothing to do with biological evolution:

          http://www.slate.com/articles/health...ggression.html

          In 1974, Jane Goodall witnessed a disturbing scene in Gombe Stream National Park, Tanzania. A gang of male chimpanzees invaded their neighbors’ territory and attacked a male chimp sitting by himself in a tree. The intruders dragged the chimpanzee to the ground, pinned him down, and bit and hit him all over his body. The attack ended when one member of the gang threw a rock at the bleeding victim. The battered chimp was never seen again and presumably died from his injuries.

          The murderous chimpanzees weren’t attacking a stranger: They had recently all belonged to the same group. When the group split in two, one community took over the northern half of the range and the other the southern half. From 1974 to 1977, during the “four-year war,” the northern males obliterated the southern community, hunting down and killing all of its adult males. The northerners took over their enemies’ territory and females.

          This was the first time scientists had documented “warfare” among chimpanzees. It wasn’t the last.

          Europeans and Native American are the same species.
          So were the chimpanzees above. But obviously one tribe survived to pass on their genes, the other didn't.
          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by seer View Post
            What else is there besides biological evolution? And no, it was not good for the the Native Americans. If a predatory bacteria comes in and destroys another species of bacteria that is bad for that particular species but good for the predatory species - and? Survival it always the main consideration - correct?
            Sociocultural evolution
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociocultural_evolution

            The decimation of the native population has nothing to do with biology. Biological evolution by natural selection is not a morally directed process. It is partly about adaptation to niche environments in competition with other similar animals – a slow process. Sociocultural evolution is very much faster but it does not work at the biological level except that the relative abundance and purity of distinct races of the same species (us) is affected over time.
            “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
            “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
            “not all there” - you know who you are

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
              Sociocultural evolution
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociocultural_evolution

              The decimation of the native population has nothing to do with biology. Biological evolution by natural selection is not a morally directed process. It is partly about adaptation to niche environments in competition with other similar animals – a slow process. Sociocultural evolution is very much faster but it does not work at the biological level except that the relative abundance and purity of distinct races of the same species (us) is affected over time.
              Nonsense, see my example of the chimpanzees above. It is biological evolution that created us to do such things. Besides I did not use the term biological evolution, I just said it was a good evolutionary strategy, sociocultural or otherwise. And if it is a good evolutionary strategy then how can it be ethically wrong?
              Last edited by seer; 05-08-2014, 09:14 AM.
              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by seer View Post
                Nonsense, see my example of the chimpanzees above. It is biological evolution that created us to do such things. Besides I did not use the term biological evolution, I just said it was a good evolutionary strategy, sociocultural or otherwise. And if it is a good evolutionary strategy then how can it be ethically wrong?
                All higher animals are aggressive in certain circumstances; in the competition for food and mates for example. But for a species to survive it must also nurture its young. Good/bad is not a factor. Survival is.

                When the natural and essential behaviour is directed in a political fashion – decimation of native populations – I think it is unfair to blame the biology. We can overcome our own nature if we want to.
                “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                “not all there” - you know who you are

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                  All higher animals are aggressive in certain circumstances; in the competition for food and mates for example. But for a species to survive it must also nurture its young. Good/bad is not a factor. Survival is.

                  When the natural and essential behaviour is directed in a political fashion – decimation of native populations – I think it is unfair to blame the biology. We can overcome our own nature if we want to.
                  But biology is what makes us what we are, dictates how we act. There is no overcoming our nature, because nature is all there is. So you agree that good/bad is not a factor in what the Europeans did?
                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    From the evolutionary stand point this was a very successful strategy, and in the end, isn't that the most important consideration?
                    You grant evolution too much in the way of anthropomorphic traits. Evolution has no consideration. It can't, because it doesn't think or plan or reason. There can't be a 'most important consideration'. Even reproductive success, while essential for another generation to arise, is not a goal. Evolution has no goals. It's merely a description of interacting effects. Natural Selection plus Random Mutation. That's it.
                    I'm not here anymore.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      But biology is what makes us what we are, dictates how we act. There is no overcoming our nature, because nature is all there is. So you agree that good/bad is not a factor in what the Europeans did?
                      If that were true we would not have words like ‘good’ and ‘bad’. At our best, we are able to overcome our base nature. But without it you would not be here to debate the point – you would more likely be some other creature’s staple diet.
                      “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                      “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                      “not all there” - you know who you are

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        What else is there besides biological evolution? And no, it was not good for the the Native Americans. If a predatory bacteria comes in and destroys another species of bacteria that is bad for that particular species but good for the predatory species - and? Survival it always the main consideration - correct?
                        If you're try to establish that evolution is scientifically flawed because of possible evil cultural applications, you're as wrong as wrong can be.

                        Abus non tollit usum.

                        Hiroshima and Nagaski were a consequence of nuclear physics. What happened there was BAAADDD, ergo nuclear physics is BAAAADDD and therefore WRONG.

                        So then, what IS your point?

                        K54

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                          If you're try to establish that evolution is scientifically flawed because of possible evil cultural applications, you're as wrong as wrong can be.

                          Abus non tollit usum.

                          Hiroshima and Nagaski were a consequence of nuclear physics. What happened there was BAAADDD, ergo nuclear physics is BAAAADDD and therefore WRONG.

                          So then, what IS your point?

                          K54
                          That's not his goal. His real goal is to find out how atheists consider morality in light of there being nothing more than biology at work. In his estimation, the only basis an atheist can have is evolution, and therefore whatever counts as evolutionary success must also count as a moral act.
                          I'm not here anymore.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                            That's not his goal. His real goal is to find out how atheists consider morality in light of there being nothing more than biology at work. In his estimation, the only basis an atheist can have is evolution, and therefore whatever counts as evolutionary success must also count as a moral act.
                            OK, then this thread doesn't belong in Natural Science.

                            BTW, our evolutionary history, and it's consequent influence on modern human behavior, smacks a lot of "Original Sin".

                            K54

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                              OK, then this thread doesn't belong in Natural Science.

                              BTW, our evolutionary history, and it's consequent influence on modern human behavior, smacks a lot of "Original Sin".

                              K54
                              To be fair, I think it's ok in Nat. Sci. if it can be kept to how/if evolution gives rise to morality from a scientific perspective (if that's even possible). My intent was to correct what you assumed he was trying to establish.

                              I maintain that evolution is amoral, and that biology (science, really) is also amoral. To me, the entire question of evolutionary ethics relies on a false premise.
                              I'm not here anymore.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by shunyadragon, Today, 09:08 PM
                              0 responses
                              3 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by lee_merrill, Today, 06:43 PM
                              1 response
                              5 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by Juvenal, 11-30-2020, 04:47 PM
                              3 responses
                              42 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Terraceth  
                              Started by rogue06, 11-28-2020, 12:54 PM
                              4 responses
                              37 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by shunyadragon, 11-26-2020, 09:46 PM
                              0 responses
                              12 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X