Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Social Darwinism
blog.bizzflip.com — Can the good traits or genes of a society as advanced as ours be depleted to the point that the gene pool no longer features them? Or maybe this is already happening.
change881- 161 diggs
- digg it
- SpillReviews, on 05/08/2008, -4/+6definitely something to think about
- rollem, on 05/09/2008, -0/+11Social Darwinism has long ago been discounted and suggesting that "Idiocracy" is a plausible outcome of current selective pressures based on evolution by natural selection is what feeds the ignorance required for the ideas shown in Ben Stein's "Expelled." The heritability of most human traits is unknown but hotly debated. Unfortunately, breeding experiments are the only decisive way to measure heritability and cannot be done on humans (twin studies are the closest thing we have, but are not perfect). Furthermore, we do not know what traits have what effect on reproductive success and even if we did it takes hundreds or thousands of generations of consistent selective pressure to produce measurable change, and it is unknown how our environment will change over that time.
- foxhaze, on 05/09/2008, -3/+1I laugh at your joke, SpillReviews. Let me summarize this article that you want to "think about": Social Darwinism, a well-known and very reasonable theory that is taught to children in basic science class, can be applied to real life. Holy. *****.
Why in God's green earth do people find this story interesting? We know how easily social darwinism can be applied to all situations. That's it. This article just published ***** as if it were a new idea. It's practically plagiarism, except the sheer idea of the topic is so asinine. - Abomonog, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1I deny your social Darwinism and say it is intelligent design.
- louiebaur, on 05/08/2008, -2/+4there could be some validity on this one
- svtspeed, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1Have you seen myspace lately? I'd say with all the little ***** that have zero ambition, intelligence, and zero desire to better the world are multiplying at a staggering rate. Seriously look up how many uneducated kids under 18 that have kids - you would be surprised. Also they TyPE LKE THiS. Why? I do not know but it just adds to the supporting evidence of this theory.
- Gandalff, on 05/08/2008, -10/+2I disagree... as long as we still have alcohol and mind altering drugs there is always going to be a swirly in the pot. =) not to mention a little confusion.
- Chassit, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3Alcohol IS a mind altering drug.
- davidamerland, on 05/08/2008, -3/+6Given the fact that someone reading the London Times today needs to know about as much as the collective top brains of 1010 AD did just to make sense of it argues that we are not really getting 'dumber'. Our intelligence evolves as part of our social stimuli and society is getting more and more challenging requiring that we constantly "think on our feet" but our expectations also rise and yes, we are evolving wayyyy too slowly and sometimes it seems we simply lack the ability to pick leaders who can inspire us.
- Chassit, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2Being able to read (the advantage that the "top minds in 1010 had) is NOT a measure of intelligence.
- Navicerts, on 05/09/2008, -2/+1I think there is a larger gap in between the "smart" and "dumb" people with each generation as well.
- rantpatrol, on 05/08/2008, -3/+8This does not surprise me one bit. Has anyone visited Los Angeles recently?
- danieldrehmer, on 05/09/2008, -9/+21Burried for "evolution is a theory and by no means a fact".
Go study so you can learn what does theory means.- HaloZero, on 05/09/2008, -2/+10Evolution is a theory, so is gravity. A scientific fact is something that is true, if you let go of an apple it falls. That is a fact, gravity is what pulls it down is a theory
- macweirdo42, on 05/09/2008, -0/+5Personally, I subscribe to the theory of Intelligent Falling.
- arcooke, on 05/09/2008, -2/+4The only thing that separates scientific theory from scientific fact is being able to prove it with mathematical certainty. That's not something that can be done with evolution, therefore it will ALWAYS remain a theory. It is treated as fact through the scientific community because of the mountains upon mountains of evidence.
- phinious, on 05/09/2008, -1/+5Theories are not facts, theories explain facts.
- sickswaystop, on 05/09/2008, -2/+2Dan, evolution is only called a theory at this point because it is the best explanation for our past based upon what we know (particularly facts). We call it a theory because we can't be certain what we might discover in tomorrow's world.
BTW your comment makes no sense:
"Go study so you can learn what does theory means."
Also as a last point, I think the most important trait we will eventually lose is our literacy.
- HaloZero, on 05/09/2008, -2/+10Evolution is a theory, so is gravity. A scientific fact is something that is true, if you let go of an apple it falls. That is a fact, gravity is what pulls it down is a theory
- HaloZero, on 05/09/2008, -2/+2Theres one fundamental flaw in all of this. Who says stupid people don't have intelligent genes? The genetics of humanity of any species is hard to figure out. Add the fact that the brain is incredibly complex. What is a "good gene" vs. "bad genes"?
- Dumbledorito, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1Many learning disabilities and behavior disorders (as classified for school programs) are genetic and don't "breed out." In other words, if you cross an LD/BD person with a genius, you still get LD/BD kids.
It's often frustrating that when our genetic systems get damaged, the smarts are the first to go and being able to reproduce is WAYYY down the list...- Navicerts, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1It's too complicated though - just in the past 10 years we have re-defined what LD entails. Also, given how little we know about the brain and how it works im more apt to picture each new born like a stock car able to excel in the area of intellect just as much as the next guy or gal (well, at least the vast majority).
- Dumbledorito, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1Many learning disabilities and behavior disorders (as classified for school programs) are genetic and don't "breed out." In other words, if you cross an LD/BD person with a genius, you still get LD/BD kids.
- DeviantDragon, on 05/09/2008, -0/+17All this blog entry is saying is a summary of Idiocracy, and then it poses a "what if" coupled with a few random term definitions. Horribly undeserving of a digg.
- flogistan, on 05/09/2008, -0/+6DeviantDragon is right. "DARWINISM" and misunderstanding the huge difference between the theory of natural selection and social darwinism seems to be the topic of the day with ben stein's new neoconservative appeal to dispensationalist christian simpletons. I should say confusing them is the topic of the day. The issue of Darwin's theory and social darwinism shouldn't be put in the same sentence, much less the same paragraph. They have nothing to do with one another. Darwin would have never lent his name to social darwinism, and it should not be used there now. When any idiot can write a blog about something he has no understanding of, you get blogs like this. To try to sum up his thoughts about his confusion by citing a comedy movie (a pretty good one by the way) says much about their complexity.
- xirtap, on 05/09/2008, -0/+7This all hinges on the idea that intelligence is decided by genes and not environment.
- colonelbuckshot, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4It's pretty well-established that intelligence is decided by both genes and environment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance_of_intell ...
"...the heritability of IQ has been estimated at anywhere between 0.40 and 0.80 in the United States. The reason for this wide margin appears to be that the heritability of IQ rises through childhood and adolescence, peaking at 0.68 and 0.78 in adults, leaving the overwhelming majority of IQ differences between individuals to be explained genetically."
- colonelbuckshot, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4It's pretty well-established that intelligence is decided by both genes and environment.
- fancypantscz, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4The short answer to the confused question is no. Read xirtap's ^comment^. The so called, 'good traits or genes of a society' (we could call them social norms) are not transmitted to offspring biologically. Although some biological traits are necessary for the acquisition and expression of social norms, the norms themselves are transmitted via a cultural medium like language, music, television, or interwebs. Social norms like physical traits can effect the ability of an organism to reproduce. However, unlike physical traits the spread of social norms is not dependent on the ability of an organism to reproduce.
- eminiguy, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2"That is a fact, gravity is what pulls it down is a theory"
Wrong. Gravity is a force. We know it exists. Otherwise we would not be able to stay on the surface of this planet. How gravity works is another story. We have some good scientific explanations of it. You can call them theoretical, but the fact is the theory that explains how gravity works proposed by Newton and improved by Einstein is well confirmed by experiment.
There is nothing wrong with good testable and well confirmed a theory. We wish we had more theories like that. - dagnabbit, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2Reminds me of "Evolution" by Korn.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VntFEWF8I8A- alecks, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1How come you're the only friend of the offical Obama digg user, ObamaForAmerica? Are you like the tech guy they hired to manage all this Web 2.0 accounts, like digg, twitter, etc..?
- dagnabbit, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1I've wondered that too. I'm not affiliated with the campaign, just a supporter.
- alecks, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1How come you're the only friend of the offical Obama digg user, ObamaForAmerica? Are you like the tech guy they hired to manage all this Web 2.0 accounts, like digg, twitter, etc..?
- MasterThief117, on 05/09/2008, -2/+7The smarter you are, the less you reproduce. The dumber you are, the more you reproduce. This is a fact. If that does not scream the downfall of humanity, I don't know what else does.
- flogistan, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1No, no. I have an idea. The smart people must isolate themselves from the quickly reproducing hordes of bone heads. They can live behind walls, and only reproduce with eachother. This way, the superior genes will be isolated and allowed to flourish. By breeding intelligence, they will be able to control the populace outside the gate as their masters. Now that's social darwinism. Nothing darwin ever talked about.
- MasterThief117, on 05/09/2008, -0/+5Something else I have noticed time and again.
A person, an individual, is smart. People, as a group, a society, are stupid. - svtspeed, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2Confirmed - Have you seen myspace lately?
- ClockworksNine, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tbxq0IDqD04
Not Rick Roll - cobbwobbles, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2idiotic, humanity is a Type 0 civilization that is still subject to natural pressures, in addition my mother is one of six children: herself (Aerospace Engineer), her sister Beth (Veterinarian), her sister Chicky (Java and Python programmer for Qualcomm), her sister Terry (Owns her own business), her brother David (Also a computer programmer, but for Cisco), and her brother Walter (Biologist currently studying Alaskan glacial melt). Their mother was an impoverished white women who had six kids starting at the age of 18 instead of taking her scholarship to Julliard for piano. That being said, this article is asinine.
- fokoko, on 05/10/2008, -1/+1Have you taken the time to read some of the comments on Digg over the last few years? The proof is in the pudding!
- Robozilla, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2Buried for stupidity. Ironic...
- alexf, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1The idea of advancing "intelligent" genes and depleting the "lesser" genes is called eugenics and it was already implemented in the early 1900s.
A few people (Hitler) took the idea too far, and the Holocaust happened.
This is something to stay away from.
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by