I’m getting some very interesting and thought provoking (and occasionally incoherent) responses to my earlier ‘Cynicism reigns supreme’ post. It’s been fun watching them pop up over the course of the day, though I wasn’t able to come back to them until now.
Erik raised some very valid points in response to my ranting that I wanted to address, partly because I found them quite interesting, but also because they addressed some worries I had when making my post.
I’m not going to get into a discussion that “poor” = “stupid” and that “wealthy” = “intelligent” as the article I’m quoting does.
I knew when posting that entry that those particular generalizations could very easily be the most contentious pieces of what I wrote. In fact, it very much ties in conceptually to Jamie’s reply to Erik’s original post, in linking social status to ability. I debated seeing if I could find a way to reword the post to remove that particular tone. In the end, though, I decided to leave it as originally written, opting instead to add the disclaimer to the beginning. Seeing as how it’s been mentioned, however briefly, I think it’s worthwhile to address what I wrote.
First off, I’d like to make quite clear that I do not actually belive that wealth, or the lack thereof, has any direct correlation to intelligence, or the lack thereof. I’ve met people with far less disposable income than I who could run circles around me intellectually, and conversely, I’ve met people who could spend my yearly income without batting an eye that I wouldn’t trust to take my laundry to the cleaners.
While I feel comfortable standing by my assertion that, in general, more intelligent people are less likely to have large numbers of progeny than less intelligent people, the class distinction that I included in my original post was very admittedly a sterotype.
The only possible defense I can offer for using such a sterotype (and it is an admittedly weak one) is that, in the grand scheme of things, a highly intelligent person in a lower class environment is far more likely to find a way to improve their standing in life (though study, job opportunities, and so on) than someone of less intelligence. At the same time, a highly stupid person in a higher class environment is far more likely to end up at a lower standing (through bad investments, squandering their finances, etc.) than someone of greater intelligence. In the end, theoretically, things would even out.
Of course, that’s not how things work in the real world. Still, if I’m going to attempt to justify the use of a boneheaded stereotype, I might as well do my best, right? 
Anyway. On to more interesting things…. Erik goes on to look at my assumptions regarding intelligence as it relates to the evolutionary theory of ‘survival of the fittest.’
(First off, a quick admission: I’ve not actually read Darwin’s The Origin of Species [though it’s now in my Amazon wishlist], nor any of his other work, so I’m basing much of what I say primarily on hazy memories of high school science classes.)
Unfortunately, “more intelligent” does not necessarily mean “more fit” for survival. Darwin makes no such statement regarding mental capacity. A stupid giraffe with a properly sized neck seems equally or better prepared to survive than a really brilliant giraffe with a short neck (neck length allows giraffes to reach leaves at the tops of trees, thus preventing them from starving to death).
If “survival” is defined as “reaching a breeding age and passing on your genetic material” then certainly these “less thoughtful” people as Michael redfined them are fitter by definition! They are more successful at passing on their genetic material (by having more children). They’re successes in Darwin’s eyes, and thus, the “fitter” membes of the species.
Nature, or in this case our society, does not reward intelligence with breeding rights.
My understanding is that being “more fit” for survival is not merely dependent upon intelligence, but upon a combination of factors, of which intelligence is merely one. The ability to survive in any environment depends on whether one can feed, house, clothe, support, and defend themselves (at minimum, I’m sure that list could go on quite a bit longer). Intelligence is certainly required, as is strength, dexterity, adaptability, and a host of other traits.
I would posit that while our society does not reward intelligence with breeding rights, Nature does. When adversity presents itself to a group of individuals, then those individuals need to find a way to overcome that adversity. Different challenges will require different traits, or combinations of traits, to come to the fore, but intelligence seems to me to be a baseline requirement in order to survive in the long term.
As an example, consider the groups of apes in the prologue to 2001 — a fictional encounter in a science fiction movie, to be sure, but not an unreasonable scenario. Both groups approach the same water hole, and proceed to threaten each other over who gets to drink. While all other evolutionary traits were approximately equal (strength, dexterity, etc.), leading to a standoff, it was the more intelligent ape who broke the stalemate by picking up a bone and using it as a weapon to kill one rival ape, and drive the rest of the enemy pack away.
Similar scenarios are not hard to come up with. Two groups of hunters are caught out in a storm. One hunkers down where they are, and loses some of their members to exposure. The other seeks shelter in a nearby cave and stays warm. After the storm passes, the group that sought shelter is more able to continue on with the hunt and provide food for their tribe, while the other weaker group is not able to do so. Or, two tribes, each faced with attack by a group of hungry wolves. One tribe breaks up, each person trying seperately to attack the wolves, and falling in the process. The other stays together, arranging the stronger hunters in a circle, protecting the weaker members inside the defensive circle, and presenting a far less vulnerable target for the wolf pack.
In each of the above scenarios, while it is the combination of many traits that assists in determining which group is more fit for survival, the one outstanding trait is intelligence — the ability to work through a difficult situation and determine new or different approaches that work better than the ones that have been tried before. Thusly, while Nature does not reward intelligence alone, Nature does reward intelligence with breeding rights.
However, our society does not reward intelligence with breeding rights. To continue quoting Erik’s post…
Nature, or in this case our society, does not reward intelligence with breeding rights. “First cum, first served” is the way it goes, and conformity and “normalness” get you bonus points. What is rewarded, in the Darwinian sense of the word? Sex. Pure and simple. Our society rewards conformity. Intelligent people (nerds, geeks, dorks) stand out. […] “Geeks” aren’t rewarded with sex. The 80% in the middle? They’re humping like crazy.
One of my first statements in my original post was that “…Darwin’s theory of natural selection, in many ways, no longer applies to the human race at large.” While when I wrote that, I was specifically referring to advances in medical technology that allow us to keep alive those who would in bygone days be “culled from the herd,” I believe that what Erik says here is also a very strong reason to support my argument.
In the section I quoted earlier, Erik suggests that because they are more likely to breed profusely, than the less intelligent people are actually more fit to survive than the more intelligent people that limit their offspring to one or two. In other words, he seems to be saying, “According to Darwin’s Theory, more fit people are more likely to breed. Therefore, because less intelligent people are breeding more, they must be more fit to breed.” This strikes me as a logical fallacy (possibly Affirming the Consequent, though I’m not entirely sure, and at 1:20 in the morning, I don’t feel like wading through the entire list of fallacies to confirm it).
At this point, I amend, but stand by, my original premise that through medical science and societal standards, we as a race have removed ourselves from the premise of Natural Selection. It is no longer the most fit — those with the best combination of all desirable traits, including, but not limited to, intelligence — who are more likely to propagate. Rather, it is those that either best fit a societal norm that is far below what it should be (in my not-so-humble opinion), or those that simply continue to have children, no matter how ill-advised it may be to do so.
No Trackbacks
6 Comments
I skimmed this as I’m getting ready to head for Orland for the day, and noticed two things: First, it’s “Erik” and “Jamie”
Second, I hold nothing against you, and took little of what you said as being “the absolute truth in how you feel.” I don’t think you should have edited, and I’m glad you didn’t. My own blog has numerous things not entirely well thought out, but that’s how much of life is, and in documenting these it fosters further thought, as my post did in response to yours, and as your post does now.
You’ve still got it wrong. Fitness is determined by those who survive (pass on their genetic material), not the other way around. You say more fit people are more likely to breed when in reality the theory is that the people that breed are more fit. You’ve got it backwards. Having offspring is the success. That is the survival. Survival determines the fittest, not the other way around.
Erik, You seem to be disregarding medical science in your response. Even as near in the past as 100 years ago people with diseases like cancer would not have gone on to reproduce. Today people who would have died long before they could reproduce ARE reproducing. In our society we talk all about “equal rights” for people with handicaps allowing people with DOWNS syndrome to have children. (Don’t get me wrong—I’m not saying that we shouldn’t, but that in the genetic scheme of things it is kind of a gamble.) How can it possibly be survival of the fittest, if people who are obviously unfit are reproduciing? Human survival depends on the acceptance of society, not on who is fittest to survive. (And let’s not forget such medical advances as artificial insemination, which allows couples who would have not had children to reproduce.) I think this also depends on your definition of survival. Do you consider people who are brain dead, in a hosiptal on life support, to be surviving? It’s not just a survival issue, but a quality of life issue as well. If our goal is simple survival (I’m still alive, so I’m okay) that’s Darwin, but if our goal is a high quality of life for everyone who survives then we’ve transcended Darwin, and moved on to something better. However, I’m inclined to agree with Michael—as a whole, humankind seems to have rather low goals.
a highly stupid person in a higher class environment is far more likely to end up at a lower standing (through bad investments, squandering their finances, etc.) than someone of greater intelligence.
This sounds a lot like the guy who ended up becoming President… doesn’t it? See kids, you don’t need smarts to become President, and you don’t need to work real hard either! You just need a rich Daddy, a good name, and lots of goood (or maybe baaad) friends in high places.
I’m adding the same disclaimer here. These posts have been great as they really offer a forum for philosophical discussion and examination, much as the Greek philosophers had. In order to fully examine ideas all aspects should be discussed, whether they’re ‘proper’ or not in social context.
I think intelligence can still make a difference in someone’s life span, even if it affects their breeding patterns negatively. I also think that intelligent and/or wealthy persons tend to preserve the intellect and the wealth of their bloodline by having fewer children. Take these two examples - a man who works hard labor in the mines versus a man who is the CEO of a large corporation. Statistically, the miner will have a shorter life span (difficult work with less benefits) will have more children, while the CEO will have a longer life span, and fewer (grammar reminder - there are fewer children, not less.
) children. The miner’s children will be worse off, worse supported, less educated, while the CEO’s children will be better off, better supported, more educated. Not only are the five children worse off because of the status of their family’s wealth, but also because they must compete amongst themselves for their benefits. The two children have less competition (a key element of determining who is ‘fit’) and have less struggle for their family’s wealth.
Social Darwinism is a touchy subject and has been since it was first introduced. But Social Darwinism usually did not relate directly to true Darwinism - meaning that social darwinism was discussed as a different theory entirely, merely referring to the ‘survivial of the fittest’ concept to support the belief that the rich were more entitled to life than the poor because they were more socially successful. To combine the concepts of Darwinism - referring to genetic codes and breeding - with the concept of social darwinism - referring to wealth, intelligence, and other acquired items or skills - is a strange way to go in our day and age. This is mainly because genetic codes do not infer success in our society. You could be the healthiest woman alive, with an extreme resistance to cancer, immune to AIDS, and in all other ways, genetically superior. But if you are born into a poor family, it is more difficult for your genetic code to survive, perhaps due to malnutrition, inadequate housing, illness, etc. And while that code may reproduce more frequently, it is not more successful than George W. Bush’s genetic code, which may be inferior but due to his family’s social connections has been provided the perfect environment to thrive in. The truth becomes that true Darwinistic theory has been overrided by the human capacity for civilization and society. That it is no longer ‘surival of the fittest’ but more accurately ‘survival of the most successful’.
I think I’ve gotten a bit off point here. What I’m trying to say is that a man of average intelligence could techincally be the most fit to survive if it weren’t for the civilization human beings have created - that intelligence alone does not determine ‘fitness,’ nor does a superior genetic code determine ‘fitness,’ but that in our modern world, wealth usually determines fitness, whether or not you are intelligent or supremely idiotic. George W. would be a prime example of this concept - a man with less-than-average intelligence (bad grades, bad finances, bad investments, bad choices!) but higher-than-average wealth with excellent social connections is now the most powerful man in the free world. Social Darwinism is unfortunately the truth in human society, a truth upheld and promoted by capitalism, in which the poor are kept poor and the rich remain rich. Why would a poor family choose to have more children? This is what baffles me most often, because it simply upholds the family’s low status while promoting a cheap, well-trained work force. Long ago you had lots of children because it was a fact that many of them would die within the first five years of life, but that’s just not the case anymore. Social Darwinism used to be used as a reason to refuse services and rights to the poor, as they were seen as less fit to survive anyway. I don’t personally agree with that - I think that a capitalistic society motivated by the desire for a small elite promotes weakness in the masses, and that this action is inherent in our society now.
I know I’m going to come off sounding like the supreme socialist, but I think also that organized religion promotes the stupidity and acceptance of ‘fate’ that holds the lower class into their position. Many organized religions encourage breeding, discourage critical thinking, and simply provide people a feeling of ‘those rich folk will get it in the end’ while never truly bettering themselves, thus upholding some organized religions as ‘a religion of slaves’ where the meek shall rule the earth and the evil rulers will get theirs in the end. (See Nietzsche, Frederick). If I were to name three forces responsible for keeping the working class down, it would be organized religion, the mass media (including the entertainment sector), and the upper class (who legislate the laws that keep the working class down). This is in addition, of course, to the masses themselves, who allow the actions of or subscribe to these groups. I’m not against the concepts of free trade, supply and demand, etc, but I do have a big thing against classist societies, wherein one class gives itself Billion dollar tax breaks while taking away the overtime pay benefits of the lower classes and lowering veterans benefits for the soldiers who guard their fortunes.
Hrm…I’m not sure that I’m wrong, any more than I’m sure that you’re wrong. This seems to be coming down to a matter of opinion over the question of just what determines “fitness” to survive.
You are working from the assumption that fitness is determined by success in passing on one’s genetic material regardless of circumstance. I.E., because today’s medical science and social standards allow people to breed who, in the past, would not, than they are now “more fit”.
I, on the other hand, believe that fitness is determined by success in passing on one’s genetic material in a natural, unassisted environment — hence my belief that humankind no longer plays by the rules of Natural Selection.
I think the biggest difficulty I have in accepting your view is that it constantly redefines the definition of who is more fit depending on the circumstance. Here in America, for instance, if the lower- and lower-middle classes are having the most progeny, then they are more fit. Meanwhile, if in another country only the upper-class can afford to survive, while the lower classes die out due to famine, disease, war, or other circumstances, than it is the upper-class who would be defined as more fit.
Were some hypothetical disaster to take place, removing medical science from the equation, many of the people that thrive and survive today would not. Given such a circumstance, I believe that our societal norms would shift back to a more “normal” point, where mediocrity would no longer be rewarded. There would be a return to the “classic,” more “natural” form of Natural Selection, where it was physical and mentall prowess that determined survivability. From your standpoint, we would be redefining who is “more fit” yet again, while from my standpoint, we as a race would merely be re-joining the rest of the natural world in following Natural Selection.
Now, all that aside, a couple things — first off, this is fun!
Hopefully you’re enjoying this as much as I am. Secondly, doing a Google search for darwin’s theory turns up a number of interesting links, the majority of which appear to be refutations of his work, including this ‘total refutation’ which points out many logical fallacies in Darwin’s argument. To be honest, while I’d known that there was often no love lost between evolutionists and creationsists, I had no idea there was as much controversy over Darwin’s work as there appears to be. Could make for some very interesting reading!
Well, unfortunately I have nothing new to add right now (seeing as how its 5am and this is a new topic to me!), but I may as I ponder this more in the future. I just want to express my appreciation of the welcomed surprise of this discussion. It’s been quite a while since I’ve read any exchange between people like this, via blogs, links, comments, etc. Also been a while since I surfed blogs; I had to check the site of the ‘Blogger fired for his blogging.’ ;/ My sympathies Michael!
There are a lot of interesting thoughts here, which is great ;/
peace all. I’ll check back sometime.