/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4841534]

Now that the dust has settled, we all agree that Social Darwinists were absolutely right?

I mean they didn't even have to create a movement when people have been just naturally doing this shit for thousands of years. Human beings just can't into altruism, they were built to compete. Pretending our sociality's based on anything other than sheer domination is the reason why we have welfare-addled niggers and the modern-day "muh feels" generation of entitled losers.

[Anonymous No.4841567]

>>4841534

Yes, because society has overcome their theories. That mindset, is only encouraged in certain environments, and because of specific reasons. I highly doubt it's even socially accepted in a shit hole different than your brain, Op.

[Anonymous No.4841568]

B..b..but muh Marxism...

[Anonymous No.4841571]

>>4841534
That's what I call a neck beard.

[Anonymous No.4841581]

I thought it'd been shown that altruistic behavior and co-operation was a direct psychological source of happiness and that dog-eat-dog competitiveness is just perpetuated by Capitalism?

Not that I'm knowledgeable or arrogant enough to assert that this is fact on this, 4chan's literature board

[Anonymous No.4841587]

>>4841567
>what is every third-world country ever
Humans are only as altruistic as resources allow. Beyond a certain point (which was crossed for like, the fucking majority of human history), it's all for Number One.

Why do you think so many mythologies mention the vice of humanity? Because it was the only way to survive, fucking your next of kin.

[Anonymous No.4841590]

"No self-respecting person would want to live in a society that operates according to Darwinian laws. I am a passionate Darwinist, when it involves explaining the development of life. However, I am a passionate anti-Darwinist when it involves the kind of society in which we want to live. A Darwinian state would be a Fascist state."

[Anonymous No.4841592]

>>4841534
nigga thought that public education would destroy Britain's national character.

nigga the only person I've ever read who makes Ayn Rand seem lucid and cogent.
Can't understand why John Stewart Mill would have anything to do with this stupid ass nigga. nigga reads like an antiquated version of an edgy fedora anarchist. nigga Dickens' caricature.

shameful nigga.

[Anonymous No.4841607]

>>4841587

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slvLxUTNWPM

[Anonymous No.4841614]

>>4841590
>a society that operates according to Darwinian laws
but that was every premodern society recorded by history

[Anonymous No.4841618]

>>4841587
I doubt you have even read the post you are answering to.

[Anonymous No.4841620]

>>4841590
That argument is entirely based on sentiment, on him not wanting to live in a Darwinian society. It doesn't have a single leg to stand on as an argument, especially considering that Dawkins is by his own admission a moral relativist (as he explains in "River out of Eden", if I'm not mistaken).

[Anonymous No.4841632]

>>4841581
why would we get a happy feeling for giving away our limited resources to survive (in pre-modern times) to anyone not part of your pecking order, up to and including work? why would that be in the best interests of any organism? why would evolution favour fucking yourself?

[Anonymous No.4841637]

>survival of the most bourgeois
>Darwin

[Anonymous No.4841650]

>>4841614
Jews formed rules against infanticide in ancient times.

But this is ducking the issue. Dick Dawkins and legions of his fedoras, hanging on his every word, are staunch advocates against your retarded branch of scientism.

[Anonymous No.4841655]

What is a Social Darwinist definition of friendship? Or do they think that people don't really have friends? It certainly does away with classical ideals of eternal friendship, for those those who believe in such things. I wouldn't call anything so reductive "absolutely right" and it doesn't seem very fun.

[Anonymous No.4841657]

>>4841632
Dear dear, so cynical. Why is helping out a friend "fucking yourself"?

[Anonymous No.4841664]

>>4841650
rule are fastened into religion because they are often broken

[Anonymous No.4841666]

>>4841590
>A Darwinian state would be a Fascist state.
Why do people insist on using this term when it's been used to slander virtually every type of society and political system? "STALIN'S REGIME IS FASCIST, THE DECADENT WEST IS FASCIST, ISLAMIST REGIMES ARE FASCIST, LIBERTARIANS ARE ALL CRYPTO-FASCISTS!!!!"
"Fascist" is just a buzzword for "anything I don't like", I wish we could toss this in the dustbin of linguistics with "thee" and "thou" already.

[Anonymous No.4841668]

In another context, Schopenhauer reiterated his antidemocratic-eugenic thesis: "If you want Utopian plans, I would say: the only solution to the problem is the despotism of the wise and noble members of a genuine aristocracy, a genuine nobility, achieved by mating the most magnanimous men with the cleverest and most gifted women. This proposal constitutes my Utopia and my Platonic Republic"

[Anonymous No.4841673]

>>4841666
>his language doesn't have singular inflected forms of "you"!

[Anonymous No.4841675]

>2014
>Not knowing about the role of reciprocal altruism in human evolution

[Anonymous No.4841686]

>>4841675
>trying to find a natural science basis for karma

[Anonymous No.4841697]

You know we have actual scientists studying this stuff and not some ivory tower "intellectuals"? What some 19th century dude (nice neckbeard btw) thought about it has about as much bearing as Aristotle's opinions on physics have on quantum field theory.

[Anonymous No.4841789]

>>4841666


people operating under enlightenment modes of thought see 'fascism' under the bed everywhere, because it actually is. being is differentiated and has cardinality, or in more parochial terms, hierarchies and inequalities.

naturam expellas furca, tamen usque recurret

>>4841534

war is a process of unveiling truth. the thing with social darwinism/libertarian 'brutalism' is that it is a form of war, which means, its not as adaptive when you find yourself at war with some other body (elsewise you find yourself at war on multiple 'fronts').

naturally, the real implication here is that democratic/liberal forms of ideology require a big 'other' to compete with to remain existentially solvent. the truly existential war, where no commensuration but ultimate destruction is possible, does not exist ('even in the unfamiliar lies the familiar'), but it comes close in the conflicts between adherents of liberal/gnostic/democratic (and other synonyms), ideology and their 'others', since it is a nihilistic, non-judgmental ideology. and since they do not contain within themselves an ideological basis for, how to say, 'internecine' competition, they inevitably dissolve into nihilistic akrasia (as we see), unless there is wide-spread incidence of 'unprincipled exceptions' to the popularly acknowledged ideology (as we also see, since such an ideology cannot be truly adhered too in full seriousness [but autists can come close]).

[Anonymous No.4841914]

>>4841789
I'm impressed by obscure words used to explain simple things. Tell me more.

[Anonymous No.4841955]

>>4841914


Is there anyone else in the room who's here because he's just plain embarrassed by the present world? The past is a foreign country, someone once said. If the past is a foreign country, someone else said, a reactionary is a patriot of that country. Almost an exile from it.

And unlike the presentist, who sees the past as a tiny, backward and contemptible province of his vast eternal present, the reactionary knows the opposite. The present is a province of the past. Yes, it's true - like any province, it has its specialties. The food, for instance. The iPads - superb. The movies - never better.

But overall! Stuck here like Ovid among the Pontic Greeks, Augustus beyond deaf to all appeal, the civilized man can only murmur: barbarus hic ego sum. Does he wish for friends? He has no shortage - he could not imagine better. No, what he really needs is a better grade of critics. The bar is too low. And when you're trying - absurdly of course, but with real feeling - to write sub specie aeternitas, that's what kills ya.

In Rome, of course, critics were no problem. Out here in Pontus, it's pretty much all, you talk like a fag. What makes the provincial critic so grimly, hilariously terrible is that he imagines himself not just equal to the wits of the metropolis, but vastly superior. Is it even possible to respond? Shall the man of letters respond: "excuse me, 'Dr. Lexus,' but I am resolutely heterosexual - as if it mattered - and 'my shit,' as you call it, is anything but 'all retarded'?"

But the present world, province though it be, has some advantages. It does exist and we do have to live here. So, from one barbarian to another, perhaps a brief comment is in order.

Not to the original source. Argue with Dr. Lexus? Really? With Mr. Jones? When Mr. Jones is not quite sure whether he's a belletrist or a Stasi-Mann (apparently "Doxing 101" is the cornerstone of the media and communications major these days at Pontus State); when neither he nor his undoubtedly overworked copy editor can balance a quote, place a comma, or master the mysterious art of the proper noun - forget it, Ovid. It's Pontus.

[Anonymous No.4841958]

>>4841955


No, obviously no one should ever respond to a journalist. (Or a Stasi-Mann.) It's a mistake to think these people have opinions. They have careers. They're paid by the click and not paid well. If you or I had Mr. Jones' job, we'd write what he writes or lose it - maybe in slightly better English. It's a mistake to anthropomorphize Mr. Jones. He's a piece in a machine.

The basic nature of constitutional government is the formalization of power, and democracy is the formalization of mob violence. Why is America's constitution democratic? Because the Puritan mob drove Charles I (who, like Louis XVI and Nicholas II, was basically just a nice guy) out of London in 1642. In a present world where mob violence is a thing of the past, we wouldn't expect to see genuine demotic opinion actually matter in the political process - much as we wouldn't expect to see feudal knights matter in a world that's invented the musket. For instance, the closest thing America has to a non-astroturf political force is the Tea Party. Which doesn't even litter. Nor does it matter, and this is not a coincidence.

I don't think it's an exaggeration to call journalism the last real remnant of American democracy. The job is about two things: minting clicks for slave wages, and feeling important. (You might say that journalists are paid both in money and in power.) Anything that can produce a good Two Minutes' Hate punches both buttons. If one Mr. Jones misses it, the next won't. I've seen the future of journalism in America. It's called Upworthy. It's exactly what Pontus both demands and deserves.

[Anonymous No.4841993]

>>4841657
try "helping" anybody in a famine

[Anonymous No.4842128]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Aid:_A_Factor_of_Evolution

[Anonymous No.4844224]

Humans are animals, thus we struggle for power. The only way to achieve equality is to design it artificially and implant it in humans. That is if we can even do such a thing seeing as how our instincts prove we should do otherwise

Men, women, white, blacks, gay straight. It is all a power struggle that will be our ultimate demise. The idea of democracy is the idea that will end humanity as we know it

>Whether that be via transhumanisn, the human race lagging behind needs, wars, or just the grinding halt that we will have to come to in order to install "equality"

[Anonymous No.4844407]

>>4842128
>Peter Kropotkin
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.4844425]

Utterly stupid.

[Anonymous No.4844520]

>>4841590
There is no such thing as a non-Darwinian state. You can't escape nature. A liberal state and a fascist state are both collective attempts at survival, they're just organised differently.

[Anonymous No.4844527]

>>4841534
>Human beings just can't into altruism, they were built to compete.
Top kek. There is no species more altruistic than humans. War is the exception, most of the time people live in peace, open violence is far from an every day occurrence and we organise ourselves in such ways that we even help out other humans at the other side of the world. Humans are the most loving and altruistic animals on the planet. Hell, we are even altruistic towards other species.

[Anonymous No.4844565]

>>4841534
>now that the dust has settled
>>>/v/

[Anonymous No.4844818]

>>4841686
>Guy has never heard of inclusive fitness or kin selection or symbiosis . Do you even into psychology or basic biology?

[Anonymous No.4844850]

>>4841789
>people operating under enlightenment modes of thought
top kek

[Anonymous No.4844924]

>>4841637
if bourgeois = fittest then yes

[Anonymous No.4844929]

>>4841668
based schopenhauer

[Anonymous No.4844939]

>>4841668
>>4844929
But that's what Hitler actually tried

[Anonymous No.4844956]

>>4844939
>that ad hominem

Why is eugenics by definition bad? Because Hitler tried to? Should we just sweep away everything a person has ever done only because he was deemed later to be 'the bad guy'?

[Anonymous No.4844970]

>>4844956
Hitler's attempts to do eugenics, and his belief in eugenic principles, were intimately tied to the reasons that literally everyone outside of /pol/ thinks he was evil, tho

So it's not like arguing against vegetarianism because of Hitler or anything

[Anonymous No.4844975]

>>4844956
>>4844970
Guys, I wasn't saying Eugenics is bad

[Anonymous No.4845017]

>>4841534
No, because Social Darwinism is inherently wrong according to human evolution. We evolved the ability to use tool specifically so we wouldn't need to be the "fittest" to survive, and we organize into social structures naturally because cooperation makes survival easier.

[Anonymous No.4845023]

>>4845017
>implying being better at using tools doesn't just make you more the fittest

[Anonymous No.4845030]

>>4841534
>Human beings just can't into altruism, they were built to compete.
Prove this with something that isn't anecdotal evidence

[Anonymous No.4845039]

>>4845023
Cultural adaptations took the place of biological adaptions and "fittest" basically meant a different thing. Biologically, we're a pretty weak species.

Also, "survival of the fittest" is a huge misconception of Darwinian theory in the first place. Natural selection isn't about being the best, it's about being capable of surviving; being the best has nothing to do with that, and no bearing on whether something can reproduce or not. "Survival of the fit" is a much better term, but it probably would have been harder for racist to co-opt.

[Anonymous No.4845049]

>>4845039
Well, no, that is actually what survival of the fittest means - fitness is literally capability of surviving in a given environment. It's our error in thinking "best" instead of "fitness" - which is an error that we make a lot generally, ascribing teleological or moral or aesthetic qualities to evolution when they don't belong there.

[Anonymous No.4845053]

>>4845030
Squidward's father NEVER hugged him
>>4845039
Is this quoted out of Dawkins or what? I swear I've seen these exact sentences before.

[Anonymous No.4845067]

>>4845053
>Is this quoted out of Dawkins or what? I swear I've seen these exact sentences before.

Not as far as I know. I'm basically just paraphrasing stuff I've heard for years as an anthropology major. It's basic human evolution stuff, so anyone commenting on it will probably phrase things similarly.

[Anonymous No.4845086]

>>4845067
I think it's apologetic crap. Evolution isn't such a perfect razor, but this shit just sounds like something the anthropology department came up with to tell people after decades of arguing against the same strange entity that caused the Science wars.
Or you could be a member of that entity who happened to adopt anthropology as his major for the purpose of continuing the fight, like Gould
Either way I am PRETTY jaded, m8

[Anonymous No.4845155]

>>4844975
you seemed to imply it though

>>4844970
I get what you're saying. But eugenics can have scientific ties that could justify its practisioning. Rather, Hitler's foundation of eugenics was moreso tied on subjective beliefs rather than scientific or objective principle

And most people think Hitler is bad because he lost the war. Not to be that guy but to the victor belong the spoils including the truth.

[Anonymous No.4845160]

>>4845155
I was just trying to remind everybody that Hitler was pretty gud

[Anonymous No.4845226]

>>4845160
His national socialism wasn't all that bad. It was imo even noble but then he decided to go to war and create lebensraum which was the most retarded thing he could do.

[Anonymous No.4845231]

>>4845226
I liked when he killed Jews.

[Anonymous No.4845236]

>>4845226
hitler was far from an actual fucking socialist

[Anonymous No.4845244]

Should we only eat one food over and over again for as long as we live, because it's the "best food"?

[Anonymous No.4845247]

well what defines strong and weak? they meant different things througout time. In this day, 1 Bill Gates is "stronger" than 100 Andre the Giants

[Anonymous No.4845249]

>>4845244
No, because there are two types of food that are equally good.

[Anonymous No.4845252]

>>4845236
>welfare state
>universal education
Sound pretty socialist to me. Remember we're talking about a time where bringing back the Kaiser was still on the minds of a lot of Germans, and some of those Germans were nobles with personal armies.

[Anonymous No.4845261]

>>4845249
i think we're getting somewhere here :)

[Anonymous No.4845269]

>>4845155


fun historical fact, eugenics was actually a primary platform of progressive movement politicians (like churchill) in the early 20th century.

[Anonymous No.4845275]

>>4845269
to be fair, we were further from Gattaca then, give it another 20 years or so

[Anonymous No.4845293]

>>4845269
Eugenics was very prominent within European culture in general. I mean, the British people thought that the influx of mentally ail soldiers in World War 1 was due to a generation of the British race.

Eugenics largely became a worrysome idea when Hitler used these social darwinistic practices to justify the annihilation of an entire race.

[Anonymous No.4845296]

>>4845293
Well how else do you justify empires?
>le white man's burden

[Anonymous No.4845309]

>>4841632
Because increasing your acces to ressources often relies on collaboration and division of labour. See: agriculture.
Also
>why would evolution favour fucking yourself?

Our society don't follow straight the law of evolution. If that were the case suicides rates among young people wouldn't be so high in rich countries (for instance). You're being singl-minded here.

[Anonymous No.4845317]

>>4845039
No, it is being capable of adepting which in turn allows a species to survive and flourish his traits into the next generations. Thus the most 'fittest' humans would naturally be those who were best at adepting to the circumstances. In almost every way that meant the use of our brains, our ability to think in patterns and analytic thinking. It's what made the human species great and what got us to the top of the food chain.

Naturally, those who are the most creative and are the most intelligent should procreate with one another to ensure that strong children will be born. One must take into consideration though the possibility of recessive traits causing ailments and sickness in ones offspring

[Anonymous No.4845327]

the funny part about this discussion is you're all fixating on genetics as if it were relevant Spencer's concept of social evolution, but actually it's really not.

If we called a struggle between cultural values for replication memes everybody left and right would gobble it up, but say anything about EVOLUTION BEING PART OF A MUCH LARGER PROCESS NOT TIED SPECIFICALLY TO GENES and they all lose their shit. Be serious now, kids. Social Darwinism is just a natural extension of the ideas

[Anonymous No.4845331]

>>4845296
This, what seems to be new, influx of antagonistic normative questions on whether or not the West should feel responsible for things committed hundreds of years ago is just folly. Why should one apply contemporary normative values, which aren't even fixed since they are normative, on events that happened in the past by a small percentage of the population.

I just do not get it. I resent the idea that somehow Conrad's Heart of Darkness gives us an insight about how racist 19th century Belgium was. It was a different time and people now shouldn't feel guilty about any of it since they nor there ancestors had much to do with it and even if they did they lived in a different time where the norms and values were much different than in our own.

But idealists and marxists would probably disagree with what a realist beliefs... a shame

[Anonymous No.4845343]

I could say a lot but basically this >>4841697

For all its achievments, the nineteenth century harboured the most boring kind of cunts, and people in this board could remember it more often.

[Anonymous No.4845606]

>>4844939
Hitler was a great admirer of Schopenhauer.

[Anonymous No.4845731]

>>4845017
Or maybe we made tools so we could be #1 cromag and spread our seed and provide more?

Jesus man, talk about a lack of consciousness. It is like you just over looked inter human competition that has been going on for..you know, thousands of years

[Anonymous No.4845790]

>>4845039
>Biologically, we're a pretty weak species.
Nope.
Our brain development stops in our mid-20s.
How many species do you know have organs still developing 20 years after birth like that?
How many species can afford such a thing?

Us bunch of animals is so powerful that we can afford to handicap ourselves during years and years and years. Talk about "weak biologically".

[Anonymous No.4845865]

>>4845790
this. people keep going in situation where other animals just die. we're like the terminators of the animal kingdom.

[Anonymous No.4845868]

>>4845269
>Churchil
>progressive

[Anonymous No.4845877]

>>4844924

That is almost literally never the case.

[Anonymous No.4845885]

>>4845877
Why not? Fittest means 'most fitting to the circumstances', not most swole sickcunt.

[Anonymous No.4845910]

I don't disagree with the concept, however I think social darwinists are too hasty in their conclusions, pessimistic about human capability and fail to see the irony in "weak people" not being naturally selected. If these allegedly weak people bunch up and manage to extract money from those who have (e.g. welfare), they've managed to provide for themselves. If you still want to argue that these people are weak despite succeeding in Darwinian terms (escaping natural selection), it only goes to show that Darwinism isn't as bulletproof as its proponents like to claim it is.

>Pretending our sociality's based on anything other than sheer domination is the reason why we have welfare-addled niggers and the modern-day "muh feels" generation of entitled losers.
Darwinism doesn't end where your feelings begin.

[Anonymous No.4845931]

>saving prescriptive theory by reverting it to descriptive theory.

you see the problem with anachronistically recouping 19c ideas?

[Anonymous No.4845935]

>>4845910


>If these allegedly weak people bunch up and manage to extract money from those who have (e.g. welfare), they've managed to provide for themselves. If you still want to argue that these people are weak despite succeeding in Darwinian terms (escaping natural selection), it only goes to show that Darwinism isn't as bulletproof as its proponents like to claim it is.

this is actually precisely how i found myself back at the 'might isint always right' position, only this time from a right-wing perspective.

a recurring theme of history is wrong ideas are constantly defeating right ones thanks to memetic adaptibility/popularity.

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4845939]

>>4845885
If you live off stock shares, that makes you bourgeois. That might be most fitting to capitalist circumstances, I guess, but I don't see why it makes your genes particularly more important to keep for humanity

[Anonymous No.4845943]

>>4845939
>If you live off stock shares, that makes you bourgeois
the bourgeoisie was an actual specific thing

[Anonymous No.4845945]

>>4845910

How is it we live in a neoliberal economy where more and more wealth is sucked up the chain yet the go to example of leeching is poor black people on "welfare" and not the industries that can only exist with government subsidies and tax breaks.

[Anonymous No.4845949]

>>4845935
>that picture
lel

has everyone on this board actually read the Decline? Its pretty odd. Sort of Hegel-ish. Not what I expeceted

[Anonymous No.4845954]

>>4845945
Because ideology trickles down :^)

[Anonymous No.4845955]

>>4845949


i remember there being a guy who made a recurring spengler thread every few weeks or so, using the same text each time.

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4845992]

>>4845943
Yes, people whose income is derived from ownership as opposed to labor.

[Anonymous No.4846005]

>>4845939
Most fitting to current circumstances wins, it's as simple as that. Importance has nothing to do with it.

That's why I consider social darwinists silly. Natural selection is already taking place. You can't escape it.

[Anonymous No.4846011]

>>4845992
It actually means the people who own the means of production specifically. This doesn't include people living off interest and such.

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4846015]

>>4846005
Uhhhhh, "natural" social selection (all of my derp) might be taking place, but that is a far weeping sobbing cry from natural selection in the Darwinist sense where the less favored die before reproducing

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4846021]

>>4846011
Owning shares of a company is owning (shares of) the means of production, Anon..... Unless you're trying to say that the company itself is bourgeoisie and none of the owners of it are, since the company owners the property

[Anonymous No.4846029]

>>4841632
>why would that be in the best interests of any organism? why would evolution favour fucking yourself?

This demonstrates a total non-comprehension of evolutionary theory.

[Anonymous No.4846035]

>>4846015
No, that is still literally taking place. Society isn't separate form nature, its part of nature like everything else. Failure to reproduce is failure to reproduce. It's really that simple. Not getting bitches because you dress like shit is like a salmon getting eaten on his way to the breeding grounds.

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4846043]

>>4846035
Are you saying that socially successful and powerful people tend to have more children?

[Anonymous No.4846046]

>>4846035
I think Feminister's point is that the kind of selection you're talking about does happen, but it's different from the kind of selection that social Darwinists want to happen, because the people selected by natural selection are not necessarily the wealthy or financially successful. So social Darwinism does not reduce to actual Darwinian selection.

[Anonymous No.4846052]

>>4846043
No, I'm saying that the reproductively successful are reproductively successful and that this basic principle functions in society just like it does in the rest of nature. Of course socially successful and powerful people could produce more favourable circumstances for their offspring, although I highly doubt that they actually do. Having six kids with six different women before you get shot on the corner selling crack at 25 years old can be very effective, for example. Or being a religious fundamentalist with believes that have you end up with twelve kids on the farm. It's all in the game.

[Anonymous No.4846055]

>>4846046
Yes, but that's why I consider them silly.

>wheeehh i'm the best but i'm not winning it's not fair

[Anonymous No.4846057]

>>4845954
10/10, best post in weeks

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4846067]

>>4846052
Well the truth is that the threat of dying before you are able of reproducing isn't really an extent threat in the Western world, even for hoodlums. Now your life expectancy might highly affected by how much property you have, but not the extent that it would impair your capacity to have a ton of kids. So it's not really "survival of the fittest", as survival (until opportunity to reproduce) is a given, and, aside from infant mortality, has been for a very long time.

[Anonymous No.4846071]

>>4846067
Plenty of people die without reproducing. The threat just manifests itself in different ways. Choosing to remain child free is failing to reproduce just like getting eaten by a lion before you can get your dick wet.

It still is survival of the fittest, 'fittest' just manifests itself in different ways. Survival until the the opportunity to reproduce is not a given because many people simply fail to reproduce even if they live to be very old.

[Anonymous No.4846075]

>>4846067
Are you denying anything about the post you're responding to? It's looks like you're just talking past him

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4846079]

>>4846071
When you have people consciously refraining and frustrating their own efforts at reproduction, then "biological imperative" pales in significance to social engineering. Genetics gonna genetic, but passing them on has nothing to do with with survival or chance of passing them on; I don't think there's a specific gene hindering people who don't have kids, that doesn't get passed on.

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4846083]

>>4846075
I'm denying that reproduction in society has anything to do with natural selection (as in, people who don't reproduce, generally are not not reproducing due to something genetic; the answer is more likely social) or survival of the fittest.

[Anonymous No.4846085]

>>4846079
It doesn't matter why it happens. You might be the fastest gazelle in the herd, if you have some bad luck and get a cheetah in the hind parts your genetic adventure ends there.

Those who succeed, for whatever reason at all, including culture, capability and luck etc and so on, succeed. Those who do not, do not. That's all there is to natural selection. Nature doesn't care why shit works or why it doesn't work.

[Anonymous No.4846089]

>>4846083
Natural selection isn't solely determined by genes. Survival of the fittest is just that, namely that the fittest simply survive and the unfit do not.

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4846099]

>>4846085
Yeah, but that's an individual. I'm talking broadly, in trends.

I know natural selection doesn't "care", but I'm also saying it doesn't really affect anything as far as whether or not you'll succeed or how many kids you'll have. Yes, you'll have the genetics of other successful or unsuccessful people, but that is more incidental than causality.

>>4846089
Which makes the term "fit" pretty much meaningless now.

[Anonymous No.4846100]

>>4846083


generally speaking, the answer is social. the brahmin castes of western society are at sub-replacement almost across the board. two kids at most, one or none is common. this is due to the internalization of deleterious ideology.

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4846102]

>>4846100
Generally speaking, that is precisely accurate

[Anonymous No.4846110]

>>4846099
>I know natural selection doesn't "care", but I'm also saying it doesn't really affect anything as far as whether or not you'll succeed or how many kids you'll have. Yes, you'll have the genetics of other successful or unsuccessful people, but that is more incidental than causality.
Natural selection really affects everything because it's the principle by which life continues to exist or do not. Natural selection does not affect is you succeed, if you succeed is the very thing that constitutes natural selection. There is nothing incidental about any of it. What succeeds at existing exists. What doesn't doesn't. On every level, in every way. You are here because of natural selection.

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4846115]

>>4846110
Then the term is meaningless. Cloning someone would be natural selection.

[Anonymous No.4846116]

>>4846100
This is why Islam is master race in the sense of a gene helping meme.

[Anonymous No.4846122]

>>4846083
>natural selection (as in, people who don't reproduce, generally are not not reproducing due to something genetic; the answer is more likely social)

Even in nonhuman animals, natural selection doesn't require transparent cases of one particularly unfit phenotype directly causing death or failure to reproduce. Many deaths of individual animals can come about from circumstances largely unrelated to their genes. Natural selection describes a phenomenon of populations. Even if only a tiny percentage of failures to reproduce are directly linked to genes it will still cause evolution to take place in the population.

All of this is of course taking for granted your assumption that social conditions have no genetic correlatives

[Anonymous No.4846124]

>>4846115
That makes the term very broad, but far from meaningless. It just places it in its right context. And yes, cloning is not exempt from natural selection.

[Anonymous No.4846131]

>>4846115
What exactly are you trying to argue here? Natural selection is always happening. How does that make it a meaningless term?

[Anonymous No.4846132]

>>4846122
>largely unrelated to their genes
I know what you mean, but think about that statement twice.

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4846136]

>>4846124
Can you define the process?

[Anonymous No.4846137]

>>4846132
I'm not seeing what you're trying to point out

[Anonymous No.4846144]

>>4846137
Nothing, I realized you pointed it out yourself

>All of this is of course taking for granted your assumption that social conditions have no genetic correlatives

[Anonymous No.4846152]

>>4846136
My concept of the process is clear from the posts I made. It's the way in which that which thrives thrives and that which perishes perishes. Natural selection is a descriptive term for those events in general.

[Anonymous No.4846154]

>>4846152
going2sleep now btw so don't expect further response for a while

polite sag

[Anonymous No.4846155]

>>4846136


we could say that any given social policy is eugenic, by degrees, as it would influence who sorts with who in some small manner or larger other.

of course when one speaks of eugenics they usually mean in the more self-conscious, deliberate sense. often spoken of as the 'hack' the leads out of the trap between dysgenic 'bread and circuses' or a hobsian 'state of nature' (at least untill we grow out of these carbonate nanomachinations).

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4846156]

>>4846152
>it means what is is what is
Yeah, like Is said, meaningless

[Anonymous No.4846167]

wow look at all the dribble in this thread

[Anonymous No.4846171]

>>4846156
Natural selection is the process of certain traits becoming more or less common in a population based on those traits' correlation with the reproductive success of the organisms who possess them.

As opposed to the idea that traits emerge in a population simply because they are necessary to the survival of the organism, or as opposed to the idea that the traits of a population will remain static.

[Anonymous No.4846175]

>>4846167


I'll show you dribble

*whips out dick*

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4846179]

>>4846171
Genetics most passed down are those that are most passed down?

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4846189]

The way I see is that domesticated humans are those whose breeding can be most managed by meta-intention, whereas the segment of the population that isn't domesticated, tends to breed more of its own.

[Anonymous No.4846211]

>>4841534

>mfw honor, courage and heroism are the foundation of any historical civilization

>mfw Darwinists don't read classics and don't realize that their laisez faire projections don't reach very far at all

>mfw mutual aid

>mfw homosexuality

Get a load of this fag

[Anonymous No.4846216]

>>4846211
>>mfw honor, courage and heroism are the foundation of any historical civilization
uhm those are not agriculture

[Anonymous No.4846221]

>>4841534
Have you even read Plato's Laws? Social Darwinism is refuted in the first chapter. Anyone who has studied philology would realize how retarded Spencer is, even Nietzsche.

Spencer literally spoke out of his ass on both history and economics.

[Harvard Grad No.4846230]

>>4846216
They're more than agriculture you linearist faggot.

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4846236]

>>4846211
>yfw honor, courage and heroism are the traits of a useful idiot

[Anonymous No.4846257]

>>4846230
uhm no

did you mean foundation for collective identity?

[Jew Overlord No.4846313]

>>4846236
You'd never make it in a society, leach.

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4846338]

>>4846313
>implying I haven't

[Anonymous No.4846345]

>>4846338
You're a "writer" who's supported by your boyfriend. Not sure if that counts as making it.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.4846377]

>>4846236
They're good traits, but have be used to train the weak minded into thuggish useful idiots.

>>4846345
>So jelly

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.4846389]

>>4846377
>Been used

[Anonymous No.4846924]

>>4841534
>Now that the dust has settled,
Please... Please don't turn /lit/ into /tv/

[Anonymous No.4846938]

>>4841571
There is no hair on his neck so no.

[Anonymous No.4847061]

>Now that the dust has settled
you know how i know your reading of history is worthless, OP?

[Anonymous No.4847081]

>>4845877
They seemed to adept best at the changes that occured during the industrial revolution.

Naturally one would state that they are the fittest, one must also take into account that it takes balls and insight to let a company flourish. Though I agree not everyone in society were given the means to do so. Society wasn't meritocratic by then perse

[Anonymous No.4847904]

>>4841534

>>/lit/thread/S4814697#p4835649

Please, don't.

[Anonymous No.4849728]

[Anonymous No.4850270]

>>4841534
>Human beings just can't into altruism, they were built to compete
Cute schoolboy, vague, dismissive generalization there bra.

[Anonymous No.4850283]

>>4844520
>>4841620
I don't think you two really understand evolutionary biology.

[Anonymous No.4850287]

>>4846211
>mfw honour, courage and heroism are two-faced ideals to cover up the dickery of the most dominant members of society, viz. the rulers
>mfw it wasn't even what drove society, it was proto-capitalist by nature agriculture
>mfw mutual aid was largely irrelevant historically in times of limited resources and short lifespans
>mfw homosexuality was considered immoral in the vast majority of human culture, the only exceptions being, again, sheer domination (whence the institutionalised child abuse of paederasty, which had more in common with modern-day child molestors than homosexuality)
andthentheresthisfaggot.webm

[Anonymous No.4850290]

>>4841592
From what I've heard of him Spencer couldn't be less of an anarchist.

[Anonymous No.4850293]

>>4841666
My favourite is "THE ROMANS WERE OPPRESSIVE IMPERIALIST FASCISTS!"

[Anonymous No.4850306]

hey goys,

check this:

is/ought

boom.

[Anonymous No.4850318]

>>4841534
Black people are "superior" to white people, from the prespective of evolutionary biology. Nature itself doesn't give a fuck about what we usually consider to be indicators of "superiority".
Everything we do is part of nature, including altruism. There is no such distinction as OP likes to pretend there is.
Does it all matter in the end? No. Can we use biology to support or legitimise social darwinists' notion of superiority? No, it would not fit into their theories, because they would have to admit that black people are superior.

Do I personally believe that black people are superior? Of course not. They are on average less intelligent, less empathetic and more aggressive.

[Anonymous No.4850330]

>>4850318
so what do we do?

[Anonymous No.4850333]

>>4850306
>known necromancer
Bitch you don't know the first thing about necromancy.

[Anonymous No.4850349]

>>4850333
bitch you don't know about hegel

[Anonymous No.4850353]

>>4850349
Would you like to know about necromancy?

[Anonymous No.4850357]

>>4850353
i know plenty about spooks, thanks

[Anonymous No.4850367]

>>4850357
I notice you're dodging the question.
Would you or would you not like to know about necromancy?

[Anonymous No.4850377]

>>4850367
I notice you're ignoring the answer.
I know about necromancy. I do not need to know more about it.

[Anonymous No.4850380]

>>4844520
>you can't escape nature
i agree with this guy >>4850283

[Anonymous No.4850384]

>>4850377
Sure you do.
Sure you do.

[Anonymous No.4850386]

>>4850380
You literally can't unless you're a Christian or some shit.

[Anonymous No.4850387]

>>4850318
This post is retarded on so many fucking levels I don't even know where to start.

[Anonymous No.4850391]

>>4850387
How about the beginning?

[Anonymous No.4850396]

>>4850384
Check under your bed m8 see what I know.

Disclaimer: It's not my fault if you check.

[Anonymous No.4850397]

>>4850386
actually it's the very use of the word "nature" that I reject

[Anonymous No.4850401]

>>4850387
cognitive dissonance: the post

[Anonymous No.4850404]

>>4850397
I agree, that's why I universalise the word to neutralise it.

brbed

[Anonymous No.4850408]

>>4850318
>Black people are "superior" to white people, from the prespective of evolutionary biology.
that doesn't make any sense
>Nature itself doesn't give a fuck about what we usually consider to be indicators of "superiority".
stop using the word "nature", it doesn't make sense either
>Do I personally believe that black people are superior? Of course not. They are on average less intelligent, less empathetic and more aggressive.
le /pol/ infochart face

[Anonymous No.4850412]

>>4850396
I notice you're still not asking for a sign...
What's the matter?
Are you afraid?

[Anonymous No.4850428]

>>4850401
>cognitive dissonance
It's not. My point was simply that nature's "definition" of superior (if anything, that would be, in the context of evolutionary biology, the organism that has spread his genes the most) is irrelevant to us humans, as we make our own conceptions. In the end, that's all part of nature too, unless you believe that such thing as a spirit or immaterial mind exists (like most Christians and many libertarians too).

[Anonymous No.4850449]

>>4849728
>>4850306
>mistaking the "is" for the "ought"
Hey, I don't like the fact that human beings are dicks. We just are.

[Anonymous No.4850453]

>>4850408
What? Let me first tell you that Social Darwinism is nonsense and that it is not a scientific theory.
Nevertheless, it's a fact that black people have a lower average IQ than white people. It cannot be denied.

[Anonymous No.4850457]

>>4850449
>lololol we're all dicks
no John, you are the dick

[Anonymous No.4850461]

>>4850453
>he thinks correlation is causation!

[Anonymous No.4850464]

>>4850457
NO U

[Anonymous No.4850473]

>>4850461


if you actually knew statistics, youed know causation can be inferred from a sufficiently strong r value.

[Anonymous No.4850480]

>>4850453
And IQ is bullshit that only sociopaths or people with severe confirmation bias use to judge the character of a person whom they have never met. Next piece of "evidence"?

[Anonymous No.4850483]

>>4850453
tell Richard Feynman about how low IQ means you're not smart

[Anonymous No.4850484]

>>4850461
Wow, you are stupid. I don't know how you could deduce from my post that I don't understand the difference between correlation and causation.
If I started making careless claims as to why black people have a lower average IQ than white people, then I could risk ending up having a hard time determining whether a certain link is a correlation or a causation. Now, however, the only thing I did was say that black people have on average a lower IQ than white people, regardless of the reasons.

[Anonymous No.4850488]

>>4850453
>judging individuals by average statistics of some group they're in

[Anonymous No.4850503]

>>4850488
Never heard of group identity? Even people who proclaim they are true individualists (usually edgy teens or American "libertarians") have some kind of group they identify with.

>inb4 your muh individualism is too stronk

[Anonymous No.4850509]

>>4850503
>making hasty judgements based on some infographic probably from /pol/ is a good thing
no

[Anonymous No.4850514]

>>4850503
i am glad you don't look through resumes or any kind of application

[Anonymous No.4850516]

>>4850483
Richard Feynman's IQ was higher than 120, which isn't exactly low.
And achievement depends on more things than only IQ. Feynman had the perfect personality and emotional nature for a researcher.

[Anonymous No.4850520]

>>4850516
reminder that IQ is a shit way of measuring intelligence

[Anonymous No.4850532]

>>4850503
>Never heard of group identity?
no. sociology, cultural marxism and psychology are bullshit :^)

[Anonymous No.4850541]

If social darwinism is real, there's no opposite to it.

So you can stop talking now.

[Anonymous No.4850544]

>>4850514
Lol...
Checking resumes ideally demands an individual-oriented approach. But even there, they will sometimes, if there are too many resumes, start eleminating people that share certain undesirable characteristics for the sake of saving time. After they did this, they will start evaluating the resumes that passed the "test " case by case.

[Anonymous No.4850556]

>>4850544
>start eleminating people that share certain undesirable characteristics for the sake of saving time.
okay Hitler

[Anonymous No.4850558]

>>4850532
Why do you bring up cultural marxism? I hate cultural marxism.

But I don't understand why you deny the existence of group identity? People being proud of being German, people being proud of their family name or heritage, people caring about their community and their position in that community, teen girls identifying themselves as Biebers or Lovatators (or whathever), these are all examples of group identity. To deny the existence of that is just irrational.

[Anonymous No.4850561]

>>4850556
Okay, now you are just trolling.

[Anonymous No.4850562]

A lot of these replies are shit, so I don't know if this point has been brought up previously.

So evolution is not "survival of the fittest" in the traditional sense. The "best" animals are not the ones that survive. The animals that survive are the ones that are able to leave in their environment the best, no exceptions.

Evolution has no goal, and species are not getting "better" over time. The animals that exist now are in no way "more fit" than the animals that existed millions of years ago. The difference is in the rules of the survival game. For example, megafauna (woolly mammoths, mastodons, etc) depended on their size and immunity to predation to outweigh their slow reproduction rate. This allowed them to thrive. However, humans were able to kill them consistently enough to make their slow birthrate a fatal flaw, killing them all off.

The point is, social darwinism does not promote an "evolution" to a "better society", as natural selection does not "better" anything. All you'll have is what can survive.

[Anonymous No.4850565]

>>4850561
yeah, but your principle is still stupid. find a better characteristic to judge people by than a racial average IQ. jesus christ.

[Anonymous No.4850568]

>>4850565
Well black people are unpleasant for a plethora of reasons you are familiar with and recognize on some hidden level that you deny. IQ just partially explains the ghettos, crime rate, and Africa's objectice and total failure as a landmass.

Not him I just see you getting all chapped up over racial differences and it's obvious to everyone including niggers that no one wants to be a nigger because they are niggers.

[Anonymous No.4850572]

>>4850568
>IQ just partially explains the ghettos, crime rate, and Africa's objectice and total failure as a landmass.
k you have no idea what you're talking about
there's literally nothing in common between ghetto basketball americans and actual africans, except their skin color

[Anonymous No.4850573]

>>4850568
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.4850574]

>>4841534

[Anonymous No.4850577]

>>4850574
>announcing your reports
>making false reports
:^)

[Anonymous No.4850579]

>>4850572
They are also dumber and violent than real people. Just because environmental stimulation somewhat elevated their intelligence above "retarded" does not excuse, you know, all the stuff we pretend isn't a big deal.

>Dem youth need dem programs =\

[Anonymous No.4850582]

>>4850579
>They are also dumber and violent than real people.
le /pol/tard face

[Anonymous No.4850585]

>>4850579
You forgot your unsourced infographics /pol/ :^)

[Anonymous No.4850586]

>look at how different I am from the common redditor by advocating eugenics

[Anonymous No.4850587]

>>4850582
Nice rebuttal. Call me when chicago, detroit, prison systems, and "the rap music" are not societal prove of black people being terrible. And before someone freaks out I even like some rap music, but it is all pretty much shit about drugs and fucking with little effort involves.

[Anonymous No.4850588]

>>4850585
You forgot to percieve reality, commie ;^)

[Anonymous No.4850591]

>>4850586
>that image name

[Anonymous No.4850594]

>>4850587
>with little effort involves
>are not societal prove

[Anonymous No.4850597]

>>4850586
Do we still think that Reddit is a liberal circlejerk instead of a libertarian circlejerk?

[Anonymous No.4850598]

>>4841567
>Yes, because society has overcome their theories.
I don't see it. Like, at all. Even subcultures full of faggots still end up imposing some kind of hierarchy on SOMETHING. And to impose hierarchy anywhere means to be in a state of combat.

[Anonymous No.4850600]

>>4850587
you failed to get my point
>there's literally nothing in common between ghetto basketball americans and actual africans, except their skin color
for instance black people in french overseas territories are doing well

[Anonymous No.4850610]

I would make a production about ban evading but we're watching The Secret of Kells. Black people're a shit and if you look at comment sections involving "dem youth" you'll note people are beginning to understand this.

[Anonymous No.4850614]

>>4850588
Why do you call him a communist? Americans are so fucking weird. They seem to believe that cultural marxism is related to communism. Cultural marxism is the believe that everyone is equal, which is an idea that thrives in the USA and Scandinavia, and much less so in continental Europe. Communism has nothing to do with that. Communism is an economic system in which all the means of production are owned by the public (represented by the state).

>inb4 im a commie, no, I'm not. an economy completely controlled by the state is not as efficient as it would be if there were room for private initiative

[Anonymous No.4850616]

>>4850614
americans can't into political spectrum
they even think the democrats are left wing for fuck's sake

[Anonymous No.4850843]

Why can't moot make philosophy and history boards so /lit/ can get back to discussing books