I've been thinking...
If evolution explains who we are and how we got here, and we understand the process as explained, then why do we feel such a strong urge to assist in the survival and welfare of children born with birth defects or any form of variation that would not make their survival be "the survival of the fittest"?
As explained to me, evolution begs for "inferior" examples of the species to die out. Only variations that stand to improve the species (my assumption being "improve" is defined by evolution, an dnot man) are destined to survive and flourish. We appear to be thwarting the very process that has successfully developed us with seemingly no need for aid from us. Why do we chose to
interfere?
We see in nature where the weak and frail are weeded out. What makes us believe we should act differently? We are all part of the same family. Why do we care for the homeless? Why try to cure someone who is cancer stricken? Why worry with the starving children around the world? Why fret over the grandmother sick with Tuberculosis? They are all weak and evolution seeks their demise.

I can tell you why I think we do so: We do so because we ARE different and we didn't evolve. We are Humans and everything else is plant or animal. Humans have morals, animals don't. Evolution can't explain morals.
Ah heck, I think using Darwinian evolution to explain it all is a crock.

I've got my asbestos/kevlar underwear on - fire away!

 

Is natural selection still applicable to todays soceity? Maybe on some subconscious level still, like most people have an attraction (maybe unconsciouis) to fit/healthy bodies, or their own ideal body type.

And then, if so, is our current materialistic and somewhat artifical world we live in, effecting the natural selection process. I mean, there's many artifical ways of adjusting appearance, such that they obtain these favourable body types?

It comes in many forms as well. Basically all the beauty products you see deodroant, make up, moisturiser, plastic surgery, lipsosuction and a whole host of artifical beautification treatments to get our bodies to an attractive, or naturally selectable state.

And with these, own genes aren't being changed, so no longer are weaker genes being filtered out of the gene pool. And although our world is materialistic, people's choices for reproduction aren't really consciously fueled by making our race stronger, anymore. So there could be some invalidity here.

Although, i think their attraction to a partner in the first place, may of been related to, unconsciously, the fact that their children (sharing their genes) would be strong and healthy. Although to an extent, i think there's a lot of cases where the money pool is preserved above the gene pool

 

From an evolutionary standpoint- Its worth it to humans to support the deseased until they get better, we can work longer term.

As far as the grandmother with TB- pull the plug on her, she doesn't have much left anyway.

 

man does interfear too much at times but i think its mostly out of compassion for the less fortunate.

 

depends on what kind of traits you consider beneficial
the human race is at a point where we don't need to grow physically stronger, but mental advancements will elevate our species.as an example may I suggest Stephen Hawking, the man can solve problems most can't even fathom, but can't walk or dress himself.I would still consider him a highly evolved person.
just not physically evolved.

 

I won't fire at you, I'll add to what you said. Why do almost all of us seek the company and companionship of others? Even animals - they may not have morals, but they seek each other out. I was on the flat roof area of my house once and saw an injured bird laying there. As I stooped down to check it out, I got clobbered on the head with something soft, and looked up to see another, healthy bird flying away. It didn't want me messing with it's buddy.

Love is everywhere in this world - evil is everywhere in this world. They're not evolutionary, mechanical, scientific, or explainable things.

Proverbs 3: 5,6

 

Interesting, interesting. This will prove to be interesting.

First off, evolution does not 'improve' a species. Improve is a relativistic term that implies value judgements. The only value and judgement in evolution is whether you passed on your genes. That is it, nothing else matters. Survival of the fittest does not reflect evolutionary realities when applied to individuals. Reproduction of the fittest is the only consideration.

Think about social bonds. Society allows human beings a tremendous reproductive benefit not afforded to other animals. We have created a safety net that virtually assures all people the opportunity to reach reproductive age. Thus we as a society value people who have a strong social orientation. If people are anti-social (Ted Kaczinski, sp?) do they typically reproduce? No, who would want to mate with them? We try to find partners who fit into society, we value them. Therefore persons with this broad capacity are more likely to reproduce and pass on their genes. (Notice the process of evolution doesn't value sociability, we do, the process of evolution relies on the sucessful transmission of genes from one generation to another)

Think about empathy. Think about compassion. Think about love. Think about morals. These are all 'traits' that society values. If you have these traits are you more likely to reproduce within a societal context? I argue that you are.

Therefore it is not suprising that people care about the less fortunate, i.e. terminally ill/birth defects/ect. We are programmed through the evolutionary process to do so.

This does not expose a weak link in evolution. Those "weak, inferior" people will not pass on their genes to another. Evolutionarily speaking, they are a genetic dead end. Their genes will not survive into the next generation.

Whistler

 

Human beings do not short-circuit the evolutionary process. Society is merely the medium through which it occurs.

One example of this might be looking at people who form the bottom end of the sociometric spectrum. For the most part these are people who recieve government assistance and cannot take care of themselves for one reason or another. These people have a much higher birthrate than the middle-class or upper-class do. That is, they are winning the evolutionary race.

We tend to think of middle-class and upper-class people who are smart and successful as the evolutionary winners. It is clear they are not, they are not reproducing at a high enough rate.

If we remove the social safety net (i.e. welfare, charity, etc.) most of the people at the bottom of the socioeconomic scale die before reproducing. They would then become the evolutionary losers.

Interesting, huh?

Whistler

 

Yikes... I guess I never thought of it that way

 

Great idea, when do we start? i vote for now

 

Infectious bacteria and viruses will always mutate into a different DNA configuration that is Impervious to the latest antivirual drugs that our Very profitable drug makers put on the market. On the one hand we(in America) have the most sophisticated scientific research capabilities in the world. But , our science has also provided the Perfect containerized, closed environment for the transfer and exchange of the very pathogens that we are trying to destroy. Anybody want to hazard a Guess as to what that container might be????? Well, guys , it's the Modern JET liner. Yeah!!! You sit in there for several hours ....rebreathing everybody's ELSE's Pathogens , so that , when you get off You have been exposed to virtually every item on the Menu. Just wait till you get Home and INFECT your whole family and then back at the office on Monday morning you can give your coworkers a Big ole , free dose of whatever. Isn't technology just Marvellous?????.......s.kuteman

 

Thanks for the response guys.

Drunkenmonk;
You say the human race is at a point to where we don't need to grow any stronger. How do you know this? Almost a rhetorical question, but really serious...how do you know? Isn't it up to evolution to "decide".

Whistler:
You say "Therefore it is not suprising that people care about the less fortunate, i.e. terminally ill/birth defects/ect. We are programmed through the evolutionary process to do so."

Please elaborate. How does a process - devoid of any thought, awareness, knowledge, reason or mental faculty what-so-ever, "program" us. The theory of Evolution is a theory about a process.
If you believe Evolution explains our existance, then there can be no such thing as "moral" obligation.

Let me explain further (my thoughts)...
Clearly I do not believe in the theory of Darwinian Evolution (DE)as being the explaination for our existance.

By definition according to DE, all plant and animal life are from the same root, we just took different paths somewhere down the road. Accordingly, it is logical to say that all life is "equal". No life has higher worth or value, because the is no such thing in DE. Worth and value of life imply a moral judgement. In DE, there is no such thing as moral and immoral, there just "is". Evolution is at work , and there can be no right/wrong, moral/immoral. We are part of a process - nothing more.
So....as we look around at our "kin" in the animal world, we see murder and mayhem. The Lion who takes over a Pride, will kill the offspring of any females who are pregnent from the previous Lion. Why don't we - as humans- do the same?
Whitetail deer will fight over the rights to breed a doe. Sometimes one of them gets hurt and dies. They leave him lying and walk off. No "moral" obligation to help him out, no law against it. He lost that fight, and he's gonna die. It's that simple.
Try that in your neighborhood and see what happens.
There are countless examples, I trust you get my point.

So, here's the sticking point for me. In one word "morality". That is part of what seperates us from every other living thing.
Those who believe in DE will go to such lengths to explain it away, but you just can't. Because humans can not "create" morality. There either is or there ain't. We can't create it.

If DE is all there is, then as we look around at the world, we should not be concerned with anything that happens. WE can chose to make laws and rules, but there is not moral/immoral or right /wrong, there is ONLY legal/illegal - and those are defined by man.
Let other men make laws and legal/illegal will change (history has shown that).
Or put another way; Is killing your neighbor to take his wife only illegal, or is it also immoral?
If you married a woman who was pregnant, would it OK to kill her kid when it was born? I know it's against the law, but is it also "immoral".
Would it be OK to forceably remove whomever you were able from their home and take it over for yourself? I know it's illegal, but is it "immoral"?
Again, there are countless examples.
If the laws were changed to allow for what occurs daily in the animal kingdom, would that be OK with you (remember, it would be "OK" (legal) for somebody to kill your family and eat them).

So, to conclude here, was Jeffry Dahlmer unjustly punished by man's laws? Was what he did inherently "wrong" or "immoral" or was it just "illegal"?

To answer my own question first asked in this thread:
MORALITY. We have it, animals don't.
It's really no more complicated than that (at leat to me)

PS, sorry for any typos, my wrist is in a split. (I had to interfere with evolution and get a deficiency corrected. )

 

Programmed is not the best word. Perhaps I should leave it at: we have evolved to care.

There is a reproductive advantage to being a participant in society. Agree?

How does one become a participant in society? Language, emphathy, compassion, love, etc.

If you have these skills you are more likely to reproduce. Each suceeding generation builds society into a larger and more pervasive force binding humans. As society becomes more salient in each generation, individuals who cannot cope with these changes have a decreased likelihood of reproducing. Hence, over thousands of generations of humans natural selection has brought forth humans that are highly tuned social creatures

I believe you are correct in your assessment of moral obligation as well as the concepts of right and wrong. I believe they do not exist outside of humans. There is no morality in a lion pride, nor between the fox and rabbit, nor a chimpanzee troop. You and I differ in that I believe humans have created morality as rules for holding society together. If one were to follow 'moral' guidelines is it not more likely you would reproduce? Therefore it is possible that given the social medium humans are embedded within, humans have evolved to have a moral 'compass', if you will.

I did say possible. Unlike bones and footprints, ideas and social constructs are not fossilized for archeaologists to dig up. It is conjecture on the part of evolutionary scientists. But it is unlikely whether it was God or natural selection bestowing us with 'morality' will be determined beyond a reasonable doubt.

You do bring up a good point regarding the difference between moral and legal. There does seem to be a disconnect between them. Some things are considered immoral, but not illegal (adultery). Some things are illegal but not immoral (chasing a wounded duck with a motorboat, for example). Difficult concepts to be sure. Especially considering you didn't throw in ethcial/unethical, professional/unprofessional, conduct unbecoming an officer, etc.

MY take on all of this: Human beings are incredibly intelligent we have different rules for different situations. Flirting with a women wouldn't be a big deal in a bar but if she was your patient, that would be a big no-no. Having sex outside of marriage would be a no no in America, but in some Pacific Islander cultures it is basically required. (And the America example is even questionable.) What is the difference between killing a man who is breaking into your house and killing a man walking down the street? Getting back to my original point of this paragraph, situational ethics do not point out weak link in evolution. Nor do they really run counter to God as presented in the Bible. He spends a fair amount of time discussing them there as well.

Anyway, here is some measure of clarification.

Have a Merry Christmas.

Whistler

 

BrianA,

Maybe I'm thick but why is it inconsistent with evolution for man to have created morality? Once we had addressed our basic needs is it not conceivable that a structuring of our society would follow? We of course have mental capacities greater than the other animals but a chimp has greater capacities than an ant.
What am I missing or is it you presume that a sense of right and wrong come for our Creator and no other explanation will suffice?

 

We do so because we have evolved past the rest of the animal species that inhabit the planet. We are the only sentient beings on Earth and as such, we have hopes, fears, dreams, desires ,compassion and above all else, intelligence.
Like you, I don't think that evolution can fully explain why we, as a species, evolved into a moral creature that places life above all else.