Should everyone try their hardest to succeed personally or should we as a society focus our efforts on making sure the people with the "best" genes survive, breed and prosper? Is "survival of the fittest" a natural phenomenon or a responsibility?
>>17196503
societies are anti-nature. Its more egalitarian to let everyone try their hand. Not to mention survival of the fittest is relative. Plenty of fat, unhealthy indians are the forerunners of STEM academic programs. Who then is the more "fit?"
>>17196587
the best looking, most athletic people obviously.
>>17196587
how are societies anti nature? in nature, the strong rule the weak, it is exactly the same in society. not to mention the provisions of power that are a part of society
>>17196599
>provisions of power
elaborate and define this term please I'm not familiar with what you're referencing.
>anti-nature
In many ways, but without going into a who dissertation the social contract requires every member to ideally put forth towards the collective rather than being a state of pure competition for resources and hunter/gathering. There is room for some competition but there are boundaries for it to take place. Plus other parts of society do not foster survival of the fittest such as welfare programs. There is a certain degree of investment that is necessary in your progeny as society makes children a liability and not an asset as before.
>>17196599
natural selection is about selecting the best genes suited for that environment, not what humans would arbitrarily call the "best" traits (i.e. strength, intelligence, beauty, etc.)
This is why in modern western civilization you see poor people on welfare having multiple children, while rich, educated people have not even enough children to replace themselves.
The ways in which modern society are dysgenic are so numerous its mind boggling. This all really started with the industrial revolution.
+1 fampai. Spot on with the dysgenic breeding thing
>>17196633
how can you stop those from parasitizing society and hindering those who are progressing it?
>>17196668
there isn't a mechanism to do so, because the fundamental framework of industrial civilization is inherently dysgenic. It selects for things that it wouldn't in the wild/the anarchy of nature.
ordinary examples of humans subverting nature:
-a 38 year old woman has IVF and has a child
-a diabetic has a child
-a successful and healthy couple in their mid 20s use condoms to prevent having children
There are no solutions. Even countries that tried eugenic programs like sterilizing people with mental and physical disabilities saw little to no benefit overall.
