Agnostic.com

15 6

I recently made made a comment that I thought better of. It requires more explanation.

In my philosophy I call Rational Darwinism (RD) the main tenet is we all evolved from the natural world and God had nothing to do with it. There was nothing supernatural about it. An aphorism of mine is: WE’RE ALL HUMAN BEANS. No misspelling. We’re all bundles of proteins, just like a bean, that metabolizes carbon-rich foods to create energy. The entire Darwinian tree does it the same way, using digestive enzymes to break down large carbon molecules to store as glucose and other sugars. On the metabolic level we’re no higher evolved than worms, fish or gila monsters.

So to claim that whites are superior to any other race is folly. I remember arguing with my tough Brooklyn friends in the ‘50s and ‘60s about white supremacy. I asked, “How about Paul Robeson, are you superior to him?” The guy was an All-American football star at Rutgers, sang “Ole Man River” on Broadway, holds a Ph.D. in linguistics, speaks seven languages, played Othello on Broadway for over a year, and is considered one of the greatest base/baritones of the century. He also made seven movies that did pretty well.

The point I tried to make was the planet is sorely overpopulated by humans so as to cause the extinction of half the world’s animal life. In some races people don’t understand this and continue to reproduce as if we’re living in “the best of all possible worlds,” to use the line by Voltaire.

As always, it’s a matter of education and bringing unwanted babies into the world keeps us at animal levels.

Aristippus 6 May 28
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

15 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

I sincerely feel we need to meet up and talk this through more thoroughly, as the whole thing is far more than a six pint problem and typing words is woefully inadequate to get across our similar viewpoints.
RD is not a new paradigm of explanation. Look back to the classical sociologists of the late nineteenth to middle twentieth centuries.
"As always, it’s a matter of education and bringing unwanted babies into the world keeps us at animal levels."
This is a key element of humanities current condition, for if we can expand our knowledge, surely we should, but as a whole we don't. We prefer to hang onto our 'common sense' and religions.
I'd love to write more, but I need to get other things done.

Let me ask you this. If humans saw themselves as mammals, do you think it would be a better world. Mammals with the ability to reason.

@Aristippus Doubtful, as most of the people who do see themselves as animals also see humans as superior beings/animals. There are a number of studies that show a very distinct percentage of people who hold to the theory of human dominance. Of course, religious people are even more likely to feel superior. Some cultures, not races, hold to a human based superiority as well.

@Beowulfsfriend They feel superior. But how? Animals are stronger, faster, swim better, and even display non-kindred altruism, Various species of hens will feign being wounded to lead a wolf away from her nest.

@Aristippus people feel that their brain puts them on top. Many forget that, when alone, they have little advantage, if any.

@Gwendolyn2018 Excellent reply. I'm very familiar with this argument having written an lengthy essay on the same idea. The scientific proof of evolution got so strong, especially after the evolutionary synthesis of the '20s that discovered genetics, that the church realized they could no longer evade the subject.

So the church in typical fashion tried to cover its sham misconceptions by using sophistry and subterfuge. In 1996 Pope John Paul II wrote a papal bull (short for papal bullshit) that attempted to resolve the controversy. The pope told us that evolution is probably true but late in the process God came along and infused a soul in the reclining Adam, as depicted in the Sistine Chapel painting.

Believers think it solved the issue. But it doesn't answer why God waited six billion years to evolve thought and the higher emotions, the soul.

Thanks for the insightful replay. I'd like to know if you agree with the statement. Overpopulation is the key to advancing human evolution. Look at all the problems caused by having too many people.

I'd like to discuss your views on this.

4

I think that the term 'Darwinism' should be avoided. It's a word used by creationists to suggest that belief in evolution is a sort of mirror of what they believe, a doctrine or dogma laid down by a prophet.

Our knowledge of evolution comes from the work of many scientists, even if Darwin provided one of the key ideas, and scientific knowledge is qualitatively different from dogmatic belief.

I think that the term 'Darwinism' should be avoided >>>

What better word would you use to express "evolution by means of natural selection."?

@Aristippus I'd choose my words according to the audience and the context. Usually it's best to make it clear at the start you are talking about "evolution by means of natural selection" because a lot of people think that Darwin invented the idea of evolution itself, when it was an idea that had been around for some time. I've no objection to attributing specific ideas to Darwin. It's making it an "ism" that leads you into the rhetorical trap that creationists have set.

I think that the term 'Darwinism' should be avoided.>>>

Sev, to my mind "isms" are more prevalent than people think. Dawkins uses the term to describe a "memeplex" which can take over one's entire existence. Is it wrong to say Nazism? But surely you'll concede that millions of Germans were willing to give their lives for Nazi beliefs.

@Aristippus I'm not objecting to the use of '-ism' for a set of beliefs rigidly held and often mindlessly defended by the rejection of contrary evidence, like Nazism.

You've just demonstrated the reason why I don't think that '-ism' should be coupled with Darwin's name to express a scientific idea.

3

Let me try to explain one view of non-whites being inferior. It first came about as the white man visited the Americas and brought his diseases along with him. The white men did not know what was happening here exactly. The natives were declared inferior to the whites, but they made good slaves. It was because of new diseases that natives died and this reinforced the idea of white supremacy. Whites hold this idea today without knowing where it came from.

Are you familiar with Chief Seattle's speech before Congress. Very touching. Shows how superior Indian religion was compared to Christian nonsense.

Shows how they were connected to nature.

when native americans died from disease or lost in battle it was thought to be the will of god by xtians. Read John Winthrop's writings and I descend from him. Same old xtian bullshit.

2

I absolutely agree that human overpopulation--with accompanying over consumption of resources and pollution--is a deadly serious problem. I assume your sentence, "In some races..." is an unfortunate typographical error.

Just to defend my statements. Muslims believe Allah blesses you for every baby you bring into the world. Muammar Qaddafi predicted Muslims would dominate Europe. From the Romania all the way to Spain, white families don't produce more than two offspring -- not even Italy. The average family size for Islamic families is 6.2 counting the mating pair. Have you noticed that the mayor of London is Mohammadan?

0

you say "As always, it’s a matter of education and bringing unwanted babies into the world keeps us at animal levels."

Are you saying that homo sapian animals could one day evolve into some homo superduperious and no longer be an animal at all?

it seems to me that so long as people are animals, they would always be animals perhaps at just a level of higher intellegence capabilities.

Word Level 8 May 29, 2020
3

"In my philosophy I call Rational Darwinism (RD) the main tenet is we all evolved from the natural world and God had nothing to do with it."

Darwinism is Darwin’s specific view that evolution is driven mainly by natural selection. No need to change that nor include a nonexisting entity in the definition of Darwinism. I wouldn't presume to give my opinion, much less invent a "philosophy" about something that is a fact and does not require review nor revisiting.

If people realized that we evolved from nature it would be a different world. Do you think we'd have 535 brain-washed Christians in Congress? or 2.5 million in prison? Are you familiar with the Roman slave writer Terence?
His famous line is "Homo est, nihil humani alienum puto." Nothing human is alien to me.
I think we'd be better off with this line rather than the Ten Commandment in back of the judge's wall.

@Aristippus you keep pushing your wrong assumption which is baseless. It doesn't matter if people realize anything about evolution, it will happen regardless of humans being aware or not. I know of a playwright Terence who wrote ancient comedic plays. I wouldn't use quotes from a comedic play as life guidance, nor do I use the 10 commandments which are really 6. I use common sense and basic decency. Don't quite get your point at all or what does congress or people in prison have to do with my comment on Darwinism definition.

Yeah Darwinism is a label applied to people who focus on selection and adaptation and neglect factors such as genetic drift or that gene variants can be neutral per fitness.

As a way of life Darwinism is a poor grounding. We shouldn’t look to outcomes of evolution or the way things happen to be in nature to derive our values, sense of virtue, or views on the so-called “good life”.

Rationality or self-reflective capacity are themselves outcomes of evolution in some particular species. But I wouldn’t join rationality to Darwinism as a philosophy. That’s not to say evolution doesn’t have aspects of philosophical interest. Dennett wouldn’t be writing books if there was nothing about which to philosophize. But even he got carried away especially in Darwin’s Dangerous Idea.

6

You still think there are "races"??!!!?? When for several Decades it is proven DNA is the same for all! For example, that's why blood transfusions only need the blood type to be successful.
Welcome back from Outer Patagonia, or wherever you have been......

You're not understanding me. We're all human beans. We all have the same genetic code, I know thee are no races.

@Aristippus ummmm, when every other sentence in your post uses the term "race" or "races", what am I supposed to think?!?!?

6

Here's the simplest explanation I can find:

2

"In some races people don’t understand this and continue to reproduce as if we're living in 'the best of all possible worlds.'"

IMO this statement is beneath you.

First, what do you mean by "In some races[?]" This qualifier is itself racially charged!

Second, when we consider that birth rates are directly related to the poverty and educational level of a given population, this is hardly a Panglossian society! Has it occurred to you that societies with the least resources and lowest educational levels (especially for women) are the ones with the highest birthrates, where access to birth control and education are limited? Where is the racial component here?

Finally, as Hans Rosling has demonstrated in his TedTalks (Google him), there is no reason to assume that the global population will continue to expand, as societies slowly recognize the benefit of educating girls and women. Educating women results in improved opportunities and greater control of women over their futures and their bodies, and an overall reduction of poverty and, perhaps most importantly, birth rate.

I sure hope Mr. Rosling is right. He's betting the future of life on his hunch. Gaia is at her carrying capacity right now. His theory would take many generations to achieve.

1

every organism will reproduce as much as their environment will allow.

@K9Kohle789 nature is pretty keen on extinction.

1

Thanks for reminding me of the nature of everything. Molecules and chemistry and randomness and chance and time. And we have been overpopulating since I was a kid and there were 2.5 billion human beans on the planet. The science was clear that we had to stop breading or the world would be full of starving individuals along with the chaos that would occur when people fought for food and water. So now we are well over 7 billion humans and there are a few who are starving so we need to fix that.

Of course Darwin was fearful with all of the assumed randomness that leads an ape to become a human that there is no way to trust one's mind. So what ever I think is basically the product of random forces and cannot be trusted. This leaves us with a quandary - using a mind that cannot be trusted because it is totally random. So then I have to randomly trust that what you are saying is true.

2

Beans always give me gas.....

1

you cite overpop for causing extinctions, but i wonder if it isnt poor practices? Ive read the earth could support as many as like 70 billion ppl...

If the earth could support 70 billion people, how much room does that leave for wild animals and what kinds? Rats and roaches haxve become well adapted to live underfoot of humans, but elephants and other large species need much more property not shared much with humans.

@RussRAB yeh, i wasnt sure i was buying 70 billion understand, and that was prolly the highest est i guess

@spartan919 - I think the reason species like rats and roaches thrive is because they have adapted to survive on the waste produced by humans and we have not been successful in eradicating them from our midst. I see it as operating purely on evolutionary principles. Larger species would be far less able to adapt to live with humans as these smaller fast reproducing species.

If human populations were more spread out, then the concentration of our refuse would also be more spread out and rats and roaches may hhave to adapt to these conditions in order to survive. Their populations may be more spread out since our refuse the feed off of would be, but they may be just as able to adapt and survive under these conditions as they are under the current set.

I am often reminded of a realization I had about single cell organisms on earth several billion years ago before oxygen was present to any degree in earth's atmosphere. Oxygen is a waste product of photosynthesis and potentially lethal to organism unable to metabolize it. Somewhere along the line, an organism developed the ability to use oxygen to produce energy to fuel itself. With this new ability to use oxygen, these new organism thrived and began what would eventually become widespread dependence on O2. In a way, the ancient ancestral single celled organism were like the rats and roaches of their day living and thriving on the refuse of other successful species.

I heard that myself.. Christian theologians believe the Earth could support 30 billion. But why even think about it. Our beautiful planet would be a feeing trough for humans.

@spartan919 - I believe it's reasonable that if humans produced less refuse, then we would provide less for vermin that feed off of it. If recycling reduced the amount of refuse produced, then we would have less to provide for vernin. The only exception may be the type of material we recycle. Isn't nearly all of it inorganic - plastic, metals, glass, etc.? Vermin wouldn't feed on these materials. But who knows for certain, recycling could still have a positive effect in reducing vermin populations.

6

Whenever someone mentions Human Beans, I am always reminded of the old Donner Party joke:
What's for dinner?
Beans.
You found Beans to eat?
Yeah, Human Beans.

7

Is the planet sorely overpopulated by humans or are we just pursuing a destructive economic model that demands that we rape and pillage the resources of the planet in an infinite growth cycle that is harvesting limited resources? Maybe there aren't too many people on this planet, maybe there are just too many stupid and greedy people on this planet.

@spartan919 All societies promote population growth because kings need soldiers and subjects to pay taxes - religions need priests and sheep they can fleece. It's very hard to do an about face on these age old customs and social norms, even though we do have more people than our current economic system can handle. War used to keep the population down but with the nuclear weapons being a factor there is less chance of having a major conflict that would eliminate a large percentage of the population. Disease is not as big of a threat to curb population growth as it was even 50 years ago, infant mortality rates are much lower now in most of the world because of improvements in health care. Even starvation which could be counted upon to cull the population in the past is not the danger it once was.
Of course, all this could change at any moment but I would say that the biggest problem in the world today is that 2,200 people have more wealth than the combined wealth of 4.6 Billion of the world's people, that is obscene.

Even starvation which could be counted upon to cull the population in the past is not the danger it once was.>>>

I feel close to Paul Ehrlich, author of the Population Bomb. My friend tells me that Paul is disappointed that his life's work was a failure. Agricultural engineer, Norman Burleigh changed everything. His methods doubled and tripled the output per acre in agriculture and made the Population Bomb look all wrong.

But this is a temporary fix creating a very unstable condition, like a supersaturated solution. One mating pair of aphids could destroy the entire farm acreage of our agricultural cooperate giants.

IMO, Richard Dawkin's book "the Selfish Gene" explains all of this quite well. I think one of the most seminal books ever written that every human ought to read. In short and perhaps too simplified, our genes do whatever it takes to be replicated into the next generation, so genes fight over resources that genes require to replicate, so even within tribes there are individuals(genes) fighting for supremacy and will do anything to accomplish this task. Genes do not care about us or even themselves as long as they successfully replicate. Examples. you have Nazis throwing jewish children out of windows in Paris after they knew the war was lost. The slightest advantage will be taken by the genes and their vehicles which are us.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:500528
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.