Does wealth and social status equate to superiority in a darwinian sense?
Justin Beiber
Side Score: 63
|
 |
No
Side Score: 77
|
|
|
|
|
Wealth and social status facilitates getting laid and getting laid is absolutely necessary for procreation and procreation is absolutely necessary to pass on your genes and the more you spread your genes, the more superior you are... in a Darwinian sense ;) Side: Justin Beiber
1
point
1
point
Hello F: I started out very INFERIOR.. Then I started a business, made money, and, of course, became very SUPERIOR.. Then I lost everything, and became humongously INFERIOR once again.. Then I started another business, made a LOT of money, and became so stupendously SUPERIOR, I couldn't even talk to the peons. And, yes, I lost it all again, and dropped a 100 notches on the superior/unsuperior meter.. That was several business's ago, and right now, I'm kinda medium superior.. excon Side: Justin Beiber
4
points
Obviously it's not your "superiority" that's changing but your socioeconomic status, it's not as if your intelligence or physical fitness actually went up and down along with your wealth and success, if anything it was the opposite because you managed to become successful from a place of "inferiority" but once you where "superior" you managed to royally fuck up everything that you built for yourself as an inferior poor person multiple times. Side: No
-2
points
@Nomenclature Wealth and social status do not exist in the natural world. This is completely wrong (as usual). Both wealth and social status have deep roots in animal behavior (for 100's of millions of years) and definitely is the case with primates and Homo Sapiens as well Side: No
|
6
points
4)...however you could view intelligence in terms of superiority and inferiority to an extent, but then again, some people are reeeeally smart when it comes to business and are able to make way more money than Einstein ever did but if they tried to understand his space time equations they would drool on themselves and have a seizure. Which type of intelligence is more valuable and which one does society reward the most? I don't see any reason to suppose that people like Einstein could not have been highly wealthy (at least much more than they were) if they had wanted to. They simply don't tend to care about money after a certain point because intellectual pursuits are infinitely more important/valuable. An example of this is high rates of MIT Math/Physics majors are often recruited into top Wall Street businesses rather than going into the academic subject matter. Also, what you touched on is correct and tends to be a huge source of confusion for the general public. That is, the general public seems to think that Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, ect. ect. are the most intelligent type of people around (which is not even close to true) due to their tech savvy and high level of wealth. Rather, the truly elite intellectuals tend to be of much more modest means (e.g. University Professors, independent research institutes, ect.) and they accept this financial level due to their much greater interest in their area of study (rather than superficial pursuits) Side: No
1
point
5
points
2
points
1
point
The problem with that is this Imagine a fat jew with hairs sticking out of his nose and ears, hair on his back, he smells like a fish and has a dick limper than a wet noodle, he has skin like 100 year old leather that was dragged through the sahara desert, he has a nose the size of an anchor with just as much hook like curvature and ears like an elephant etc... Do you think that if NATURAL SELECTION ran it's course that this individual would reproduce? Do you think that if BEING FILTHY RICH ran it's course that individual would be able to reproduce? I rest my case. The monetary system as well as class can allow you to bypass natural selection and allow inferior specimens to pass on their genes because of a social construct when they would never reproduce in nature. And another thing, wealth and social class are not a trait you inherit genetically, they are a social construct, so it shouldn't be viewed as a successful darwinian trait, it is something entirely separate from natural selection that is IMPOSING IT'S INFLUENCE on who reproduces REGARDLESS of who is more physically and mentally fit on a genetic level and would actually survive without being sheltered and protected in their mansion and given top quality nutrition and health care. And just in case you try to play semantics like Nomenclature I understand that things "impose their influence" all the time when it comes to natural selection...these are usually environmental conditions that organisms must adapt to in order to survive, the problem with the social constructs that humans have invented is that they actually promote traits that are detrimental to survival, because when you have money and status you don't have to brave the elements or work hard for your food, what you are adapting to is specifically laziness and being spoiled and sheltered, it is the opposite of natural selection, it is a CRUTCH that helps certain individuals genes keep chuggin' along while it at the same time allows them to prevail over superior people. Side: No
"I rest my case. The monetary system as well as class can allow you to bypass natural selection and allow inferior specimens to pass on their genes because of a social construct when they would never reproduce in nature." I agree with this and nothing I said before goes against this. "And another thing, wealth and social class are not a trait you inherit genetically, they are a social construct, so it shouldn't be viewed as a successful darwinian trait, it is something entirely separate from natural selection that is IMPOSING IT'S INFLUENCE on who reproduces REGARDLESS of who is more physically and mentally fit on a genetic level and would actually survive without being sheltered and protected in their mansion and given top quality nutrition and health care." This is true, but I'd argue that since surviving without being sheltered isn't as important as it used to be, and that other things can be more relevant to natural selection now. Natural selection isn't all about survival, it's also about carrying on traits which encourage successful breeding. You have to survive to breed, but nowadays most people can survive so other things come into play more often. Side: Justin Beiber
0
points
Imagine a fat jew with hairs sticking out of his nose and ears, hair on his back, he smells like a fish and has a dick limper than a wet noodle @FactMachine Do you think anybody in the world wants to read rubbish like this? You're an idiot. It is little wonder that your only friend here is xMathFanx. Side: Justin Beiber
|
