EVOLUTION: A dangerous theory?

I hear this from a lot of people: When the gov. gives people food stamps it is bad for evolution. We are just going to get dumber as a species because the weak are surviving. Only the strong should survive so evolution can continue. Therefore we should not care for the weak. This means don't make medicine for the weak. Don't aid the weak. Let the weak die to weed out the bad genes and help the good genes continue.

This is an issue to me. This is a moral issue. Here is an example of what some guy thinks. Read Critterman's answer to this question. Critterman is actually my contact. I like him but I don't always agree with him.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

The funny part is how do these people who say these things no how strong they truly are? Perhaps they are going to end up arguing against themselves. When a person like this needs to pop a few pills a day to survive because their "strong" bodies age badly then I want to hear them talk about survival of the fittest. Not to mention they are all shortening their life span with this idea because the old would be weaker and therefore die without all the aid.

There is a huge difference between the theory of evolution and the social Darwinism you describe. It also contains several fallacies based on an understanding of what is strong in our species.

The funny in this is that often the strongest proponents for social Darwinism are those that believe in creationism.

It also misses out that society is an artificial construct. We aren't under natural pressure as we obey laws and rules. In a truly natural environment the idea of property would be territorial possession and if I was stronger than you I'd just take it. In our society we've removed that and so the rich inherit from their parents and society protects that wealth. The natural selection process doesn't apply, the competition for resources is artificially constrained and so the selective pressure is removed.

Darwinism in the context of "screw the poor" ignores the realities of competition in the natural world. Even societies that claim to have free markets and open competition place constraints as the social construct we have does not fit with true natural selection.

Just remind your friend that his concept of strength is based on economic strength. So where in nature is there money? What other animal uses memory of debt in the way we do? Humans are odd offshoots of the evolutionary process and though it answers how we got here evolution shouldn't be used to define how we behave. It may explain why we naturally react in some ways, but ought and is are not the same.

The other thing he is missin is the development of altruisim through evolutionary processes. This encourages the support of the "weaker" as they share our genes. Nature doesn't have great foresight so we shouldn't use ours in deciding who has good fitness.

Evolution is a theory. Theories involve danger or benefit based on how they are applied. Chemistry gives us both explosives and pharmaceuticals.

Social policies can be addressed as both good and bad based on evolutionary ideas. The social contract -- protection of the weak -- is as much a part of human evolution as "to the victor, the spoils".

The people from whom you hear this are idiots. They do not understand evolution. Nor do they understand compassion. Our species is not getting dumber because of food stamps. Anyway, rather than try to discuss the details of evolution, I can merely say that your friends are doing nothing good for you. Go read a good book on evolution instead of wasting your time listening to their ignorance.

Read 'The Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins, and I think your question will be more than answered.

This attitude is based, purely and simply, on a misunderstanding of evolution. It's nothing more than ignorance.

There is nothing in the theory to tell you what SHOULD or SHOULD NOT happen. It simply tells you what DOES happen - ie that in nature, those best suited to their environment tend to leave more descendants, and therefore over time will tend to predominate in the population. Trying to say what 'ought' to happen from an observation of what 'does' happen is known as the naturalistic fallacy.

This has nothing to do with being 'stronger' - it might be that weaker creatures who are more willing to co-operate might out-compete stronger ones who don't want to work together. And, in fact that's what we see in human evolution: a relatively weak species that has triumphed by being able to form societies that work together.

Finally, of course, even if evolution were the most dangerous theory of all, that wouldn't stop it from being true.

Selection pressures act on every population that has reproductive variation or differences between the individual members. As long as there are differences between members of a population there will be some who fit their habitat better than others.
To say that receiving assistance in food and housing cost impacts all the same is wrong. Some will be driven to get out of the situation as fast as possible. Others unable to get out will be further injured by the situation. Some will thrive and some will not. There will be the full gamut of responses to this situation.

Then there are other questions as you say.
Simply because one small portion of the population spends time being assisted with housing does not mean they will never again be productive. Some one who is on food stamps may be there for no reason related to health. People survive disasters and are at times unable to provide for themselves. We assist those in order to give them time to reestablish themselves. Perhaps they were loggers where many saw mills closed down. They need assistance until retrained or relocated and employed again. Perhaps a hurricane destroyed their homes or a flood surge wiped out an area. These people are fully capable of work but need temporary help. It benefits society as a whole for them to be productive as possible.

Look at Steven Hawking with ALS. Without modern medicine we would have lost the great contribution he has made to knowledge. We study the diseases to preserve life for the same reason we assist those who need section 8 housing, they may be productive again.

We are a social animal that survives better cooperating than bitterly competing for every scrap of food to survive. Together we can build infrastructure that isolated individuals or small groups cannot manage. Together we can have many systems building up on the previous generations work.

Even the neanderthal practiced care for the invalids in the tribe. We know they cared for their invalids because at La Chapelle-aux Saints there are remains (bones) showing severe arthritis and no teeth. This person would have required aid to survive. This person could not hunt for themselves but perhaps they taught the children or knew how to heal injuries. They were kept for their input to the society. Several other sites have bones showing healed breaks. This suggests that injured individuals were cared for when injured. In fact we find this kind of evidence in many archeological sites in every era in all regions. Humans have always assisted when possible.
http://www.human-nature.com/darwin/books...

It is sad to think that despite the primitive conditions these people endured they could see the value of a person in the tribe and share but in our society with all the modern comforts there are many who can see no value in assisting others. The person making use of assistance may be another great contributor or their child might.

I have to comment on what everyone is implying. I am a very compassionate human who has been ripped off many times by human parasites. I don't think that we shouldn't help weak, handicapped, or injured people. I do think we should not give able bodied, lazy, and by their own choice uneducated humans any aid beyond what a hard working individual would receive from minimum wage after taxes. If you subsidize a part of the population that part will thrive more than it would under natural circumstances, and skew the forces of NATURAL SELECTION which will influence evolution. I don't understand how anyone can't see that promoting fatherless welfare families with half a dozen kids is a bad thing. The earth is not a place with infinite resources so to insure the survival of the human species we must minimize waste and we cannot tolerate human parasites. It is obvious that my critics have never been homeless or hungry, I have. We need to help the injured and those unable to care for themselves (compassion), and let the lazy human parasites go. I was also once infected with the optimism of youth.