Actually, I wasn't even trying to touch your original argument that Darwinian evolution
"has been surpassed by the human race." I was only pointing out that one of your supporting arguments had major flaws in it. And I was trying to do so humorously...originally, at least. I guess it was lost on you.
I also wasn't overlooking context. I had been reading the discussion up to that point. As I pointed out, your sentence really can't be taken any other way. Here it is again: "I don't see animals making new rules that save the ill, the lame, the weak. They know that to do that will, ultimately, end up with the extinction of their species."
In case you've missed it, lot's of animals have gone extinct. Humans haven't. So there's one data point I have going for me, you know, since I stopped to "just look around".
I also never told you to
"Just Shut Up", so I'm not sure why you felt you needed to quote that. Unless you typically quote things that you make up in your head. I actually encourage you to continue debating with me. I'll be happy to point out the flaws in your logic for as long as it takes.
So let's please discuss whether or not humans have surpassed Darwinian evolution. You claim, and please tell me if I'm misrepresenting your argument, that humans are now less fit to survive because we cater to the weak and fragile, who otherwise wouldn't be able to take care of themselves and would die, therefore not passing on their genes, which are also weak. From this, the human species will grow stronger. As evidence of this, you suggest we look around at the animal kingdom and see how they haven't catered to their weak, see how well they're doing, and take notes.
My first rebut would to point out what I take to be an appeal to nature. (
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature) I'm not sure what part of animal society is supposed to win me over. And as I earlier pointed out, quite a number of species have became extinct during humanity's existence. Also, I can't think of a single animal society I would prefer to live in. But, living conditions and my enjoying them aren't up for debate here. We're talking about our ability (or lack thereof) to cope with our environment and survive as a species, and what traits best support that goal. This is a tough question to debate because we'd have to first agree on some big questions.
- Is humanity getting smarter or dumber, or both but with a larger gap in-between?
- How do we measure "smarter" and "dumber"?
- If we were to agree that we're going in one or the other direction, then is that an affect of evolution, are we actually breeding out the smartness or dumbness, or is it just a coincidence. Remember, evolution doesn't have to explain why everything is the way it is, as long that that thing doesn't hinder reproduction, it could just be a strange anomaly. Or, are we going against evolution, and actually making our society less fit to survive?
I think we are collectively getting smarter as a species. There are a lot of really smart people out there. I just sat through a mock thesis defense for a co-worker today. And we are interviewing for several summer intern positions at work, all of which are Masters or Ph.D. students. Looking at their resumes, experience, studies, publications, and just the sheer number of them that applied for these few openings doesn't make me feel we're getting collectively dumber. Now, that is only anecdotal evidence, but it illustrates a larger point. As a society, we know more know than we ever have. The wealth of knowledge is larger and getting larger by the day. Sure, there are problems with soloing. Sure there are problems with how all this knowledge is useful. And sure the masses are dumb, but they've always been dumb.
And if you're arguing against social programs for making us weak, any social programs we have would have little effect on this, because I would argue that by the time they do something dumb enough to kill themselves, they will have would have a good chance of already having reproduced. And, on the flip side, keeping people like Stephen Hawking alive is probably a benefit to humanity more than a detriment. The existential issues we face today are not the same as they were 500 years ago. And, if you just look around, I think you'll see that we're battling most of them with science and intelligence much more than with whatever it is you think animals have. Disease is being cured by medical breakthroughs. Hunger is being cured by agricultural advances, bio-technical advances, bio-chemical advances, and more. And access to education is being solved by technological advances. (We just need to solve the social issue of getting people to
want to be educated.) If we have to keep 100,000 idiots alive with modern inventions to piddle away their days with loving friends and family, only to get 1 genius that will invent something to improve humanity's chance of survival, well, I guess that's a price I'm willing to pay. But those blundering blokes better damn well appreciate it!
It could be argued that with nuclear weapons we have become too smart, and will by our own intelligence bring on the downfall of our own species. I can see where this argument comes from, but I would rebut with this; it's our intelligence that created the bomb, but our base human instincts of greed, in-groups and out-groups, baseless religious beliefs, and animal savageness that will make us fire it.
Looking forward to your well thought out and researched rebuttal.
