# Should Society be Darwinian? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 2, 2012, 8:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-society-be-darwinian/642749 "2012-12-02T08:28:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Raygun99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Raygun99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raygun99)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2012, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-society-be-darwinian/642749/61 "2012-12-04T23:10:49Z")
Certainly those two options result in different outcomes. But they are both “Darwinian” in the sense that they can either help or hinder our survival as a species. That we are able to make the choice between the two doesn’t remove that adjective from them. I know you’re not the OP and don’t support his thesis (and neither do I!) but this notion that Darwinian forces are all about “screw the weakest” is a complete misunderstanding. ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2012, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-society-be-darwinian/642749/62 "2012-12-05T00:52:38Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Human society’s “artificial selection” mechanism is selection-hyper-accelerated compared to what Darwin was talking about. I saw an article about a year ago about male North Korean defectors having real problems living in South Korea and finding mates because of their physical traits - much lower height and physical unattractiveness. And that’s as a result of only what - 2-3 generations or so of “artificial selection” - a blink of an eye for a “natural selection” mechanism. How are the North Koreans selecting for men of shorter stature and physical unattractiveness? I’ve never heard that before although I guess I would not be surprised if you showed me where that was reported. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2012, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-society-be-darwinian/642749/63 "2012-12-05T00:59:21Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > There’s no distinction between letting people suffer and die, or trying to keep them alive and healthy? I find this an absolutely baffling question. It’s like you just joined the thread with this reply. There is no distinction between “natural” and “artificial” when referring to human behaviour in terms of what’s “Darwinian.” None, zero, nada. We are always subject to natural selection. We cannot escape it. The things we do are an inherent part of it. Healing the sick is not “artificial.” It’s a behaviour humans display by virtue of having evolved empathy and social organization. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2012, 8:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-society-be-darwinian/642749/64 "2012-12-05T08:00:23Z")
As I understand it, the OP is asking whether society should be formed with deliberate intent and planning, or left to develop as it may. I seem to be having a great deal of trouble convincing people that these two options are not the same thing. I do not understand why. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2012, 9:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-society-be-darwinian/642749/65 "2012-12-05T09:58:39Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > As I understand it, the OP is asking whether society should be formed with deliberate intent and planning, or left to develop as it may. > > I seem to be having a great deal of trouble convincing people that these two options are not the same thing. I do not understand why. They’re the same thing because a society left to developed as it may will still consist of people, and people act with deliberate intent and planning. Society is \*always \*the result of the desires and plans of its individual members. To put it another way: all existing societies are the result of social Darwinism, because the sole test of Darwinism is existence. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2012, 10:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-society-be-darwinian/642749/66 "2012-12-05T10:14:12Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > They’re the same thing because a society left to developed as it may will still consist of people, and people act with deliberate intent and planning. That’s like saying crashing a car is just the same kind of thing as driving one. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2012, 10:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-society-be-darwinian/642749/67 "2012-12-05T10:27:16Z")
Then what’s the difference between a society with a plan and a society consisting of people making plans? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2012, 11:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-society-be-darwinian/642749/68 "2012-12-05T11:28:36Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > Then what’s the difference between a society with a plan and a society consisting of people making plans? One is an organised system, and the other is a self-organising system. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2012, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-society-be-darwinian/642749/69 "2012-12-05T12:02:32Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > One is an organised system, and the other is a self-organising system. That doesn’t make it Darwinian or not Darwinian. Both operate in a Darwinian world. Both are the result of Darwinian processes. If one is more successful than the other, it’ll thrive, if not, it won’t. I think the disconnect is the level of granularity at which you guys are talking. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2012, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-society-be-darwinian/642749/70 "2012-12-05T12:40:15Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > One is an organised system, and the other is a self-organising system. “Organized system” - organized by whom? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2012, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-society-be-darwinian/642749/71 "2012-12-05T13:28:13Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > “Organized system” - organized by whom? Yes, I get that the organisation is still a function of part of the system - but the difference is the hierarchical level at which the organisation happens - top-down or bottom-up. Simplifying it into ‘stuff happening everywhere’ doesn’t help - because the outcomes in a top-organised system can be very different to those in a homogenised self-organising one. > [@bldysabba](#): > > That doesn’t make it Darwinian or not Darwinian. Both operate in a Darwinian world. Both are the result of Darwinian processes. If one is more successful than the other, it’ll thrive, if not, it won’t. > > I think the disconnect is the level of granularity at which you guys are talking. Yes, and importantly, I don’t think I said it _wouldn’t be Darwinian_ - I’m saying the selection method can be different. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2012, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-society-be-darwinian/642749/72 "2012-12-06T00:36:04Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > The pressure may be “Darwinian” in the general principle of things, but the selection is definitely not “natural” - unless you re-define “natural” to include absolutely everything that happens. Mate selection has traditionally been considered a “natural” part of “natural selection”. In many species those individuals that are seen as more attractive by the standards of their peers have better odds when it comes to reproduction. Modern, Western society is arguably more “natural” when it comes to such things than was the case historically, as mate selection is more likely to be based on personal attraction than the exchange of material goods or the need to form alliances with another group. > [@](#): > > Human society’s “artificial selection” mechanism is selection-hyper-accelerated compared to what Darwin was talking about. I saw an article about a year ago about male North Korean defectors having real problems living in South Korea and finding mates because of their physical traits - much lower height and physical unattractiveness. And that’s as a result of only what - 2-3 generations or so of “artificial selection” - a blink of an eye for a “natural selection” mechanism. I don’t think it’s even possible for North Korean men to have become genetically predisposed towards being shorter and less handsome than South Korean men in such a brief period of time. I would guess that if North Korean men are shorter and uglier then it’s because of environmental factors like poor nutrition and disease. Regardless of the cause though, natural selection means that not everyone’s genes get passed on to the next generation. There’s nothing artificial about some individuals never being able to reproduce, that’s the way it’s always been for both humans and other animals that reproduce sexually. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-society-be-darwinian/642749.md?page=3)