That’s still more about the individual behaviour than the society structure. As far as I can tell, the implication of the OP’s ‘Darwinian society’ would be fundamental to whether we even bother to manufacture vaccines - not whether individuals still have the option to decline them.
Artificial selection is not the same as natural selection, in terms of process, goals, or outcomes. Do you disagree?
Well, I think the survival instinct is as much a part of nature as anything. Our ability to come up with medicines to improve our odds of survival are a part of that.
A lion attacking a zebra is as natural as it gets. The lion is hungry; the zebra is food. But that doesn’t mean the zebra isn’t going to try to escape.
In other words, if that is the meaning of the OP’s question: that we make no efforts to combat disease, then no, absolutely not! Living is better than dying, and anything we can do to lengthen life is a good thing. We don’t have to force people to make healthy choices, but giving them the option is certainly a good idea.
Bees make honey, human make nuclear fission. It’s just a matter of degree.
But sometimes nature screws up: dodoes; and humans screw up: Thalidiomide. Frankly, we’re both justt throwing things into the drink and seeing what swims.
But Social Darwinism is a logical fallacy. Businessmen can manipulate stock issues and lobby legislation to keep products off the market that are superior and would advance humanity. Or, one jerk whose reach exceeds his grasp games the system to acheive power, or is simply born into the lucky sperm club, and is able to make decisions that we all pay for: Robert Moses crippling mass transit in one of the largest metropolitan areas on earth, Henry VIII dismantling the monasteries just as they were on the brink of the Industrial Rebolution 200 years before it finally came about.
Justice, Fairness, Love.
These things do not exist in the Universe.
That is the beauty of being Human. That we have the power to conceive and make these things a reality in our world.
Throw that away? Never. To do so is to stop being Human.
Disagree. If we define artificial selection as “selection done by humans”, then we are simply shifting the goalposts. Why would we consider it unnatural that humans would alter their environment, when we are products of that environment? “Artificial” has plenty of meaning outside of evolutionary theory contexts, but it makes no sense to remove human action from this. We’ve evolved to have these great big brains and social behaviours, and they may ultimately benefit our survival or hinder it, and other species as well. This is because the answer to any idea of “is this beneficial?” is always “So far”.
I think I get where you’re coming from now, but: just because we declare all human action to be natural doesn’t mean that we have to take our “hands off the wheel”. We can certainly debate whether any course of action is a good one or not, but that’s because humans are in a particularly unique place among life on Earth to debate that. Those debating skills: also a potentially useful evolved characteristic.
Because humans are intelligent and purposeful, while natural selection is not. Treating natural selection as if it is like human selection is in fact one of the more common errors people make about evolution; lumping human mediated selection in with natural selection is pretty much making the same error from the opposite direction.
But that intelligent and purposeful action is simply a subset of selection. While it’s been enormously successful for us until now, it could easily be our downfall, and then that’s natural selection selecting against us.
Exactly - with natural selection, the outcome is Que Sera, Sera - whatever will be, will be. With artifical selection, we get to (attempt at least to) circumvent the normal, natural course of events and pick a different outcome. Critically, we get to change outcomes so that the natural, stronger competitor doesn’t prevail - for example, when that competitor is Streptococcus.
Just because it’s humans doing the selecting, and humans are part of nature, doesn’t make artificial selection the same thing as natural selection.
But humans are simply another form of evolutionary pressure. We created the conditions for that bacteria to thrive through our actions. Saying that the natural, stronger competitor didn’t prevail is incorrect, as that original survivor was the dominant organism for those set of conditions. When that changed, so did the ability for different organisms to reproduce. That some of these actions were conscious decisions doesn’t change that it was a natural organism that evolved the ability to do that.
And again, just because it’s an evolved trait doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily a good one - just “so far”.
But that’s just papering over a distinction with a blunt, clumsy definition of ‘natural’ again. We have a choice. That’s the crux. We can choose to nurture the sick, or we can choose to let them die so as to strenghthen the Master Race. THIS part of the process is artificial selection.
And yes, it’s being done by humans, so it’s happening within a subcategory of ‘natural’ things, but that’s entirely irrelevant. In fact, a definition of ‘natural things’ that includes every single damn thing in the universe is useless - you might as well never use the term ‘natural’ if there isn’t going to be anything to which it does not apply.
But our ability to choose to care for the “weaker” members of our society is something that we’ve evolved the ability to do. If we as a society abandon our social obligations, that’s going to have a huge negative effect on our survivability as a species. Some people disagree, but they’re mistaken about what humans’ evolutionary advantages are.
There are arguments for the application of Darwinian processes, in certain circumstances. Businesses that are unprofitable, inefficient or obsolete should be dismantled so those resources can be used elsewhere in the economy. As people tend to not just up and dismantle their companies or quit their job on their own, it is often advantageous to allow the free market to force those decisions for them. Not to mention that simply deciding what products and services to sell and for how much is much too complex for any centralized decision maker. It is far more efficient to allow a Darwinian free market to make those decision.
However the flip side of Darwinian evolution is that white it promotes survival of the fittest, it does not care what “fittest” means. For example, a company where the board of directors has personal connections to lawmakers or a new college graduate whose father is a partner at a highly prestigious and competitive company is more “fit” in the sense of surviving as a company or landing that high paying job. But that doesn’t mean they are the best possible choice.
We are still facing Darwinian pressure.
Does every human being get married and have children? Obviously not. Some people are successful at mating and other people are not. The fact that our mating is decided over factors like social skills and physical attractiveness and obtaining material possessions rather than who’s best at not being eaten by lions doesn’t mean natural selection isn’t at work.
The OP’s question isn’t ‘how did we get here?’ - it’s ‘what should we do next?’
I agree. If I’m right in understanding the thrust of the OP’s question as ‘should we shape society intelligently, or just let nature takes its course?’, there isn’t any case for the latter. It wouldn’t even be society.
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.
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.
Not at all. But the way people choose their sexual partners is a pretty natural process.
There’s no distinction to be made. Sorry, I just wholly disagree. Some animals have empathy and act accordingly. It’s an evolutionary adaptation.
Natural selection is absolutely inescapable. The fact that the term “natural” encompasses everything is not an avoidance of the question; it’s the answer to the question. As living creatures we are completely and totally under the influence of natural selection, and we always will be.
There’s no distinction between letting people suffer and die, or trying to keep them alive and healthy?