Pseudoscientific Poison: Social Darwinism

Nature News published an article that was quite shocking to say the least, it went like this… “Mostly The Big-Brained Survive” and the article went without mentioning evolution which says nature favors the fittest.

“Brain size relative to body size is fairly predictable across all mammals, says Eric Abelson, who studies biological sciences at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California. “As body size grows, brain size grows too, but at slower rate,” he says.”

“Plotting brain size against body size creates a tidy curve. But some species have bigger or smaller brains than the curve would predict for their body size. And a bigger brain-to-body-size ratio usually means a smarter animal.”

Using conservation as its passion rather than what it is, a social Darwinian idea which is poison…The doctrine implies that smarter automatically means that are more capable avoiding extinction because nature they claim favors the smarter animal.

Marris and Eric Abelson from Stanford University did not embrace the poison of social Darwinism rather to their credit, they outlined some disadvantages of being big-brained.

“For species larger than about 10 kilograms, the advantage of having a large brain seems to be swamped by the disadvantage of being big. Large species tend to reproduce later in life, have fewer offspring, require more resources and larger territories, and catch the attention of humans, either as food or as predators. Hunting pressure or reductions in available space can hit them particularly hard.”

There might be an underlying reason why Marris and Abelson did not distance themselves from the poison of social Darwinism like Marris and Eric Abelson did.  They engaged themselves with speculations they are not possible to prove. They make a terrible assumption that brain size has something to do with how smart species are when it fact it could be quality of the brain rather that its size.

They link intelligence to survival which implies nature only sees the strong worth saving while getting rid of the weak. And lastly, implying that it’s others who make the decisions on what species is worth saving and what species is worth not saving and their work is supposed to help those who make the decisions.

The Darwinist believes nature favors the fit but says who? Even though the world is far from perfect, humans do help the weak, feed the poor, assist the weak with certain tasks they are unable to do anymore, there are laws in such places as the United States were employers cannot discriminate a person based on handicap.  We live in an imperfect world that still cares for the weak!

What Marris and Abelson did is useless and illogical. Their underlying reason is to elevate people who are smart to blind faith. For example, if a group of smart people decide this particular species should survive over another, then that is the right decision because they are smart and the species whom they pick is smart as well. In reality, its circular reasoning using the poison of social Darwinism! Animal intelligence should have no baring whatsoever on conservation!

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Pseudoscientific Poison: Social Darwinism

  1. Michael, please define social Darwinism.

    Then explain what social Darwinism has to do with brain size.

    Then explain what possible coherent thought is contained in the following string of random words—

    Using conservation as its passion rather than what it is, a social Darwinian idea which is poison…The doctrine implies that smarter automatically means that are more capable avoiding extinction because nature they claim favors the smarter animal.

    You seem to be frothing at the mouth. We should take pity, perhaps. But it is hard to keep from laughing.

    Lack of response to the above questions will demonstrate that the protofeathers you claim to have are stuffed between your ears.

  2. [Marris and Eric Abelson] make a terrible assumption that brain size has something to do with how smart species are when it fact it could be quality of the brain rather that its size.

    Kilgore Trout suggests that Michael says that because he’s jealous that humans have bigger brains than creationists.

  3. Pseudoscientific Poison: Social Darwinism

    Michael hates social darwinists.

    Yet he himself has probably engaged in social darwinism.

    If he has selected one puppy rather than another to bring home from the animal shelter, then he has practiced social darwinism.

    If he selects day lilies for his flower box rather than hydrangeas, then he has engaged in social darwinism.

    If he donates money to save the whales, but not to save the scorpions, then he is a social darwinist.

    If he works at Habitat for Humanity to build homes fro poor people, but not for rich people, than he advances social darwinism.

    Do you see where Michael is going with this? Apparently social darwinism is acceptable as long as it is not based upon brain size.

    .

    Of course, Michael’s reading comprehension has failed yet again.

    What Marris and Abelson did is useless and illogical. Their underlying reason is to elevate people who are smart to blind faith. [sic] For example, if a group of smart people decide this particular species should survive over another, then that is the right decision because they are smart and the species whom they pick is smart as well.

    He has entirely misread the authors’ point. They do not advocate that high intelligence be employed to select animals to conserve; in fact they suggest that perhaps lower intelligence should be favored, and gave some reasons for that. In any case, intelligence should never be more than one factor among many in conservation decisions.

    There might be an underlying reason why Marris and Abelson did not distance themselves from the poison of social Darwinism like Marris and Eric Abelson did.[1] They engaged themselves with speculations they are not possible to prove.

    The speculations are recommendations. Recommendations are not capable of proof or disproof. This is a category error.

    Which probably arises from Michael’s immutable confusion between evolution and social darwinism.

    ===================

    [1] Please let us know why you think this sentence does not contradict itself.

  4. Nature News published an article that was quite shocking to say the least,

    The article was shocking, but not for the reason that sends Michael into a state of high dudgeon.

    The shocking part is: Why do we have to worry about which species will survive?

    The reason we have to consider which species to save is that climate-change denialists like Michael have run us out of time to save the environments that many species require to survive on their own.

    Creationists believe that this world was created for mankind. Yet they seem to regard this wonderful gift as their own personal outhouse to trash at their pleasure.

    The current issue of Scientific American asks “Which Species Will Survive?” (Aug.2012, pp. 75-79) If nothing is done in the next few years, we are looking at extinctions on the scale of the Cretaceous event, when the dinosaurs disappeared. Some people think that the dinosaurs disappeared because they “couldn’t adapt.” That’s not true. They went extinct because they were at the top of a food chain which was collapsing around them.

    Guess who is at the top of the food chain now? And humans depend more upon the integrity of that chain than do most other animals. Archeologists find entire ancient civilizations which perished because they overexploited their resources. Petra and the Indus Valley empire come to mind.

    North Carolina has mandated by law the maximum amount that the Atlantic Ocean will be allowed to rise in the next three years. (What will they do? Fine it a trillion gallons for a violation?) Michael may smugly blind himself to the evidence for a long time. Why should he incur extra expense or discomfit his lifestyle for those not even born yet?. Economists use a term—intergenerational discount rate—to measure the immediate costs that a current generation is willing to incur to improve the welfare of their descendants.

    Michel’s IDR seems to be below zero. But his grandchildren will curse his name for his greed..</strong?

    .

  5. Here it is a month later, and Michael has made no move to answer the questions posed above, nor to defend his position in any other way, despite several pointed reminders.

    Michael follows the creationist playbook by throwing outrageous things against the wall to see whether they stick. If anyone challenges them, the response is always to change the subject. Michael has not the knowledge, the wit, nor the background to defend his own positions.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s