Ethics And Evolutionary Strategy

[seer]

This came up in another thread but was off topic, I thought I would ask the question here: The Europeans come to North America, pretty much decimate the native population, and in the process create, arguably, one of the most powerful countries in history. From the evolutionary stand point this was a very successful strategy, and in the end, isn't that the most important consideration? So in the evolutionary sense - it was "good." Correct?

[HMS_Beagle]

This came up in another thread but was off topic, I thought I would ask the question here: The Europeans come to North America, pretty much decimate the native population, and in the process create, arguably, one of the most powerful countries in history. From the evolutionary stand point this was a very successful strategy, and in the end, isn't that the most important consideration? So in the evolutionary sense - it was "good." Correct?

It wasn't very good for the Native Americans. "Good" is a relative and very subjective term.

It was also a cultural clash, nothing to do with biological evolution.

[seer]

It wasn't very good for the Native Americans. "Good" is a relative and very subjective term.

It was also a cultural clash, nothing to do with biological evolution.

What else is there besides biological evolution? And no, it was not good for the the Native Americans. If a predatory bacteria comes in and destroys another species of bacteria that is bad for that particular species but good for the predatory species - and? Survival it always the main consideration - correct?

[HMS_Beagle]

What else is there besides biological evolution?

In this case it was the same species with two very different cultures coming into conflict. Nothing to do with biological evolution.

And no, it was not good for the the Native Americans. If a predatory bacteria comes in and destroys another species of bacteria that is bad for that particular species but good for the predatory species - and? Survival it always the main consideration - correct?

Europeans and Native American are the same species.

[seer]

In this case it was the same species with two very different cultures coming into conflict. Nothing to do with biological evolution.

You mean like this, this has nothing to do with biological evolution:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health...ggression.html

all of its adult males

Europeans and Native American are the same species.

So were the chimpanzees above. But obviously one tribe survived to pass on their genes, the other didn't.

[firstfloor]

What else is there besides biological evolution? And no, it was not good for the the Native Americans. If a predatory bacteria comes in and destroys another species of bacteria that is bad for that particular species but good for the predatory species - and? Survival it always the main consideration - correct?

Sociocultural evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociocultural_evolution

[seer]

Sociocultural evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociocultural_evolution

Nonsense, see my example of the chimpanzees above. It is biological evolution that created us to do such things. Besides I did not use the term biological evolution, I just said it was a good evolutionary strategy, sociocultural or otherwise. And if it is a good evolutionary strategy then how can it be ethically wrong?

[firstfloor]

Nonsense, see my example of the chimpanzees above. It is biological evolution that created us to do such things. Besides I did not use the term biological evolution, I just said it was a good evolutionary strategy, sociocultural or otherwise. And if it is a good evolutionary strategy then how can it be ethically wrong?

[seer]

But biology is what makes us what we are, dictates how we act. There is no overcoming our nature, because nature is all there is. So you agree that good/bad is not a factor in what the Europeans did?

[Carrikature]

From the evolutionary stand point this was a very successful strategy, and in the end, isn't that the most important consideration?

You grant evolution too much in the way of anthropomorphic traits. Evolution has no consideration. It can't, because it doesn't think or plan or reason. There can't be a 'most important consideration'. Even reproductive success, while essential for another generation to arise, is not a goal. Evolution has no goals. It's merely a description of interacting effects. Natural Selection plus Random Mutation. That's it.

[firstfloor]

But biology is what makes us what we are, dictates how we act. There is no overcoming our nature, because nature is all there is. So you agree that good/bad is not a factor in what the Europeans did?

[klaus54]

What else is there besides biological evolution? And no, it was not good for the the Native Americans. If a predatory bacteria comes in and destroys another species of bacteria that is bad for that particular species but good for the predatory species - and? Survival it always the main consideration - correct?

If you're try to establish that evolution is scientifically flawed because of possible evil cultural applications, you're as wrong as wrong can be.

Abus non tollit usum.

Hiroshima and Nagaski were a consequence of nuclear physics. What happened there was BAAADDD, ergo nuclear physics is BAAAADDD and therefore WRONG.

So then, what IS your point?

K54

[Carrikature]

If you're try to establish that evolution is scientifically flawed because of possible evil cultural applications, you're as wrong as wrong can be.

Abus non tollit usum.

Hiroshima and Nagaski were a consequence of nuclear physics. What happened there was BAAADDD, ergo nuclear physics is BAAAADDD and therefore WRONG.

So then, what IS your point?

K54

That's not his goal. His real goal is to find out how atheists consider morality in light of there being nothing more than biology at work. In his estimation, the only basis an atheist can have is evolution, and therefore whatever counts as evolutionary success must also count as a moral act.

[klaus54]

That's not his goal. His real goal is to find out how atheists consider morality in light of there being nothing more than biology at work. In his estimation, the only basis an atheist can have is evolution, and therefore whatever counts as evolutionary success must also count as a moral act.

OK, then this thread doesn't belong in Natural Science.

BTW, our evolutionary history, and it's consequent influence on modern human behavior, smacks a lot of "Original Sin".

K54

[Carrikature]

OK, then this thread doesn't belong in Natural Science.

BTW, our evolutionary history, and it's consequent influence on modern human behavior, smacks a lot of "Original Sin".

K54

To be fair, I think it's ok in Nat. Sci. if it can be kept to how/if evolution gives rise to morality from a scientific perspective (if that's even possible). My intent was to correct what you assumed he was trying to establish.

I maintain that evolution is amoral, and that biology (science, really) is also amoral. To me, the entire question of evolutionary ethics relies on a false premise.