At 18:03 23/08/2010 +0200, Christoph Reuss wrote:
Keith Hudson wrote:
> Besides the theme of competition, they both shared another important one --
> the importance of the environment. In Darwin's case it was the natural
> environment. As the number of life-forms increased (that is, more varieties
> of potential food) then this forced more and more specialization -- and
thus
> more species -- to come into existence. And, within each species,
> individuals competed. 'Unfit' individuals who couldn't raise enough
> children to replace themselves died out.
Darwinism is NOT "Social Darwinism" (applied to human societies)!
Darwin never said it was. "Social Darwinism" was a construct by Herbert
Spencer to justify the virtues of Victorian middle-classes as opposed to
the wretched poor. Darwinian evolution is quite simple. 'Fitness' is purely
a numbers game. The characteristics of parents who produce more than a
replacement number of children survive over the longer term vis-a-vis
parents who produce less than a replacement number of children.
Keith
Keith Hudson, Saltford, England
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
