At 23:35 23/08/2010 +0200, Christoph Reuss wrote:
(KH) > 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.
(CR)
Darwinism is about the characteristics rather than the numbers (with the numbers alone, "survival of the fittest" would be a tautology).
Yes. Nevertheless, it was the numbers argument (fertility rates) supplied by Malthus's hypothesis that transformed Darwin from being a mere observer of natural history (though an extraordinarily avid one) into a major scientist.
(CR)
However, today these characteristics are pretty different from what is usually meant by (social or physical) fitness! Sometimes even opposite.
It would seem so if one takes a harsh, ad hominem view of the types who happen to be doing well just at the present time. While I would cheerfully string up one or two bankers by way of example to others (or at least bankrupt them and give them jobs as road-sweepers) they're no different from many others in different sectors of life throughout history who've proved to be menaces. Besides it's difficult -- I would say impossible -- to precisely describe just what the errant characteristics are and whether they might not have been useful in the past in different circumstances.
Keith
Chris _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Keith Hudson, Saltford, England
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
