Why Darwinism is more controversial than ever

Darwin not only tells us that one individual is not equal to another, he also tells us that races are the origin of species, which means that in general races will be unequal in major and important ways.

Darwinism also tells us that men and women are genetically predisposed to different and unequal social roles, which implies that attempts to make their roles legally equal will not work very well.

Darwinism tells us that we have a moral sense evolved to further our self interest, leading to the proposition that people’s real moral theory is closer to that of Ayn Rand or the classic Greeks, and that claims to the contrary are lies and hypocrisy.  Darwinism tells us about our nature, and tells us about our moral sense, and what it tells us about our moral sense implies that the man who says he would hold a child’s face in  the fire to find the cure for malaria is apt to hold a child’s face in the fire and forget he was trying to cure malaria

If you believe that men were not created equal, that some races really are inferior, that most endangered species are overdue for extinction and need to be turned into fur coats and hamburgers, that women should stay in the kitchen and if they must work, do female work, lest their delicate souls be shocked by male crudity, because if they are in the male workplace doing male jobs, they are apt sue their coworkers and bosses for being males, then Darwinism looks mighty like common sense.

If you believe that most people raising money to help far away strangers are going to use it to rape children, then Darwinism looks like realism rather than nihilism.

Darwinism should not cause you to doubt all morality.  Darwinism tells us we evolved from killer apes by evolving towards more cooperation and more successful and effective cooperation.  It should, however, cause you to doubt the morality of the Pharisees.

17 Responses to “Why Darwinism is more controversial than ever”

  1. […] Why Darwinism is more controversial than ever « Jim’s Blog […]

  2. Jehu says:

    Most people are not nihilist, universalist utilitarian, or Ayn Rand egoist. What they generally have is a duty-based ethic, although they feel compelled by society to give lip service to utilitarianism. The proof of this is to examine the relative expenditures on pets and ‘the starving children of Africa’ by private individuals.

  3. Red says:

    In an age of lies, speaking the truth about human nature is very controversial.

    That being said, Darwinism is kind of pointless. It’s not strong enough to overcome the group lies that progressives spew and the truth that it points out are redibly available by observational without any specific view of the world(I concluded that people were not created equal after a month of dating a girl from a lower class background). It has no strength to bind a group together and enforce proper behavior as religions do.

    I’d say Darwinism would be useful to keep the non religious intellectuals honest, but given how they serve and promote the state religion day after day seems to indicate they’re going to go along with whatever religion hold sway. Darwinism appears to be useless for any practical purpose.

  4. roger says:

    I do think there is enormous scope for accusing the left of being anti-science. Lord knows the right is accused of this often enough.

    But the left should be ridiculed as anti-science early and often with great satire and humor. There are so many fun examples to work with. The pleasure is doubled because of how humorless the Cathedral is.

    Satire and humor is the way to ridicule the left. We are in for a bit of a slog. If you are cynic and a humorist able to rip political correctness, these are the best of times. Our clumsy overlords screw up constantly. They must because their ideology does not mesh with human nature. Fill your repartee with lush examples of contradiction. Like how a majority of states set achievement benchmarks by race. HBD is at the same time denied and is the basis for official policy everywhere.
    http://schoolsofthought.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/17/a-majority-of-states-set-different-benchmarks-by-race/

    Hee-larious!

    Bill Maher was terribly funny mocking political correctness until he became a left wing ideologue. Then all the humor went away. Chris Rock was super funny going off on the hidden reality of human differences before his fame forced him to tone it down.

  5. asdf says:

    Darwinism is nihilism.

    “Darwinism tells us we evolved from killer apes by evolving towards more cooperation and more successful and effective cooperation. ”

    How so?

    Darwinism tells us life is deterministic. We have urges and our job is to fulfill those urges. We cooperate only to the extent needed to fulfill those urges. It’s a base form of vitalism that robes a man of will, especially moral will. Its only a hop skip and jump to nihilism from that.

    • Thales says:

      I’m getting really tired of this “logical” argument formula:

      1. “X is Determinism.”
      2. “I hate Determinism!”
      3. “Therefore X is false.”

      It’s some kind of memetic infection of the interwebs.

    • jim says:

      If you cooperate to kill and eat large animals, that is a lot more cooperation than if you live on fruit, nuts, and insects.

      If you cooperate to make war and genocide, that is a lot more cooperation than if you cooperate to kill large animals.

      Chimps and men kill and eat deer, monkeys and suchlike. Chimps and men make war. Therefore the common ancestor of chimps and men killed and ate large animals, and made war – was a killer ape. The ancestors of men are that branch of the lineage that ate meat more heavily, the ancestors of chimps are that branch of the lineage that ate meat less heavily.

      Cooperative killing is the killer application for intelligence.

    • spandrell says:

      We have urges = True
      our job is to fulfill those urges = False

      Acknowledging biological urges and cognitive biases is useful when coming up with laws, as it shows you what is achievable and what not. e.g. you can’t get men to be productive without ownership of women.

      I don’t think it’s useful for an individual moral code though. If you had a detailed list of your urges and abilities down to 2 decimals, well ok. But as of now it’s just a huge non-sequitur.

      • jim says:

        Men evolved to fulfill their urges through cooperating with other men, we are natural cooperators, as cats naturally lurk and pounce.

        It would therefore be most strange if these naturally evolved inclinations were not useful as an individual moral code, most strange if they were not our actual individual moral code, just as it would be most strange if a cat’s inclination to lurk and pounce was not useful for killing vermin.

        • spandrell says:

          You make it sound as if people have an inherent moral code which is universal.
          But there’s not. There’s a bell curve of individual moral intuitions, and societally conditioned moral codes written on top of them. The susceptibility to overwriting is probably also normally distributed. We evolved a disgust towards incest, yet Pharaos fucked their sisters; we evolved to eat meat, yet classy Indians don’t eat meat; we evolved to be tribal, yet NW Europeans spend resources in undermining their tribe and support others.

          WTF is the use of your evolved individual moral code if people aren’t following it? If it can be superseded (and in reality it is), it might as well not exist.

          • jim says:

            You make it sound as if people have an inherent moral code which is universal.

            For people close to themselves, for about as many people as where equal and fellow tribe members in the ancestral environment, and for family members, they do, the major variance being that some races have higher levels of kin altruism and or lower levels of reciprocal altruism than whites.

            Disagreements are primarily on how to treat far away people. And in practice, such disagreements are theory rather than practice.

            We evolved a disgust towards incest, yet Pharaos fucked their sisters

            If raised separately. In practice, there seems to have been a lot of cheating on this deal. The pharaoh was the husband of daughter of the previous pharaoh, the son in law of the pharaoh, so only needed to nominally marry his sister. And if a general was successful, he tended to actually marry the daughter of the Pharaoh.

            we evolved to eat meat, yet classy Indians don’t eat meat

            So they say. In practice, high class Indians are no more vegetarians, than high class Americans are utilitarians.

            we evolved to be tribal, yet NW Europeans spend resources in undermining their tribe and support others.

            Northwestern Europeans are far too numerous and diverse to be a tribe. Similarly Muslims spend a hundred times as much blood and treasure killing other Muslims than they do killing infidels, despite the thunderings of the prophet and a great pile of Caliphs and Imams on this issue.

  6. […] This is both rationally and empirically impeccable: […]

  7. […] Why Darwinism is more controversial than ever « Jim’s Blog […]

  8. […] Why Darwinism is more controversial than ever « Jim’s Blog Related Posts:Paleo, Brokeness, Wall Street & Winning – Voice of Eden Feb 25Guns, violins, and the DHS – Voice of Eden Feb 24Doom & Murder – the Crash is Here. Voice of Eden Feb 26More RSD GeniusNeanderhall is relaunched, now with racial segregation!Would your friend appreciate getting this?FacebookStumbleUponEmailShareDiggRedditPrint /* […]

Leave a Reply