Modern day Darwinism

[xburtonchic]

There's no anthropology threads lol, so there were like four different threads this could possibly go in!! I suppose that means it is Homeless for now

Anyway. My thoughts are that everything comes down to technology.

As society advances, humans start needing technology to survive. Yes, we've molded our culture to be that way ourselves, but think about it - who has the most advanced technology than anyone in this world? The "Alphas" of our society. The world's leaders, the people in control - The President of the United States, the militaries, the dictators, and the royalties in this world. Each country's leader employs themselves and their military with the best technology available. It's survival of the fittest - figuratively and literally.

The next step below them are the celebrities, CEO's, and other high-ranking members of society. They don't have the best technologies available per se, but they do have more advanced technology than what is available to the general public. Customized security systems, the latest phones or iWhatevers. It's easy to find people who would do almost anything for them so of course they have the best of the best out of the people in their respective industries, all at their disposal. The insane amount of money they own doesn't hurt either, I'm sure. And next on the social ladder, we have the Upper Class. They don't own the best technology per se - not quite - but they do have the best that's available to the "little" people. They're notorious for owning foreign products and having personal trainers and cooks. Right below them is the middle class, a class I believe is slowly disappearing and melding with the working class which will eventually fall in with the poor (another topic entirely though lol). The middle class might not have the trendiest of everything right away, but it will generally find it's way into their househoulds and hands the second it falls into their price range. They usually own houses and have basic security systems - fire alarm, burglar alarms, etc. They might not have all organic foods and personal trainers available to them, but they do have enough to allow them to lead very healthy lifestyles if they wish. Then you have the working class, then the poor. These are people who have a harder time surviving in the world... because everything always comes down to money as well. And these days, more money = more advanced technology. Whatever they can afford is subpar and does not usually include added safety measures. These people have little to no security in their homes, and little to no help from society. This also means they generally do not have access to great medical technology.

Technology, technology, technology. Every single little thing today involves it.

So I'm sure you know what I'm getting at. In short, the lower you go down the ladder, the less technology becomes available to you.

And those countries, cultures, and even people who aren't technologically advanced, or at least advancing? They're hardly on our radar, if at all. Internet, phones, and social networking have become our prime means of communicating. And when you cut off those, you also severely cut off all of your interaction with most of the people around you. People need recognition and outside connection to survive. They get sick and don't have access to the best cures and medical technology. If either can't or refuse to adapt and keep up with their surroundings - and so they die out, one by one. Survival of the fittest.

Just curious about everyone else's opinions. What would Charles Darwin say if he were around today??

 

[AndroidsDreamofBTC]

I think technology can be linked to traditional Darwinist structures. Truly innovative technology changes everything. It allows people without access to the latest and greatest to create things that can rival the products/opportunities of the people on top of the social ladder. In the end, what truly matters is intelligence, endurance and a desire to succeed. Access to technology is just a by-product of these features.

 

[amapola]

homeless >>> P&S

 

[xburtonchic]

Thanks amapola.

Just to clear things up before continuing: I was not talking about literal technology. When I said technology... yes, I meant actual technology... but I was referring to advancements we make in society as a whole. I was really high when I wrote this, and technology was the closest word I could think of for what I was referring to. I know things like personal trainers and organic foods and modern medicine aren't technology in the literal sense, but that's what I was trying to get at. Now that I'm sober, the correct word for advancements we make in whatever fields still eludes me, but hopefully I explained what I meant in a way that makes sense. So, bearing in mind that what I'm referring to as technology actually means "advances we make in every field of society"... moving on now.

By the way, I'm not anti-technology by any means. It's just a conclusion I came to while I was high, pretty randomly actually lol. I had posted a status on Facebook about how to check in places from a Blackberry, and someone said something along the lines of, "Just get rid of your Blackberry and get a new phone, that's what I did." Which made me think - people get rid of perfectly good phones that work just fine, simply because they lack a popular feature that 90% of people use these days - it's not even a necessary feature. Necessary meaning something we need in order to survive. I considered that we had all gotten along just fine before the check-in feature existed, so I wasn't going to by a new phone just so I could check in places on Facebook. But that led me to wonder whether we actually do need technology to survive, since it's become so ingrained in everything we do. And that led me to think about evolution. I don't know, I just get the most random trains of thought when I'm high haha it's probably not something I'd have thought about sober!

I am definitely a firm believer of if you want something badly enough, you can always find a way to get it. Depending where you are on the social ladder... sure, it might be harder for some people than others... but if your desire for something is strong enough and you've got the drive for it, nothing is impossible. I feel this relates more closely to individualistic ideals, though. I was referring to the sort of... short term. People on the lowest rung still have to go without these things, while/if they're working towards climbing the ladder. As a general rule, people who live below the poverty line or hover right above it are simply not as healthy as the rest.

I'll use opiate addiction as an example, since it hits closest to home for me. A person floating around the poverty line will probably have to use unconventional methods in order to get their fix - they might steal, rob, turn tricks, sell drugs, etc. If they want to quit, they don't have access to Suboxone (one of the most recent medical advancements for opiate addiction). If they have insurance at all, it's probably through a government sponsored program that doesn't even cover detox, let alone addiction. They're left with only two options - to keep living life as an addict, or to quit cold turkey (something we all know tends to be a recipe for relapse). Some people honestly do manage to clean their lives up all by themselves, which is amazing... but it's not the norm. For many, it becomes a vicious cycle. Moving on to the Middle Class and higher levels of the Working Class, who generally don't steal to get their "fix" - it comes out of their paycheck, whether it's buying it from friends off the street or as a prescription. They usually have adequate insurance that will cover detox at the very least... and for things like Suboxone and rehab and specialists, they generally require what is usually - depending on insurance - a manageable co-pay. They might even have an insurance plan that does cover both detox and addiction. The point is, they have easy access to treatment if they so desire it. The Upper Class - they're usually the pill poppers - tend to get their "fix" through legitimate means, and the money to pay for it is hardly a problem, if at all. And so it goes for addiction as well. Money isn't much of an object, so they can afford better means of treatment and go one step above Suboxone. I assume most still use Suboxone, but if they really want to, they can afford to go to a good rehab or to use the rapid-detox method (an almost surefire way to kick opiate addiction, the relapse rate of patients who have used this method is wonderfully low). To be sure, their insurance is good enough that they can have full coverage for detox and addiction. Next are the celebrities, CEO's, etc. I assume they get their "fix" for free, either from friends or from malpracticing doctors (hellooo Michael Jackson.. R.I.P. by the way). They probably don't even need insurance at all - they can easily pay for the best private rehabs, rapid detox, Suboxone, whatever they want - straight out of their pockets in cash. Hell, they might even get paid to go to rehab... think Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew... or can set something up through their publicist, find a good rehab that wouldn't mind the publicity a celebrity would bring, and get to go for free. As for the President? I doubt he'd get addicted to opiates in the first place, because he wouldn't be able to seek treatment without it becoming a public affair. He'd probably just have to stay addicted to opiates, which would become obvious after a while. And who the hell wants to leave our country in the hands of an opiate addict? He would be impeached immediately. So needless to say, I doubt that's an issue or ever will be. If it were though, he'd probably have access to medical technology that we don't even know about... or have some sort of super-opiate we don't know about, one that you can take without having withdrawals and etc... the point is, he would have the ability to deal with his addiction that no one else has, because he would have access to the most advanced medical technology there is.

There are hundreds of examples I could use, but that's just one. It looks like the lower you are on the ladder, the harder it is to maintain your health.

 

[Jerry Atrick]

One problem I see with your argument is that you are looking at this from a strictly materialist perspective. What about people's social needs? I just read a journal article that concluded that homeless people in Calcutta, India, experience greater life satisfaction than homeless people from two U.S. populations (one in Portland, Oregon, and the other in Fresno, California). The data suggested that one reason for this phenomena is because in Calcutta, homeless people are more likely to be homeless as a family unit and therefore have their social needs fulfilled. In the United States, homeless people are more likely to be estranged from their families and therefore experience greater social deprivation.

What I'm getting at is that the fulfillment of social needs may be able to counterbalance the deprivation of material needs when it comes to subjective well-being and life satisfaction. Your posts have a Marxist flavor in that you are talking about social hierarchies and how the bourgeosie always has it better than the proletariat. I don't think this is what Darwin had in mind when he was writing about evolution.

Darwin talked about sexual selection, genotypes, and heredity. Technology that one has access to has nothing to do with the genetic makeup that gets passed down to offspring. If you haven't already, you should study up on your anthropological theory. Back in the 19th century people like Herbert Spencer, Lewis Henry Morgan, and Edward Burnett Tylor wrote of social evolutionism. Evolutionism was a hot topic at the time but it was also eventually used to justify racism and things like eugenics. It has long been proven incorrect.

 

[xburtonchic]

One problem I see with your argument is that you are looking at this from a strictly materialist perspective. What about people's social needs? I just read a journal article that concluded that homeless people in Calcutta, India, experience greater life satisfaction than homeless people from two U.S. populations (one in Portland, Oregon, and the other in Fresno, California). The data suggested that one reason for this phenomena is because in Calcutta, homeless people are more likely to be homeless as a family unit and therefore have their social needs fulfilled. In the United States, homeless people are more likely to be estranged from their families and therefore experience greater social deprivation.

What I'm getting at is that the fulfillment of social needs may be able to counterbalance the deprivation of material needs when it comes to subjective well-being and life satisfaction. Your posts have a Marxist flavor in that you are talking about social hierarchies and how the bourgeosie always has it better than the proletariat. I don't think this is what Darwin had in mind when he was writing about evolution.

Darwin talked about sexual selection, genotypes, and heredity. Technology that one has access to has nothing to do with the genetic makeup that gets passed down to offspring. If you haven't already, you should study up on your anthropological theory. Back in the 19th century people like Herbert Spencer, Lewis Henry Morgan, and Edward Burnett Tylor wrote of social evolutionism. Evolutionism was a hot topic at the time but it was also eventually used to justify racism and things like eugenics. It has long been proven incorrect.

I mentioned social needs in the last paragraph. I didn't go into detail, but the general idea was there. Social needs are tied in with technology... well, almost everything comes back to technology. When I had everything written out - I think I might have gone into more detail on the communication aspect on my blog, don't remember though - the idea was to point out what happens when certain people and cultures are starved of a means to expand their personal networks. They're cut off from society. From a global perspective, you can take into account all of the primitive cultures that still exist. One of the anthropology courses I took was linguistics, very interesting stuff, and that class went into depth about a few of those cultures. The one thing they all had in common is that they don't communicate with the outside world - they're in their own little bubble and have their own languages. Technology and other people might as well not even exist to them, aside from the occasional anthropologist or sociologist that comes by. One of them is a tribe that uses different colored beads and dyes as a means of commerce. They don't use money at all - they use colors. Different colors have different values (i.e. in U.S. terms you could equate red as a $1, blue as a $5, white as a $20, etc.) This is also what they use to communicate with people other than those inside of their own tribe - they consider it a sign of disrespect if an "outsider" does not bring a "gift" of a certain color along with them. Ironically, they then trade the gift for something of equal value if it's "acceptable" to them. They speak in their own primitive language that only they understand. Communication with them is impossible, aside from a choice few words people have been able to decipher. Simple things like "hello" and "thank you" and a few basic objects. The other "tribe" (and I use that term for these people very loosely) that sticks out in my mind is one that is completely primitive. They literally live like wild animals, although they are non-violent. Their languages are a mixture of noises that closely resemble animals, and as far as I know, anthropologists haven't been able to discern a way to communicate with them yet. At all. This tribe lives slightly longer than the first one (I can't figure out why), but both tribes have a short lifespan. I wish I could remember their names.. well, the names we've given them anyway.. or at least where they're from, but I'd probably have to dig through a ton of old notes only to find I don't even have them anymore. You seem pretty into anthropology though... I don't know if you're a professor or an anthropology student major/minor or if you've just done a ton of independent research, but regardless you seem to know what you're talking about. I guess if it's taught in anthropology classes, the tribes are well-known enough among the anthropology community... so idk maybe you know who I'm referring to.

In short, my point is that both of these tribes have shorter life spans than the average human. Humans that have access to actual technology (that is our prime means of communication these days, no denying that), better medical services, a wider social network, better defense, etc. Better everything, really. The list goes on and on...

Anyway. I was zeroing in on the "survival of the fittest" theory as opposed to evolution as a whole. There are a million different factors that go into this particular topic, which is why I ended up shortening it and cutting a lot of things out. Trust me, it was TL;DR otherwise... if you go through some of my other posts, you'll get an idea of what can happen when I get on a roll haha. Been trying to work on that, so I've been going back and editing my posts lately before I write them... I guess that wasn't a good idea here, because I think what I was trying to say might have been misconstrued. As far as the class system, there was no getting around it - those are the hard facts. The higher up the social ladder you are, the better everything gets. I wasn't trying to promote the caste system or say everyone should strive to be at the top of the ladder. Caste systems have been around since forever. They're visible even in animal packs. No matter where you look or how far back you go, there's always been an "alpha" of the pack and a sort of... chain of command. We no longer walk around in packs, hunting and gathering together; yesterday's Alpha's have been replaced with today's Presidents and world leaders. It's just an inevitable part of our society and whether we like it or not, it does indeed tie in very closely with survival of the fittest.

I don't know if you believe in the FEMA Camp + Martial Law conspiracy theory (I don't personally), but if you do, then there's a perfect example of what I mean. I don't believe in it, but I have definitely studied it on my own quite a bit the way I do with every conspiracy theory - I'm just interested in that kind of stuff. I'm going to talk about it as if it's something set in stone to make it less confusing though. The idea behind that theory is a prime example of survival of the fittest. In short, the "little people" have to do what our society's "Alphas" want them to do when the time comes or they will be eliminated. The people on the lowest rungs of the ladder apparently don't even have a choice and will be eliminated regardless. At the same time, underground dwellings are being built in order to spare the people that sit higher on the ladder.

Again, I do not believe that the government is purposely plotting against the entire human race and plans to put U.S. citizens into concentration camps and then kill them. One of the biggest flaws in that theory is that celebrities, the President, etc... their social standings would not even exist if it weren't for the "little people". If the only people left in the world were the entitled, they wouldn't survive. They rely on us too much - to generate income for their billion-dollar companies, to take care of their needs, to allow them to have those titles in the first place. If that were to happen, a caste system would completely cease to exist. Not exactly conducive to survival. That's a completely different topic though, sooo I'll stop there.

 

[Belisarius]

Fitness cannot be defined in terms of life span, health, or technology. Galapagos tortoises live a very long time, but can (and nearly were) be exterminated by us with ease. Alligators have famously robust immune systems, but are similarly vulnerable to human predation (for sport and otherwise). Compare that to mice, which have an average life span of only a handful of years but which are virtually immune to extinction given enough space, or to houseflies which live perhaps a month, or to dandelions, and so on. A critter like Lingula doesn't even have a brain, yet has remained unchanged for a half-billion years.

In short, one can't take the enhanced life span and healthcare of the first world in a vacuum. Yes, they live longer; they also (on average) reproduce less, suffer from fewer lifestyle-related illnesses (obesity, heart disease, common cancers), are less vulnerable to pathogens that would make us ill, while their lower position on the international "food chain" puts them in a more robust position to sustain themselves outside of trade networks. If a civilization-destroying asteroid slams the Earth tomorrow, I can tell you that it won't be the Aero-wearing, iPod-listening, Vanity Fair-reading, Wal-Mart-shopping crowd scraping by without killing and eating their neighbors.