Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

So the "Theory" of Evolution is not a theory anymore?

And so it doesn't even have to be "believed", it just is? And hence my question, why do humans then, do so much to usurp the natural way of things? Why do we help the weak to survive? Does this not weaken the human race? Shouldn't we let the weak not survive?

I'm not saying, I'm just asking. It's a philosophical question, if evolution just is, why do humans not cooperate with it? What is the purpose or reasoning behind such acts? How does it help the human race? According to evolution, compassion for the less fortunate is a weakness. What happens when there are too many deer in an area? Disease ends up reducing the population unless humans allow each other to hunt them. So why do we continue to fight against nature? If its not compassion shown to less fortunate humans, its vegans thinking its wrong to kill poor little ole bambi's momma or poppa?

You just epic failed at what a scientific theory actual is, try again.

[alfablue]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

So the "Theory" of Evolution is not a theory anymore?

And so it doesn't even have to be "believed", it just is? And hence my question, why do humans then, do so much to usurp the natural way of things? Why do we help the weak to survive? Does this not weaken the human race? Shouldn't we let the weak not survive?

I'm not saying, I'm just asking. It's a philosophical question, if evolution just is, why do humans not cooperate with it? What is the purpose or reasoning behind such acts? How does it help the human race? According to evolution, compassion for the less fortunate is a weakness. What happens when there are too many deer in an area? Disease ends up reducing the population unless humans allow each other to hunt them. So why do we continue to fight against nature? If its not compassion shown to less fortunate humans, its vegans thinking its wrong to kill poor little ole bambi's momma or poppa?

You seem to think that compassion fight evolution. It does not, what so ever. In fact, it's a byproduct of evolution. The key point is that evolution makes changes so that the species will better survive. Compassion for other humans is a trait that helps keep the human species successful- well ahead of other species. The trait of our ability to understand disease and compensate for it is also an evolutionary trait- all of them means that our species can continue including what would be considered weak for other species.

Compassion also means that we consider more than just our own offspring- we consider the whole tribe as important- again, furthering the species. Extending that to non human compassion isn't that much of a stretch.

[joecct]

...Compassion also means that we consider more than just our own offspring- we consider the whole tribe as important- again, furthering the species. Extending that to non human compassion isn't that much of a stretch.

That's a Western trait. There are many parts of the world that family comes before and to exclusion of everything else.

Then again, I must be a Neanderthal as I'm not sacrificing my family for the whole.

[alfablue]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

That's a Western trait. There are many parts of the world that family comes before and to exclusion of everything else.

Then again, I must be a Neanderthal as I'm not sacrificing my family for the whole.

Keep thinking that, in spite of evidence against it. It's not a "western" thing- it just happens. All over the world. All over history. Where it fails is when tribe A is put up against tribe B, aka war. That's when compassion ends.

And I fail to see how compassion means you have to sacrifice your family for the tribe. You are making that up.

[Kepler]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

According to evolution, compassion for the less fortunate is a weakness.

On the contrary, there's plenty of support for the proposition that altruism is an evolutionarily successful strategy.

[Kepler]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

That's a Western trait. There are many parts of the world that family comes before and to exclusion of everything else.

Then again, I must be a Neanderthal as I'm not sacrificing my family for the whole.

True story: the Nat Geo spit in a tube genetics thingy says I am 0.5% Neanderthal.

[FredsDeadFriend]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

What an odd post.

First, why is compassion for the less fortunate a "Christian" thing? Compassion is part of human nature, not exclusive to Christianity nor even religion as a whole.

Second- why are you assuming that the poor are the ones who are the ones in line for evolutionary consequences? Last I checked, all of the "issues" that would be "solved" by applying harsh evolutionary spotlight on them are pretty equally distributed among all classes- everyone has defect problems that hamper their ability to survive on their own. The only reason the "rich" can get a pass is that they can afford to keep their poor line of offspring alive.

Third- money and the concept around it is a human thing, so using that as some kind of filter for evolution is total crap.

Fourth- the ability to take care of others, thus dealing with flaws in humans that would net in early death for most animals is very unique. Which means the whole idea of having a doctor perform any action to keep a person alive negates any application of "evolution" to the human race.

All in all, your post is misplaced on many lines.

#1 - Sorry, in the town where I grew up, everyone was a Christian, and if they weren't, they didn't tell anyone. Maybe I should have said it was a religious thing, but then you'd argue its not a religious thing either, its just a part of human nature, but that's either not true, or it's a flaw, a weakness, and only found in the weak minded of the species, and I would argue it is NOT a part of human nature. If it was a part of human nature than all humans would be compassionate, but they are not. Humans do not fight against their natural compassionate natures, just the opposite. If not for entities out there constantly trying to pull at their heartstrings, the average human is selfish and would or does only take care of themselves. Even when the majority of the population was Christian in this country, the Priests and Pastors and Evangelists had to do and say things to inspire congregants to cough up some of their dough. And now that fewer and fewer people are going to church every Sunday, if at all, or even believing in a God anymore, they are becoming more and more self absorbed. And even when they become involved in some cause, its a cause they personally choose to embrace for some reason, and often because another human being did or said something to compel or inspire them to take up that cause. If animal rights groups weren't filming caged animals or scenes from slaughter houses, at least some of the people who go vegan wouldn't have. And you are right, its not just a religious or Christian thing, there are compassionate atheists out there, but Atheists don't have a set of rules, there is no Atheist guide book out there compelling all atheists to be compassionate, or to be anything, really, Atheists for the most part just do what their own brain concludes is the thing to do, so that is almost exclusively a religious thing, and very much so a Christian thing. It's a tenant taught to all Christians, or the guidebook, the rule book says its supposed to be taught to all believers. But that guidebook also says that humans are by nature, selfish and sinful and that they need to fight against their natural inclinations. There is vastly more greed, war, theft, etc. going on around the world than there is truly compassionate acts. Most of the religions of the world try to influence and inspire people to go against their natural inclinations.

Second - The poor are poor for a reason. In nature, in the animal kingdom, its usually the strongest male that is the one that eats first and mates first. Having speed or strength, and hence food, these are forms of currency. In cave man days, the same thing, the most attractive female was desired by the most males, but only the strongest, or smartest males got to mate with her. So his speed and/or strength and/or skill at hunting garnered him more meat, or his finding the nicest cave, those were forms of currency that helped him not only survive, but procreate and pass on his stronger traits somehow to his offspring. Now currency ALSO comes in the form of paper and/or electronic money. Without compassionate people, the poor would not eat and would eventually not survive, well, except for the strong and the smart ones, for they would turn to stealing food, to survive. But the dumb or weak or slow would get caught.

Third - so what if money and the concept of it is a human thing? Humans are a part of the animal kingdom, right? Does not the Theory of Evolution, sorry, its not a theory, it just is, so does not evolution explain humanity's presence on this planet? And in this world, the dumb, in general, do not have the money, nor do the weak, unless they are also smart. Nowadays more than ever, a strong brain I'll call it, or a strong body, is what gets you the money, and the money is what gets you the big house and all the toys, and either the strong body or the strong mind along with the big house and the security and comfort that comes with having a big house, is what gets that individual the strong mate. Or maybe a strong personality or a strong face, and when I say strong in those regards, I mean that in a general sense, of being the most attractive. If you are dumb, physically weak, with an ugly face and a crappy personality, it's less likely you will find a strong mate, although because of the weakness of compassion amongst some humans, the ugly and weak and stupid and because of those things, for the most part poor people are helped along and helped to survive so they couple together and mate and have stupid, weak and ugly offspring. So IF, evolution was allowed to play its natural part in our society, unhindered by compassion, the dumb and ugly and weak and poor would eventually die off, either via actual death before procreating, or because they did something to strengthen themselves. Worked out and got stronger, went to school and got smarter, got a make over and got more attractive, adjusted their personalities to become more attractive, etc.. Hence ending their status as a weak member of the species. This may happen eventually anyway, with overpopulation, disease may end up reducing the population, by taking out those with the weakest immune systems. And again, how money plays a part as a filter for evolution, as those with money can eat healthy, go to the gym, buy and take multi-vitamins and healthy supplements and can afford to go to the doctor and can afford medicine.

Just because compassion within some humans prevents money from being as much of a filter here in America doesn't mean it wouldn't be if not for that compassion. Maybe you should get out and see the world, go to 3rd world countries, to countries where people DO starve to death and then tell me money is not, to some degree, a kind of filter for evolution? The rich in those countries eat well and don't starve and don't die young of diseases, etc..


Fourth - my original post about evolution was in response to the discussion of hospitals making or losing money. So there again comes the whole money thing that you don't think is a kind of filter for evolution. IF, compassionate people stopped being compassionate, then hospitals would only take patients with money, the Govt would stop trying to get universal health care and the poor would not be able to get access to health care and would eventually start dying off and the #s of poor in the world would shrink via death or some form of strength that was used to get what they needed, such as the strength to break into places where food is stored and to fight off gaurds, or the strength of mind to get in undetected.

So no, my post was not misplaced "on many lines".

I'm not claiming my post or my opinions are perfect and flawless, and hence why my posts get responded to, and not just read and accepted as fact. It's a discussion. I make an argument, you make your counter argument, others chirp in with their opinions, all of our opinions are out there to be accepted or deemed not worthy of acceptance, discussion continues, more arguments are made, rarely is anyone convinced of something they weren't already convinced of, but it happens occasionally.


Some people don't believe in evolution, or at least not macro-evolution, and so they'd have a different take on why compassion still exists or why it should continue to exist and be encouraged.

But for those who believe in evolution or just assume it is, I'm asking, what good comes from showing compassion???


We show compassion for deer and they overpopulate and disease cuts down the population, so why show compassion to deer when its not really even doing what is best for deer? What is best for deer is the DNR allowing for the hunting of a regulated # of deer during certain periods of time during the year.

SO....

I ask again, from an evolutionary standpoint, what good comes from showing compassion to the less fortunate of the world?

[FredsDeadFriend]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

Watch, he’s going to ask why there are still monkeys if evolution exists.

Why would I do that? I'm NOT questioning evolution. I am questioning why compassion seems to hold sway over so many people who supposedly believe in evolution? It just doesn't make sense to me? Explain it to me?

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

Why would I do that? I'm NOT questioning evolution. I am questioning why compassion seems to hold sway over so many people who supposedly believe in evolution? It just doesn't make sense to me? Explain it to me?

READ. Kepler already addressed this.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ns-psychology/

[FredsDeadFriend]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

You seem to think that compassion fight evolution. It does not, what so ever. In fact, it's a byproduct of evolution. The key point is that evolution makes changes so that the species will better survive. Compassion for other humans is a trait that helps keep the human species successful- well ahead of other species. The trait of our ability to understand disease and compensate for it is also an evolutionary trait- all of them means that our species can continue including what would be considered weak for other species.

Compassion also means that we consider more than just our own offspring- we consider the whole tribe as important- again, furthering the species. Extending that to non human compassion isn't that much of a stretch.

I disagree. What you think compassion does to strengthen the human race, is akin to vegans feeling not killing deer is helping out all deer.

The longer human compassion gets in the way of evolution, the worse nature's response to that interference will be.

Humans can not outsmart nature, when they try, eventually nature gets the last laugh, in some way or another.

Showing compassion to the weak in a society and allowing them to survive and sometimes breed, weakens the species as a whole, doesn't it?

[FredsDeadFriend]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

READ. Kepler already addressed this.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ns-psychology/

I don't buy it. But that's just me.

I work with a lot of people that hunt deer. Try telling them that they should show compassion to deer by not hunting deer and see what they say in response.

[GrinCDXX]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

#1...

Congratulations on posting that huge reply that nobody is going to read.

[alfablue]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

I disagree. What you think compassion does to strengthen the human race, is akin to vegans feeling not killing deer is helping out all deer.

The longer human compassion gets in the way of evolution, the worse nature's response to that interference will be.

Humans can not outsmart nature, when they try, eventually nature gets the last laugh, in some way or another.

Showing compassion to the weak in a society and allowing them to survive and sometimes breed, weakens the species as a whole, doesn't it?

No, it doesn't. Keeping people alive keeps the species going. The whole fact that weak have been protected for many millennia should point that out.

The idea that you want to stop doing that is pretty scary, and leads down a very bad path. Especially if you want to actively go after the weak/poor. Can we call you Hitler, or Stalin?

[alfablue]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

I don't buy it. But that's just me.

I work with a lot of people that hunt deer. Try telling them that they should show compassion to deer by not hunting deer and see what they say in response.

Well, there's also a natural trait that people go out and get food for their families. Kinda hard to avoid eating. Hunting is just that.

But humans are a species that does not eat each other. And that, over time, working together has proven to work better than alone. Hence, compassion for people other than your immediate family.

This can't be that hard to understand.

[FredsDeadFriend]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

Are all poor people poor because they are weak? No. Sometimes circumstances come into play that couldn't be predicted or controlled.

Are the concepts of love or kindness or compassion inherently weaknesses? No, of course not. That is not what I am arguing or what I believe or what I am asking, either.

Is there a place for compassion within a society? Sure there is. But only some shows of compassion and charity help society. Other's become ways of enabling the weak or the lazy or the criminally minded/motivated.



Saw a movie awhile back, Sean Penn played a man with the IQ of an 8 year old. May have been called "Sam"?

Was he a weak member of society because of his low IQ???

No.

Why?

Because he was strong in so many other ways. He was a hard working, was kind and caring, and had a wonderful personality and was a truly good person, he had strength of character. All of those STRONG traits is why he made a wonderful father and why he raised up a strong young girl, who also turned out to be a very intelligent girl as well. And I bring up this movie because I believe it was based on a true story. So it wasn't some dreamed up Hollywood fantasy. Maybe in cave man days, his low IQ may have cost him and his offspring their lives? Maybe not? But in modern society, we have more resources. Less intelligent people can still be hard workers and absolutely can be good people and can have intelligent children.


So lack of intelligence alone does not make someone weak, and hence a potential casualty of natural selection, survival of the fittest, if that was allowed to freely operate without interference by humans.


And I'm NOT arguing for or against the concept of compassion.

Just playing devils advocate and spurring discussion on an issue that I've wondered about is all. I like picking other people's brains.