Is socialism detrimental to human evolution?
Evolution is the process by which organisms adapt to their environment by means of natural selection. If they can't adapt, they die off. I've been wondering if socialism is detrimental to human evolution. For example, if people have genetic diseases, isn't it better for them to die than for the government to sustain them and allow them to reproduce so their diseases are spread? If people are too weak and stupid to find ways to escape poverty, why allow them to pass their genes for low intelligence and laziness on? Socialism seems to eliminate the need for individuals to adapt. I find that troubling. If they can't adapt, then natural selection isn't being allowed to work its magic to improve the human race.
- EdgarLv 51 month agoFavourite answer
Clearly, it's dysgenic. The lower level people are out breeding the middle class because of Gibs.
- 1 month ago
1. Thats a great question to ask RUSSIA before the wall keeping them in came down. (UNITED SOCIAL SOCIALIST REPUBLIC) commonly known as the USSR...
,2. Thats a great question to ask in CUBA...3. Thats a great question to go ask in Vensulia..
- socialistpbLv 61 month ago
Socialism means no government and no classes, so you clearly don;'t know what you're talking about. And you seem not to understand evolution either.
- ZirpLv 71 month ago
nope. Capitalisms quest for profit may very well end human evolution this century or the next.
"Evolution is the process by which organisms adapt"
Not organisms, SPECIES
" if people have genetic diseases, isn't it better for them to die than for the government to sustain them"
No, them not reproducing would do
" If people are too weak and stupid to find ways to escape poverty"
"Escaping" poverty has nothing to do with being weak or stupid. It has to do with luck
"Socialism seems to eliminate the need for individuals to adapt"
No it doesn't
I find that troubling. If they can't adapt, then natural selection isn't being allowed to work its magic to improve the human race.
Like I said, natural selection isn't about INDIVIDUALS adapting
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- lareLv 71 month ago
the problem with your logic is how do you define an "improved" human? your assumption that natural selection always chooses the strongest is flawed. it ignores that survival is more dependent on being smartest. European explorers conquered the New World not because they were the stronger, but because they had gunpowder. Not knowing what the future holds means that any attempt to direct the course of evolution will lead to unintended outcomes. Natural selection is a process that occurs over hundreds if not thousands of generations. A human generation being about 20 years, that mean it would take 2000 to 20000 years for there to be a noticeable affect. Greeks of that ancient age thought homosexual men to be superior. Imagine if they acted on this to destroy all non-homosexual men, would we have "improved" humans now? i find it troubling that you can't accept the value of all humans.
- Max HooplaLv 71 month ago
Wackyness abounds in this forum.
- Anonymous1 month ago
Look at how horribly inbred the ruling classes are. For example Ivanka Trump has a bad case of Hapsburg jaw and Bloomberg’s skin looks like it’s about to fall off. Revolution of the proletariat can’t come soon enough!
- Spock (rhp)Lv 71 month ago
the left would argue that universal adoption of their caring outlook would be vast improvement in a social sense and that evolution should then be pro-socialism.
that their argument makes reference to their internal values, and thus is self-referential and invalid in logic, will not occur to them.
Evolution, of course, will not care about either position -- it will simply continue to do it's thing whether we like it or not.
Note: I assume without proof that social systems are subject to evolution and that they improve, from an evolutionary standpoint, under the usual adapt or die off scenarios.
- KjelstadLv 61 month ago
No. without socialism there would be no police, might would rule and the neanderthals would kill off the scientists.
- 1 month ago
Socialism guarantees basic human rights like health care. You don't have to be rich or employed to get it. Bernie 2020.