Why do people complain then do this

Originally posted by Gregory
He(?) asked why the world was getting worse when evolution says it should be getting better, I say he doesn't understand evolution, you say "What, you don't think the world is decaying, huhhuhhuh?" and I pointed out that evolution had nothing to do with whether the world is getting "better" (and therefore, whether the world is decaying is completely irrelevant). Unless you were changing the subject--"forget about evolution, what about the state of the world?"--my response was perfectly relevant.

And no, the world isn't decaying; it's always been like this. Actually, it's getting better in many ways.

That's the problem when you jump into a thread randomly 😮

Poorly constructed points on my part.

Basically if the species is 'getting better' then what about other things.

As far as the 'decay' what about things such as corruption and murder?
If our species is supposed to be passing down these better traits as time passes why do we still have the same decay, the murder/corruption mentioned above, that we've had 500 or 1000 or 3000 years ago, etc.
Granted we have had improvement but still.

I guess I end up bringing up a different question which is how does evolution and the state of mankind's morality interact if we are supposedly improving?

Quite sorry if what I'm saying doesn't make any sense. 🙂

Originally posted by Echuu
That's the problem when you jump into a thread randomly 😮

Poorly constructed points on my part.

Basically if the species is 'getting better' then what about other things.

As far as the 'decay' what about things such as corruption and murder?
If our species is supposed to be passing down these better traits as time passes why do we still have the same decay, the murder/corruption mentioned above, that we've had 500 or 1000 or 3000 years ago, etc.
Granted we have had improvement but still.

I guess I end up bringing up a different question which is how does evolution and the state of mankind's morality interact if we are supposedly improving?

Quite sorry if what I'm saying doesn't make any sense. 🙂

We are not getting better, because you would have to define what better means. We are always striving for balance with an advantage.

If our species is supposed to be passing down these better traits as time passes why do we still have the same decay, the murder/corruption mentioned above, that we've had 500 or 1000 or 3000 years ago, etc.

It's not a bad question, but you have to remember what evolution is based on: survival of the fittest. Suppose you have two tribes of people: one of them is willing to steal from neighboring tribes, and the other isn't. There's a draught, crops fail, and a famine results. The tribe that's willing to steal their neighbors food, even though it will result in starvation for the victims, will eat and survive; the tribe that refuses to do this will have nothing to eat, and die. Thus even though most people would argue that stealing is wrong, the tribe that holds those beliefs will be "selected" out of existance. Likewise, if I'm willing to murder a romantic rival, I'm more likely to get the girl and therefore more likely to pass down my genes. On a similar note, a man who's willing to lie to a woman to get her in bed is more likely to pass on his genes than someone who isn't. And so forth. Basically, natural selection is a totally amoral force of nature, which is why it hasn't led to morality in humans.

In theory, I suppose natural selection might be able to result in a highly moral society, but only with some pretty draconian measures. If you wanted to select against dishonesty, for example, you'd have to make sure that dishonest people didn't breed, by, for example, forcefully steralizing anyone caught telling a lie. Assuming that dishonesty is at least partly genetic, you might be able to stamp it out after a few generations.

Originally posted by Gregory
It's not a bad question, but you have to remember what evolution is based on: survival of the fittest. Suppose you have two tribes of people: one of them is willing to steal from neighboring tribes, and the other isn't. There's a draught, crops fail, and a famine results. The tribe that's willing to steal their neighbors food, even though it will result in starvation for the victims, will eat and survive; the tribe that refuses to do this will have nothing to eat, and die. Thus even though most people would argue that stealing is wrong, the tribe that holds those beliefs will be "selected" out of existance. Likewise, if I'm willing to murder a romantic rival, I'm more likely to get the girl and therefore more likely to pass down my genes. On a similar note, a man who's willing to lie to a woman to get her in bed is more likely to pass on his genes than someone who isn't. And so forth. Basically, natural selection is a totally amoral force of nature, which is why it hasn't led to morality in humans.

In theory, I suppose natural selection might be able to result in a highly moral society, but only with some pretty draconian measures. If you wanted to select against dishonesty, for example, you'd have to make sure that dishonest people didn't breed, by, for example, forcefully steralizing anyone caught telling a lie. Assuming that dishonesty is at least partly genetic, you might be able to stamp it out after a few generations.

Ah gotcha...

I've heard that in some Middle Eastern countries(most likely others too I can't recall) that if caught stealing your hands will be chopped off. Quite effective means of stopping people from stealing yet not the greatest course of action you could think of.

so cutting ones hand of aint stealing his/hers chance to be " normal"?

Originally posted by finti
so cutting ones hand of aint stealing his/hers chance to be " normal"?

? uhhh I don't exactly see what you're point is here. I was referring to Gregory's mention of draconian measures.

Originally posted by Echuu
Ah gotcha...

I've heard that in some Middle Eastern countries(most likely others too I can't recall) that if caught stealing your hands will be chopped off. Quite effective means of stopping people from stealing yet not the greatest course of action you could think of.