Evolution and Political Ideology

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
micatala
Site Supporter
Posts: 8338
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:04 pm

Evolution and Political Ideology

Post #1

Post by micatala »

http://billmoyers.com/2014/07/17/scient ... servative/


I had a hard time deciding where to put this thread. We don't have a Politics and Science subforum.


At any rate. I have at this point no position on the findings of this study, and allow that it is but in the initial research stages. I also acknowledge up front this is from Bill Moyers, who is clearly quite liberal. Nevertheless, here are the uestions for debate:

1) Does the idea that conservatism has certain evolutionary advantages have merit?

2) What evolutionary advantages would liberalism potentially have?
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn

WinePusher

Re: Evolution and Political Ideology

Post #2

Post by WinePusher »

micatala wrote: http://billmoyers.com/2014/07/17/scient ... servative/


I had a hard time deciding where to put this thread. We don't have a Politics and Science subforum.


At any rate. I have at this point no position on the findings of this study, and allow that it is but in the initial research stages. I also acknowledge up front this is from Bill Moyers, who is clearly quite liberal. Nevertheless, here are the uestions for debate:

1) Does the idea that conservatism has certain evolutionary advantages have merit?

2) What evolutionary advantages would liberalism potentially have?
I think I have a somewhat different take on this topic then a lot of people here have. I'll answer your question by doing a little experiment. Watch the first 5 mins of this video:



Now, do you aspire to be those people or do you envy them? Do you admire them or do you despise them? Do you want the government to tax them or do you think they should be allowed to keep most of what they have?

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24063
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #3

Post by McCulloch »

Look at health care. Conservative ideology stipulates free market distribution of health care. Liberal ideology views health care more communally, widely available and paid for by a progressive tax system. If conservative views were tied to an evolutionary view, it would have to be a form of social Darwinism. Rich are rich because of some genetic superiority; poor are poor because of some genetic defect. Therefore, for good of human species, rich should have better health care and if the poor die they they really ought to do so quickly and decrease the surplus population.
If liberal ideology were to be tied to an evolutionary viewpoint, it would be from point of view that survival of species is paramount, not necessarily competition of blood lines within our species on the basis of resistance to disease. Inferior health care among poor leads to more epidemics and lowered productivity among working classes. Both these factors negatively impact everyone even rich people.
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

User avatar
Mr.M
Student
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2013 12:55 am
Location: pennsylvania

Re: Evolution and Political Ideology

Post #4

Post by Mr.M »

[Replying to post 1 by micatala]

On the surface, I could see where maybe the conservative co-mingling of religion and government could keep the people in check and therefore more likely to survive.( no disrespect intended) There are a large number of empires that lasted a very long time by human standards with this sort of god/king model, but against the background of millions of years of evolution I don’t think it will have a direct effect unless it leads to an extinction level event. The same could be said for liberalism I think, replacing religion with nationalism or socialism. But this is an amateur opinion.

WinePusher

Post #5

Post by WinePusher »

McCulloch wrote:If conservative views were tied to an evolutionary view, it would have to be a form of social Darwinism. Rich are rich because of some genetic superiority; poor are poor because of some genetic defect.


This is grossly inaccurate. The actual viewpoints of conservatives is that people are where they are in life because of their own choices and responsibilities, while the viewpoint of liberals is that people are where they are in life because of uncontrollable external factors. None of this has to do with genetic predispositions.

According to conservatives, the rich are rich because they worked hard and the poor are poor because they don't work hard.

According to liberals, the rich are rich because of nothing they themselves did, but because of special opportunities and privileges and the poor are poor not because of anything they did, but because of a lack of opportunity and disadvantages.

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9129
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Post #6

Post by bluethread »

WinePusher wrote:
McCulloch wrote:If conservative views were tied to an evolutionary view, it would have to be a form of social Darwinism. Rich are rich because of some genetic superiority; poor are poor because of some genetic defect.


This is grossly inaccurate. The actual viewpoints of conservatives is that people are where they are in life because of their own choices and responsibilities, while the viewpoint of liberals is that people are where they are in life because of uncontrollable external factors. None of this has to do with genetic predispositions.

According to conservatives, the rich are rich because they worked hard and the poor are poor because they don't work hard.

According to liberals, the rich are rich because of nothing they themselves did, but because of special opportunities and privileges and the poor are poor not because of anything they did, but because of a lack of opportunity and disadvantages.
I believe that you are both calculating things improperly, because you are framing things in terms of rich and poor. That is not how nature works. Nature rewards those who make the best sustainable use of resources. Under both conservatism and liberalism, initially, those with the most resources get the best and those with the least suffer. Evolution speaks to ones ability to adapt, that is all about wealth( assets in production), not the amount of resources. That is how quickly can the use of those assets be adapted to a changing environment.

It is my view that capitalism is the more nimble of the economic theories. In fact, the left, with all of it's complaining about capitalists working the system, sells their programs on the line that they will not hurt the private economy, because it will adapt. Yes, it will adapt, but to the artificial environment of the left, which makes it less able to adapt to changes in the natural environment.

User avatar
micatala
Site Supporter
Posts: 8338
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:04 pm

Re: Evolution and Political Ideology

Post #7

Post by micatala »

WinePusher wrote:
micatala wrote: http://billmoyers.com/2014/07/17/scient ... servative/


I had a hard time deciding where to put this thread. We don't have a Politics and Science subforum.


At any rate. I have at this point no position on the findings of this study, and allow that it is but in the initial research stages. I also acknowledge up front this is from Bill Moyers, who is clearly quite liberal. Nevertheless, here are the uestions for debate:

1) Does the idea that conservatism has certain evolutionary advantages have merit?

2) What evolutionary advantages would liberalism potentially have?
I think I have a somewhat different take on this topic then a lot of people here have. I'll answer your question by doing a little experiment. Watch the first 5 mins of this video:



Now, do you aspire to be those people or do you envy them?
Neither.

Do you admire them or do you despise them?
False dichotomy.

I certainly do not admire 'them' simply because they are rich. On the other hand, I find Bill Gates at least somewhat admirable for his ingenuity and entrepreneurship. He has also had a huge impact on the culture at large because of the innovative technology he helped develop. You could suggest this technology may have happened anyway, just with a different author, but then that person would also be admirable for the same reasons.

Do I despise people just because they are rich? No. Trump I think is somewhat despicable, but in my view it is because he has so little regard for the truth. I also do not found clownishness all that admirable.
Do you want the government to tax them or do you think they should be allowed to keep most of what they have?

False dichotomy.

I believe in progress taxation. I don't think this has to amount to effective tax rates over 50\%. I think others have argued elsewhere that even when marginal tax rates were 90%, the effective tax rate was not even close to that. I am certainly fine with the mega-rich keeping 'most of what they have.'

I do think capital gains taxes are appropriate, but am open to arguments on that point. I think they could be made progressive, as income taxes are.
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn

User avatar
micatala
Site Supporter
Posts: 8338
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:04 pm

Post #8

Post by micatala »

WinePusher wrote:
McCulloch wrote:If conservative views were tied to an evolutionary view, it would have to be a form of social Darwinism. Rich are rich because of some genetic superiority; poor are poor because of some genetic defect.


This is grossly inaccurate. The actual viewpoints of conservatives is that people are where they are in life because of their own choices and responsibilities, while the viewpoint of liberals is that people are where they are in life because of uncontrollable external factors. None of this has to do with genetic predispositions.

According to conservatives, the rich are rich because they worked hard and the poor are poor because they don't work hard.

According to liberals, the rich are rich because of nothing they themselves did, but because of special opportunities and privileges and the poor are poor not because of anything they did, but because of a lack of opportunity and disadvantages.

This is somewhat fair, but quite oversimplified. Both views have some aspects of truth to them, but ignore variation and complexity.

Some rich people got where they are through very hard work, ingenuity, taking risks, etc. Some got their riches handed to them. Some of the latter also work hard to increase or keep what they have, but they clearly had an advantage. Some of these people squander that advantage.

Some poor people are poor because they are lazy or make bad decisions or whatever. On the other hand, some poor people work very hard and/or are smart. Sometimes they had difficulties that they end up not overcoming. Some of these are personal in nature, but history shows there have been institutional, racial, etc. difficulties some groups have experienced that others don't. These latter can often be overcome by individuals, they just have to work harder or be smarter on the average than those who do not experience them.


I think there are experiments on behavior we could research that could throw light on this. One I recall had a finding that people who experience good fortune through no merit of their own often come to feel they deserved it.
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn

WinePusher

Post #9

Post by WinePusher »

bluethread wrote:I believe that you are both calculating things improperly, because you are framing things in terms of rich and poor. That is not how nature works. Nature rewards those who make the best sustainable use of resources. Under both conservatism and liberalism, initially, those with the most resources get the best and those with the least suffer. Evolution speaks to ones ability to adapt, that is all about wealth( assets in production), not the amount of resources. That is how quickly can the use of those assets be adapted to a changing environment.
I don't really approve of the way you use the word 'nature' and 'resources' here. People aren't just born into nature, they're born into societies and communities. Also, people aren't endowed with the same opportunities at birth. Some people are born with a great many more opportunities than others are.

Now, in regards to society the only relevant component of evolutionary theory is survival of the fittest, which is what I think you're trying to say. Those who possess an evolutionary advantage in society are those who are the fittest, and the word 'fittest' encompasses a variety of things ranging from intellect, diligence, work ethic, etc.
bluethread wrote:It is my view that capitalism is the more nimble of the economic theories. In fact, the left, with all of it's complaining about capitalists working the system, sells their programs on the line that they will not hurt the private economy, because it will adapt. Yes, it will adapt, but to the artificial environment of the left, which makes it less able to adapt to changes in the natural environment.
Under capitalism a great majority of people succeed and prosper and only a minority of people fail and suffer. Those who fail and suffer under capitalism are generally taken care of by both private charity and public safety nets. Under socialism the great majority of people fail and suffer and only the minutely small minority succeed and prosper, and this minority of people are usually those within the state. Liberals mistakenly believe that their 'programs' and policies will help those who are poor and disadvantaged, but unfortunately history and facts have proven them dead wrong.

User avatar
Furrowed Brow
Site Supporter
Posts: 3720
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:29 am
Location: Here
Been thanked: 1 time
Contact:

Re: Evolution and Political Ideology

Post #10

Post by Furrowed Brow »

WinePusher wrote:I think I have a somewhat different take on this topic then a lot of people here have. I'll answer your question by doing a little experiment. Watch the first 5 mins of this video:



Now, do you aspire to be those people
No.
WinePusher wrote:..or do you envy them?
No.
Winepusher wrote:Do you admire them....
No.
Winepusher wrote:...or do you despise them?
Them? As a generic class no. whilst they are the winners they are also trapped within the same basic system as the rest of us. Given massive wealth finding a tax haven is rational. Though there are some specific examples I do hate. For instance our Prime Minister David Cameron once belong to the Billingdon Club. An elite fraternity that requires initiates to burn a £50 note in front of a homeless person. I have to admit to hating that. I also admit to hating the system that allows wealth and power to accumulate to the few. Wealth buys political influence...and that is wrong. The rich should have no more political influence than the homeless.
WinePusher wrote:Do you want the government to tax them or do you think they should be allowed to keep most of what they have?
I want to live in a society that rewards people with talent and who work hard, but not to the point that it perpetuates injustice and allows the emergence of elite classes to dominate society such that laws and policies are made in their interest, or allows them to buy "justice" for them. A ratio of about 10 to one between richest and poorest is a number I usually fall back on.

Whilst we live under the present economic system yes the rich need to pay a lot more tax. But the question of taxation deflects away from what is really needed and that is a change of economic systems which includes a fundamental change to the monetary system and economics polices that promote cooperatives and democracy in the work place.

Post Reply