Let me first say that I'm not at all against asking the questions you're asking, or wondering about what social system can best use the results of the TOE. I think they're good questions to ask.
And with that out of the way, ... I think you're way off the mark here. Without having read the thread, I'll just address you directly.
With TOE in mind, is a humane, compasionate and individualist society not counter productive for the evolution of man?
It depends on what you view man AS. I think it is clear that man is a social being; i.e. man needs to work in groups. I also think it is clear that man is physically slow and weak, and needs to use tools to compensate. If you disagree with these or simply don't see them, I can elaborate.
But given those things... like WK says, there's no reason to think that humanity and compassion are both bad traits within a society. Of course it depends on the dynamic of the group, as well as the environment outside of the group, but there are at least some situations where humanity and compassion are selective. You should search for threads on "the golden rule" and "objective morality" around here, and I think you can read a bunch about that.
Hitler said it is unhealthy for any nation to live in peace for longer than 20 years. He said that violence must be part of the political process. He wanted to create a world where you are either master or slave, and where doctors look after the (genetic) health of the nation, while the induvidual is irrelevant. The weak may be used for experimentation to benefit the strong.
So it looks like Hitler has two parts of his philosophy; first, man is a social being, and is strongest in a group. Second, violent and aggressive groups will have a reproductive (including survival) advantage. Third, weak individuals make a group weak, and strong individuals make a group strong.
I'm not much of one on sociology of anthropology, but I can't imagine group dynamics being so simple. In my experience, a strong group isn't one that's filled with aggressive people, but one that has many people playing different roles. We can't all be the leader of the group, we can't all be on the front line, etc. Those with specialized roles, and specialized attitudes, are the successful ones I see. this is especially true in team sports.
Who in an aggressive group wants to be a doctor? Or do research? Or to collect trash?
Is this not the kind of social structure that is needed to direct human evolution to a stronger future?
There are two kinds of competitions going on, and you're assuming that success in one means you're best fit for success in the other. You're saying that if one group of men can defeat other groups of men (competition between men), that that group has the best chance to survive in the world. Is that true? s,
Given the very basic important properties of man above, it seems to me that, since man is physically weak, men who best compensate for this weakness have the best chance to survive.
Is there any problem matching an aggressive, violent culture with one that wisely uses tools? Well if recent history is any indicator... yes. Is it just a coincidence that the nations with the best military tools are also the nations who destroy the foundation on which they live with their environmentally destructive manufacturing methods and lifestyles?
Another point is, survival in the future depends on what you see the future as. Usually, we assume the future will be just like now... but that's a difficult assumption to make. Especially given our dependence on non-renewable energy sources and on processes that are physically changing the earth on a timescale not to different from our own lifespans.
One might even argue that we should do away with all weaponary: battles must be won purely on physical superiority. If the slave is superior to his master, then he must force his master into submission. When a leader gets old, he must be replaced with younger blood through violence, like it is the case in the animal world.
Now, this is really getting away from it, I think. We already said that man is physically weak; his ability to develop and use tools far outweigh physical abilities. If anything, I think man should (and will) become weaker and weaker. The brain will be used less and less for driving physical force, but instead becomes more and more integrated with tools. Our integration of tools and mind is very coarse now. If you can make the transition between thought and action of tools faster, you will have an advantage. One that's much better than any physical advantage you could develop.
Without God, there is no moral absolutes, and there is no purpose other than survival. Should this not be reflected in society?
I guess what I'm saying is... it is. In some cases, the environemnt of the earth was such that aggressive cultures dominated. In other cases, the environment was different, and cooperative cultures dominated.
Was Hitler right? Not at all. Things are not so fixed and rigid for ideas like Hitlers' to be true. Does that mean that all men are "truly" created equal? Well... there's no... GOD to answer that question. There is no BEING qualified to answer that question. The only thing we can do is either to CHOOSE to have that rule, or choose NOT to have that rule. And, as you can find in the morality threads, there's a lot of good reasons to CHOOSE to have that rule.
Thanks,
Ben
™ Version 4.2
