Chomsky is great with facts, history, and the enlightenment of science … I'd like it if he had a solution to these problems that he so articulately explains.
"the strongest wins" does that mean "only the strongest ones survive and all the weak ones die"? if this is the case, then surviving "strongest" ones will struggle for leadership among each other & therefore they would kill one another for power, and the weaker ones among them die so there will only be the strongest strongest ones left, and they again fight among each other for power too, untill all get killed. OR it means, "the strongest ones win over controling and enslaving the weakest ones".
I do not believe in Darwin's Theory of evolution. Its just the wealthy industrialists version of "Royal Blood" - the theory that legitimizes their rule. They are successful because they have better genes. therefore they are more deserving than the rest of us.
I'm not religious. I just believe in a different theory of evolution - one set forth by Darcy Went worth Thompson. You are not taught this theory, because it does not fit the philosophy of the status quo.
Please. Darwin's Theory of Evolution does NOT say that only the strongest survive. Actually egalitarian huntherer gatherers societies survied because they cooperated and shared food with eachother. So the genes of the most equal groups survived. You don't know anything about evolution.
@thefranciswatts the version of evolution you talk about justifying success of the wealthy is not what darwin's theory is about that is social darwinism which is what this video sets out to falsify.
Darwin's theory essentially says that those that have higher reproductive success due to natural variation produce more offspring and thus their genes have a higher frequency in the subsequent generation and that is all.
@thefranciswatts Also Thompson's theory has no explanation of a mechanism which causes the transformations and those it is not a viable alternative to evolution which has the mechanism of natural selection by differential reproductive success to explain how the gradual changes of evolution occur.
Not to say Thompson is wrong just that research needs to be done (likely in genetics with regard to his theory) before it can be proven false or corroborated.
The term Social Darwinism seem quite obviously backwards. If you want to claim that in a capitalist society that it will be "nature and bread and blood and claw" then it sounds like it will just be more horrific natural selection, as society isn't determining who fails and who succeeds but the capitalist system. Social Darwinism sounds much more like a society doing the selection process.
Please. Darwin's Theory of Evolution does NOT say that only the strongest survive. Actually egalitarian huntherer gatherers societies survied because they cooperated and shared food with eachother. So the genes of the most equal groups survived. You don't know anything about evolution.
i love chomsky, he can so brilliantly advocate total stupidity,and at the same time totally expose the the fallacies of his own position, as hes doing here.
he's the worlds funniest, but hardest to get, comedian
@sugarcanegray everybody always wants to engage a debate on these pages. i'm not a debater, the worth you place on what i said is for you to decide.I'm not interested in explanations or proofs or arguments or debates, if you don't understand what i said, try to figure it out for yourself,if its worthless,discard it. I'm not your debating partner.
@roman14032 So yes, your statement was worthless then.
Personally, never found any flaws in Chomsky's arguments myself, in fact, I would consider him to be one of the most important and honest intellectuals of the past 50 years. But there you go.
@dasGagaTier actually it have something to do with it and it was developed by a close relative of Darwin his name is Dalton -or Galton- , it the same theory applied for sociology instead of biology and actually it make sense and considered a illegitimate theory for most of the Sociology scientists
@wilkja02 I guess it must sound like droning on if you don't have the mental capacity to understand. I mean, somebody who was intelligent who disagreed with him would come up with a cogent argument. You sir, can consider youself hoist by your own petard ;).
@daverowbotham Try reading Hitchen's and Chomsky's back ad forth in the nation and then try to tell me he is both intellectual honest with himself and also that no one has ever made a coherent argument against his positions. Chomsky is a shell of his former self drowning in a sea of contrived moral equivalence. And if you can bear it, alan dershowitz tears him apart in a debate about his position on israel and shows how he is willing to bend or invent facts to fit his worldview.
@wilkja02@wilkja02 which debate is that, not the one after the pullout? then I suggest you look up Ron Pundak and his report which clearly credits Chomsky's version...Alan Dershowitz is on the side that Pundak warns has rewritten history...it's in the report from camp davis to taba....
@wilkja02 lol what? Hitchens was arguing that Chomsky drew a "moral equivalence" between 911 and Clinton's 1999 attack on Sundan's al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant. Chomsky drew no such thing, indicated as much, and thus had the last word in the debate (always revealing). The 2006 Harvard debate between D and C indicated only that Chomsky has more reliable sources, from Miguel Moratinos (EU rapporteur) to Ron Pundak (Israeli scholar regarding the maps). You're a charlatan, bud.
Dershowitz tears Chomsky apart? Really? On what what point? Seriously, I want an answer here. If you actually KNEW the scholarship on the Israel-Palestine Conflict (which you don't) you'd realize what a slimy used car salesman Alan Dershowitz is. "The Case for Israel" is a piece of discredited trash.
I don't see how a simple term like "nanny state" can totally shift an attitude. A state that subsidizes institutions is can be an example of social darwinism. A strong institution can derive power from investing in other institutions but since it's the nanny state then it's totally different? I always laugh when i hear conservatives talk about the government needing to be runned like a business as if it wasn't already. They think debt is something that is universal.
The reason that Goldman Sachs are not example of "survival of the fittest" is the fact that they are protected by the government from the mob. If there was no government, and they rob the mob like they did, there would be lynching, which would be survival of the fittest. The weak (greedy) perish, the mob persists.
anyone with a brain by now knows chumpsky is a zionist Mossad insider made to shield public attention away from the real enemies of the world. Its not the US government despite what he says but the zionist banking elite and there proxy organizations such as the rothchilds, the tri lateral commision, and even the fucking IMF! The social darwinists are just one piece of the pie which the zionists promote in there war agains't the religious majority.
A human's niche is his intelligence, like a cheetah's niche is his speed, so there often inconsistencies in terms of social Darwinism. Because: Intelligent people aren't always the most successful people on earth
You're all fools, to think that man has the propensity and/or the ability, to discern if there is a GOD or not, when mankind hasn't the wherewithal or mental capacity to do so....keep debating what you will never know...conjecture and waste your time....after all, what else do you have to do?
The Bible is based on Survival of the Spiritually Fittest!!! In a nutshell: if you are "good", you go to heaven, and if you are "bad", you go to hell. I do not see why there was a big rift between Darwin and the Church, other than the possibility that Darwin may have "stole", accidently or otherwise, a central unconscious assumption/premise of the Bible.
Your observation is flawed, as your statement regarding the "central unconscious assumption/premise of the Bible" as you put it, is incorrect. Rather, the Bible declares that ALL are "bad" and that only by the work of the only one "good", that is God, can anyone go to heaven. This is a fundamental and foundational difference.
@Mathetes76 Yes, God is a Spiritul Darwinist. He choses the spiritually fit from the bad, so what? Either way, only a select few get to "Heaven". "God" selects them, who cares? It's still only a select few!!! It's still Spiritual Survival of the Fittest.
No, you didn't read my comment carefully; I said "...the Bible declares that ALL are "bad"...". That means there are NO "spiritually fit" to choose. However, God does indeed choose but is not based on the merits of those whom He chooses. It is instead by His own imputed "goodness", or "spiritual fitness" if you like, to those He has chosen. This is His work of grace, not a meritocracy. Again, spiritual speaking, there are NO "fittest" and NONE "survive" in of themselves.
@Mathetes76 prove it!!! You are relying on irrationality and some magical notions to argue your point. You are arguing from opinion based on your subjective interpretation of a 2000+ year old mythology. If it works for you, go for it. Just don't pretend you are arguing something that can be proven or that you are rational!!!
What on earth are you talking about??? Irrespective of the veracity of the Biblical gospel, its outline and detail is what it is... the fact that you are ignorant of it, & therefore your original premise is entirely redundant, has nothing whatsoever to do with my view or "subjective interpretation". What I have stated is to be clearly found within the pages of holy scripture and is orthodox Biblical Christian doctrine. Attempting to move the goal posts doesn't mean you 'score'!
@Mathetes76 if want to believe your mythology, then go and believe it. Just don't expect everyone else to believe your mythology. Notwithstanding anything written, the application of those written words is what counts, not your attempt to make the Bible as the final word or to use words as if they were the final "truth". The Bible as good as book as it is, it is still one form of mythology. The Bible, as a text wrriten by men, still contains the genesis of Darwin's theory.
Still hung up on my beliefs rather than addressing the flaws in your argumentation I see. Your own words here answer your own point: "The Bible...contains the genesis of Darwin's theory". Okay, "if you want to believe your mythology, then go and believe it. Just don't expect everyone else to believe your mythology".
PS. Although I freely admit I believe the Bible to be "truth", nowhere did I rely on that assertion...I simply pointed out the factual error of your hypothesis.
@TrafficSpark its not about being good or bad, my dear, its about believeing the right god. ghandi, as good as he was, is in hell, according to your bible. as for evolution, it contradicts the whole 7 day creation.
@avalsonline2 you probably also believe the earth is only 4000 plus year old. But, if that works for you, then go for it. just don't expect everybody to believe in your mythology.
@TrafficSpark no, i dont. i dismiss the creationist view for what it is, pure and utter crap. but neither i nor you can deny that creatinst movement is real and relevant, and that it was inspired by the Bible.
One of the primary flaws, or leaps of logic, in the "surival of the fittest" approach to morality and "social Darwinism" is that, Darwin's theory of evolution isn't a prescription... it is a description. It doesn't describe how nature should be, or how it should work; it only describes how nature is and how it does work.
@QED1QED2 "Darwin's theory of evolution isn't a prescription; it's a description". Did you come up with that yourself? If so then hats off to you. It's concise but incredibly perceptive and eloquent. I intend to use that phrase in the future.
@duubamg Why? Because if we take nature as a model we can see the incredible accomplishments of societies and colonies that stick together and work for each other's benefit and the good of their society. It works with bees, ants, animal who hunt together, etc. In this paradigm we see no in-fighting - only cooperation and mutual help.Humans can and should take lesson from this and stop fighting over petty differences, help one another survive and prosper and all will live and benefit.
@JerrySPsy Well, if we look at nature we could get other things too. For example, a strong male lion keeps all the young weak lions away and get all the females for itself. And I think you would agree that the life of lions is much more interesting than those of some insects, so to speak.
@duubamg Lions show cooperation and often hunt together for the mutual benefit of all. If some behaviors are selfish why should we take our lessons from that? You reap with you sow in life and we all took the position of helping one another, being kind to one another, peaceful, tolerant, etc, this world would be a much better place and people would not suffer and die needlessly for greed, territoriality, intolerance, etc.
@QED1QED2 ....erm..does that not form a pretty powerful foundation upon which to build morality? It describes reality. 'a priori'. Reality IS a bitch and we OUGHT to act accordingly. Best we start from the ground up..not the sky down (as the lunatic philosophies of religion would have us do).
@timeweston Great. You want us to start from the ground up and not from the sky down. This is impossible, since philosophy (and ethics) are SUBORDINATED to metaphysics. I believe that the lunatics philosophers are those who wrongly assume that there can be a moral code starting from the ground up, that means, without methaphysics.
@AlternativaRed Yes. I would rather base my actions on things that are true, not things I wish were true. The 'ground up' process is cumulative and deductive, as with evolution, at each phase the metaphysics is questioned, hence morality evolves. The 'sky down' process is unverifiable, inductive and essentially argumentum ad verecundiam (passed down from on high). In this world morality wouldn't evolve and we'd still have black slaves, stone gays and oppress women.
@timeweston But this is not true. You NEVER start from the "ground up" - you always start by having something -assumed- (read Husserl) - And no. Black slaves were freed very much thanks to the idea that all human beings are created equal. And that black people are humans. Research about the abolition of slavery, they did not use "naturalist" arguments but methaphysical ones. "Human equality" is not veryfiable by experiments. Neither is human dignity. These are all methaphysic ideas.
@AlternativaRed Surely that initial 'assumption' is based on 'observation'.Those that aren't are consigned to the trash heap of fantasy or madness (unless they be incorporated into religious doctrine which is the same thing).One can freely assume something that isn't but in order to make sense one must have a concrete thing upon which to base the abstract thing(the assumption) otherwise all bets are off the table and we have to accept ALL ideas as equal regardless of their basis.
@timeweston NO. No, no, and no. Read the XX century philosophy. It is exactly the opposite. Senses don't tell you if something is good or wrong. They are just perception, not conception. And religion is not madness you arrogant materialist... Science (ironic) as showed the opposite. - And no, ¿you see? You are a materialist and a nihilist. "If we accept ideas first, we don't have any way to prove if one is better than other" - Reason can easily debunk this empirist fraud...
@timeweston You atribute the achievements of ethics and spirituality to science and empirisim. The truth is the opposite - rationalism and (to some extent) science, were responsible. And you don't know about what methaphysics really are. If you did you would know that science itself is based on methaphysical reason, like Unit, Line, Modality, Cause and Effect. - These are methaphysic ideas. Google it. See what I'm saying. Pleasure talking to you. =)
@AlternativaRed I attribute the achievements of ethics to science and empiricism.Yep. The more we understand about physics(verifiable truths) the better equipped we are to apply that understanding to other fields such as ethics..which are abstractly contrived. We are more 'moral' now because of free exchange and experience NOT isolated meditation.You cannot say someone is moral if their actions are done out of ignorance (regardless whether the outcome IS in fact the moral one).
@timeweston But this is absurd... ethics has nothing to do with science. Science is a DESCRIPTIVE arrange of disciplines not a prescriptive imperative. Many philosophers have pointed out the absurdity of using science as an ethic tool. Just read. And yes, ethics come out of "isolated" (¿can something be "isolated"?) meditation and reasoning. Experience is another variable, not superior or inferior to "meditation" - that you hate so much...
@AlternativaRed Ethics has nothing to do with science?I beg to differ.As I said;The more we understand about the physical world the better equipped we are to apply that understanding to ethics.eg As we discover more about neuroscience we eliminate(or reinforce) archaic thinking about the way we behave and interact(the realm of ethics). One no longer 'condemns' a man with turrets, schizophrenia, OCD's, addictions or bi-polar because we understand the science underpinning them.
@timeweston Yes. Ethics has nothing to do with science. Since ethics is a prescriptive discipline and science a descriptive one. And now you are mixing things. Understanding the physical world has nothing to do with behave ethically. You can understand the physical world and be a warmongering dictator. Or you can have no clue on why stones fall to the ground and be a kind mother. Science can, in effect, collaborate with ethics, but never replace them (or vice versa).
Social darwinism is legit, but the survival of the fittest is kinda out dated. Its more like; survival of the best adapted to their environment. There is no "best" cultural trait, they are all created from a environmentally derived necessity. Though some are perceived as being necessary, while in reality other "better" (usually only allow myself to express something this way if it is a major human rights violation) cultural traits, that can fill that need.
Survival of the fittest has been misinterpreted. In biology it is not survival of the biggest and baddest necessarily, it is survival of those with the widest complement of genes - the average. That is why the dinosaurs became extinct, their genes were over specialized and they could not adapt. Ask any gardener - a hybrid is stronger. A "pure" white, anglo saxon, blonde haired blue eyed human being is overspecialized and doomed biologicially. The "mutt" wins.
@clarkewi Are you fucking kidding me? You obviously have no education in anthropology or genetics whatsoever. Overspecialized for what? I agree with you Anglo-Saxons are doomed but that's because they're a bunch phony liars and fucks. European people have proven to be the most adaptable on Earth.
@IntronDepot1 yeah, adaptable people to be able to adapt to anything. Which translates into assholes and losers and weak minded dumbasses that simply go with whatever politically friendly prevailing wind might say.
@JimBowie1133 But we are part of biology. The same kind of selection happens when a man rejects an ugly or unintelligent woman, except he is less conscious of his reasons than social Darwinists are for theirs.
@matprithellodave , but are we adapting to conditions that are 'natural' or to conditions that are set by powerful ruling powers of the group. If economic survival in a society requires extreme selfishness, this trait will be promoted and become acceptable.
I see no Error in someone with high IQ *and* healthy common sense *and* lotsa experience and exceptional memory, who happens to "be" a linguist discussing economics; whereas
" You know, economists are, in fact, not economists at all, they are propagandists of money value. " --ZG3
and
" 'economists' ... something even more stupid you couldn't find in all the zoos of the world ! ... you have more intelligent lifeforms in your home, growing on your shower curtain ! " -VP
From Wikipedia:Crony capitalism is a term describing an economy in which success in business depends on close relationships between business people and government officials. It may be exhibited by favoritism in the distribution of legal permits, government grants, special tax breaks, and so forth.
The problem is not capitalism but gov'ts who distort and profit from manipulating the markets.
The solution is small government. More government=more corruption.
Capitalism certainly is A problem. And current (globalized) capitalFascism a HUGE --and likely fatal for homo (hur hur hur) 'spaiens'-- one.
---
" Capitalism is the absurd beLIEf that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all. " -- John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946)
" Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power. " -- Benito Mussolini (1883-1945)
@thinkingguy87 What is misleading? Herbert Spencer adapted Darwinism to explain and justify English economic injustice, arguing that as the natural arena is where natural selection plays out to the advantage of the fittest, so in the social arena the fittest become the richest. That is, if you are poor it's because you are a lazy, stupid, morally weak, no 'count good for nothing who deserves to sink to the bottom and die. Humane, huh?
@Vcubed1 Social Darwinism has very little to do with actual Darwinism. Evolution is a scientific theory about the origin of species, Social Darwinism is a social doctrine which was used to justify a social order
@IntronDepot1 OR, maybe people should watch the video before they comment on it, since a word or expression might have several meanings.
Take Tea Party for example. It can simply mean a bunch of people getting together and having a party in which they drink tea. Or, it can refer to a bat shit cracy american group.
@IntronDepot1 No. It should be titled this way. Darwinism is a fraud... Evolution was not even discovered by Darwin. It was done first by Lamarck. And evolution is not a random struggle for life, it's an intelligent development of life. Darwin's theory is based on Spencer and Malthus, and they were fascistoid thinkers. Darwinism is in effect; fascism.
Prove Goodwill's law all you like. Just because you can name drop doesn't mean that you can disprove on of the few things science actually totally certain of. Which is the origin of the species. We know more about how the species came to be than other theories we have, like gravity etc. Theory is actually a very strong word. It doesn't mean "just an idea".
btw Fascism was the movement the of the Italian Catholic far right. We know Darwinism has little to do with Catholicism.
@scandapoodle I see a colosal ignorance in your statements. First, evolution is not being discussed here. Natural selection is being discussed. It's not the same. We know evolution happens, the question is ¿How and Why? - And Darwin says: Natural selection. Today there is a huge debate with regard to theories on wich to base the natural sciences, so you don't know the actual state of science.
@scandapoodle Second... ¿fascism was catholic? ¿Have you read anything from Mussolini and Hitler? I was a fascist a long time ago... And precisely I can tell you that I was by no means a "cristian catholic" when I considered myself a fascist. Quite the opposite. Fascism comes from Nietzsche, Heidegger, Schmitt, Stirner - all of them, were strong darwinists, and very anti-cristian. So you don't know of history also.
Funny that you actually admit that you have been a fascist. You seem to me like a very confused individual.
I only said that fascism came from the catholic routes both Mussolini and Hitler were catholic. The Vatican prayed for Hitler on his birthdays, the SS was mainly made up of catholics etc etc. Fascism is still strong in Catholic nations like Italy and Croatia.
@scandapoodle I'm not confused by any means... you simply don't know about the history of fascism. I told you that the philosophical roots of Nazism and Italian fascism were born from Nietzsche, Stirner, and many other XIX century philosophers. All of them were strong darwinists. Darwin took inspiration from Malthus and Spencer for his work "On the Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection or THE PRESERVATION OF FAVOURED RACES IN THE STRUGGLE OF LIFE"
These are all non sequiturs. First, Mussolini and Hitler were not catholics... and catholics did not pray "in the name" of Hitler in his birthday, catholics pray "for" (and not "in the name of") many people without being agree with them. Catholics were persecuted during Mussolini's regime and hundreds of them were murdered, being FORCED to preach allegiance to the regime. And the SS and SA were a private army payed by New York and London bankers who supported Hitler.
Also Darwin's "Origin of the Species" only explains what the title says.
it is usually a misconception about "fit" and "strong". most times "fit" has nothing to do with "strong". this is how "Darwinism" has been perverted thru the years, by people who did not understand the theory.
How the species came was explained by Darwin. Social dynamics however is a much more complicated matter which i doubt we will one single elegant theory to explain it with.
@scandapoodle@scandapoodle ¿So what if fascism is strong in a catholic country? Argentina (were I come from) is a catholic country and it's mainly a left-liberal country. - And fit or strong it's just the same. It means this: "The being that is most capable of surviving - lives. The "unfit" dies." ¿What's the difference? It's the same. And how species came was NOT explained by Darwin. Lamarck explained evolution 60 years before. Darwin is a fraud.
I had question arising in my mind always. Consider following situation :
1) If a person is not fit enough able to survive because of his limited mental abilities. How does they fit in capitalist monetary system. We all know how he is treated. Especially in India, since I am an Indian....
2) If a person is physically disabled, again he had to go through hard condition. How does they fit in....
Capitalism is lie... It is utter failure... Works only for people who are strong. Not for weak people.
Why are people talking about science when this video is about social Darwinism...something completely unscientific/removed from biological evolution "Darwinism."
Good call, lundymaphone. Social Darwinism is an intrinsically evil concept that is frequently touted by those that are completely opposed to the instruction of evolutionary Darwinism in school, ironically...
@lundymaphone Good call. It's a pity - although hardly an unprecedented one - that an otherwise great contributor to early Darwinism is mainly remembered for founding a pseudo-scientific doctrine founded on his own prejudices. If there were one ethical lesson to be gleaned from Darwinism I would've though it was "Thank goodness we as humans can circumvent this mechanism & the dictates of our genetic heritage (to a large degree) & find our own values & social policies."
@lundymaphone yes... thank crunchie someone reads words and just doesnt watch and learn. darwin said ' survival of the best adapted'....... so we have the choice right now, adapt or go extinct...... my intelligent thought will curtail my need to breed and unfortunately my scientific world view will be diluted by the mass delusionists... way of the road....
@iwasgozz It was the neo Darwinist model that prevailed, thats where the biggest guy gets to have everything and keeps just enough dependents to keep him safe in the wilderness...,,,+++
@lundymaphone The title is misleading. Darwin would have been anti social darwinism, if his writings and views are anything to go by. Read "The Miss-Portrayal of Darwin as a Racist" by R.G. Price
Darwinism has become a belief system supported by its share of dogmatism and politics. Although in its infancy and lacking thousands of years of myth building as other religions, there are a multitude of followers who take it on faith that their ministers preach the truth. There are as many gaping holes in this theory as there are in any religion, but as in any belief system, most can defend themselves by putting down their opponent. The degree of emotion parallels their degree of faith.
@DTK5689 Study what darwinism is before you start jabberish such ridiculous statements such as "many gaping holes in evolution as there are in any religion", really? In a evidence filled theory we confirmed a hundred years ago through experimentation, examination of the natural world and reasanable dialetics, there are as many flaws and gapes as there are in RELIGION? Which doensn't even possess one single claim backed up by evidence, or even reality if you allow me, well sir, you're a moron.
@DTK5689 ^_^ ..................................................... BLASPHEMY, I SAY BLASPHEMY YOU FILTY HEATHEN I AM GOING TO TAKE THE MOST FOUL OF VENGENCE UPON YOU FOR NOT RECPECTING THE DIVINE MAJESTY OF OR MOST SACRED DOCTRINE.
@DTK5689 Naturally you can illuminate these, "Gaping holes," in evolutionary theory with peer-reviewed, empirical research, yes? Your rapt audience awaits your rational dialectic FINALLY exposing this dogmatism which has escaped scientists for 150 years. This should be amazing... :-)
@coco7010 I am not religious nor am I a Darwinian evolutionist, although I was both at early parts in my life. What I can't help notice is the striking similarities between the religious zealots and fanatical Darwinian evolutionists, which I know is a slap in the face of those on both sides of the fence. Both defend their stances with presumed reason and educated assumptions with fervor and contempt to adversaries. The stronger your belief, the more adamant you become. (cont.)
"What I can't help notice is the striking similarities between the religious zealots and fanatical Darwinian evolutionists"
I know what you mean, recently a gang of Darwinists began chasing Christians and nailing them to crosses while throwing pig entrails at Muslims. They did this after they prayed to Darwin himself...Sooner or later they're going to bomb anti-abortionists and shoot up those who deconvert from atheism/Darwinism- we must be vigilant!
@coco7010 What Darwinian evolutionists fail to see is how politically motivated the world is. "Peer review" in many cases means "my cronies support me". The Darwinian model, which is characterized by gradual and constant change, would show up in the fossil record and be incredibly easy to find. The mere fact that there is no transitional evidence over 150 years of searching proves that his model is faulty, at best. The few examples for his model were very weak and fail to hold up to scrutiny.
"The mere fact that there is no transitional evidence over 150 years of searching proves that his model is faulty"
I take it you're looking for a crocoduck then?
"Scientists have not found a single uninterrupted sequence of fossils demonstrating evolution from one species to another."
I haven't found a single uninterrupted sequence of photos of a babies turning into old people. I also don't believe in the fanatical ageists claims that we were all babies.
@DTK5689 I have seen this bizarre assertion before. What do you mean by, "No transitional fossils have been found"??? Simply open a university-level book on evolution and look at the photos. Or, go to a natural history museum. You will see a wealth of such specimens. The chain of transitional morphology is clear. This is really quite simple.
@coco7010 Scientists have not found a single uninterrupted sequence of fossils demonstrating evolution from one species to another. The best that anyone had been able to manage was to assemble isolated fossils from different strata of different ages which looked anatomically similar and to claim that they must be ancestors and descendants -- because no other rational explanation was possible.
A little alcohol ( but just a little ) helps u see the truth , that proptkin guy was wrong . spencer is right
rb487 23 hours ago
Survival of the richest.
Ahksmar 1 day ago 3
Chomsky talks a lot of sense...and the title's wrong.
Some things *don't* change.
KapStuf 3 days ago
Chomsky is great with facts, history, and the enlightenment of science … I'd like it if he had a solution to these problems that he so articulately explains.
justgivemethetruth 3 days ago
"the strongest wins" does that mean "only the strongest ones survive and all the weak ones die"? if this is the case, then surviving "strongest" ones will struggle for leadership among each other & therefore they would kill one another for power, and the weaker ones among them die so there will only be the strongest strongest ones left, and they again fight among each other for power too, untill all get killed. OR it means, "the strongest ones win over controling and enslaving the weakest ones".
CosmicCaprice 3 days ago
In respect to Noam Chomsky, this vid should be renamed
mix22magic 3 days ago
Its fucked when you realize that a linguistics professor knows more of economics then a full lettered economics professor!
pistol6620 1 week ago
I do not believe in Darwin's Theory of evolution. Its just the wealthy industrialists version of "Royal Blood" - the theory that legitimizes their rule. They are successful because they have better genes. therefore they are more deserving than the rest of us.
I'm not religious. I just believe in a different theory of evolution - one set forth by Darcy Went worth Thompson. You are not taught this theory, because it does not fit the philosophy of the status quo.
thefranciswatts 1 week ago
@thefranciswatts
facepalm.
CJkofoed 1 week ago
@thefranciswatts
Please. Darwin's Theory of Evolution does NOT say that only the strongest survive. Actually egalitarian huntherer gatherers societies survied because they cooperated and shared food with eachother. So the genes of the most equal groups survived. You don't know anything about evolution.
Endstation 4 days ago
@Endstation I think people are confused between natural selection and evolution.
jhnsnow421 2 days ago
@thefranciswatts the version of evolution you talk about justifying success of the wealthy is not what darwin's theory is about that is social darwinism which is what this video sets out to falsify.
Darwin's theory essentially says that those that have higher reproductive success due to natural variation produce more offspring and thus their genes have a higher frequency in the subsequent generation and that is all.
fromaginator1 3 days ago
@thefranciswatts Also Thompson's theory has no explanation of a mechanism which causes the transformations and those it is not a viable alternative to evolution which has the mechanism of natural selection by differential reproductive success to explain how the gradual changes of evolution occur.
Not to say Thompson is wrong just that research needs to be done (likely in genetics with regard to his theory) before it can be proven false or corroborated.
fromaginator1 3 days ago
The term Social Darwinism seem quite obviously backwards. If you want to claim that in a capitalist society that it will be "nature and bread and blood and claw" then it sounds like it will just be more horrific natural selection, as society isn't determining who fails and who succeeds but the capitalist system. Social Darwinism sounds much more like a society doing the selection process.
MirageScience 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MirageScience
Please. Darwin's Theory of Evolution does NOT say that only the strongest survive. Actually egalitarian huntherer gatherers societies survied because they cooperated and shared food with eachother. So the genes of the most equal groups survived. You don't know anything about evolution.
Endstation 4 days ago
this is a video of Noam Chomsky detailing to you how thoroughly he understands how wrong he is and why he will purposely continue to being wrong
roman14032 1 week ago
i love chomsky, he can so brilliantly advocate total stupidity,and at the same time totally expose the the fallacies of his own position, as hes doing here.
he's the worlds funniest, but hardest to get, comedian
roman14032 1 week ago
@roman14032 please explain where there are fallacies in his own position. otherwise that statement is worthless.
sugarcanegray 1 week ago
@sugarcanegray everybody always wants to engage a debate on these pages. i'm not a debater, the worth you place on what i said is for you to decide.I'm not interested in explanations or proofs or arguments or debates, if you don't understand what i said, try to figure it out for yourself,if its worthless,discard it. I'm not your debating partner.
roman14032 1 week ago
@roman14032 So yes, your statement was worthless then.
Personally, never found any flaws in Chomsky's arguments myself, in fact, I would consider him to be one of the most important and honest intellectuals of the past 50 years. But there you go.
sugarcanegray 1 week ago
@roman14032 you're a fucking idiot, guy
enadiotrialol 2 days ago
@roman14032
A case of being amused by your own ignorance, i think.
TheCelticChimp 6 days ago
@TheCelticChimp i'll ignore that
roman14032 6 days ago
@roman14032
I don't doubt you will.
TheCelticChimp 6 days ago
this is a fucking charlatan!
ZobaK1 1 week ago
Some people want young white females to mix with non-white males.
I made a one-minute video highlighting a very small sample of race-mixing advertisements.
I love white people, and I am opposed to race-mixing. But I do not hate non-whites.
If you click on my name “awhitesoul2012” highlighted in blue below this comment, you can watch my video.
Thanks.
awhitesoul2012 1 week ago
@awhitesoul2012 Women do not need you to give a shit about who they have sex with. That is none of your concern.
BigMikeMcBastard 1 week ago
yeah thanks please change it to social darwism, because is has nothing to do with evolution or darwinism Love Chomsky though.
haydukethor 1 week ago
Hey, I have that same sweater! Prof. Chomsky must have shopped at SYMS.
Monadshavenowindows 2 weeks ago
This has nothing to do whatsoever with Darwin
dasGagaTier 2 weeks ago 7
@dasGagaTier Its about survival of the fittest..
baghali222 1 day ago
@dasGagaTier actually it have something to do with it and it was developed by a close relative of Darwin his name is Dalton -or Galton- , it the same theory applied for sociology instead of biology and actually it make sense and considered a illegitimate theory for most of the Sociology scientists
TheKen2942 9 hours ago
NC does rather drone on and on.
Snakeclouddreamer 2 weeks ago
It is funny how his knowledge of language allows him to drone on endlessly whether or not he actually knows what he is talking about.
wilkja02 2 weeks ago
@wilkja02 I guess it must sound like droning on if you don't have the mental capacity to understand. I mean, somebody who was intelligent who disagreed with him would come up with a cogent argument. You sir, can consider youself hoist by your own petard ;).
daverowbotham 2 weeks ago
@daverowbotham Try reading Hitchen's and Chomsky's back ad forth in the nation and then try to tell me he is both intellectual honest with himself and also that no one has ever made a coherent argument against his positions. Chomsky is a shell of his former self drowning in a sea of contrived moral equivalence. And if you can bear it, alan dershowitz tears him apart in a debate about his position on israel and shows how he is willing to bend or invent facts to fit his worldview.
wilkja02 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
ElBank2012 2 weeks ago
@wilkja02 @wilkja02 which debate is that, not the one after the pullout? then I suggest you look up Ron Pundak and his report which clearly credits Chomsky's version...Alan Dershowitz is on the side that Pundak warns has rewritten history...it's in the report from camp davis to taba....
ElBank2012 2 weeks ago
@ElBank2012
YOUTUBE has REDUCED the 500 space limit to 182 limit , on certain videos .
Allowing at most 3 sentences .
DESTRUCTION of FREE SPEECH on the net
olliephelan 2 weeks ago
@wilkja02 lol what? Hitchens was arguing that Chomsky drew a "moral equivalence" between 911 and Clinton's 1999 attack on Sundan's al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant. Chomsky drew no such thing, indicated as much, and thus had the last word in the debate (always revealing). The 2006 Harvard debate between D and C indicated only that Chomsky has more reliable sources, from Miguel Moratinos (EU rapporteur) to Ron Pundak (Israeli scholar regarding the maps). You're a charlatan, bud.
mdoob11 2 weeks ago 3
@wilkja02 Whereas Hitchens, in his genius, ended up supporting Bush and the Iraq War.
tenagnek 2 weeks ago 4
@wilkja02
Dershowitz tears Chomsky apart? Really? On what what point? Seriously, I want an answer here. If you actually KNEW the scholarship on the Israel-Palestine Conflict (which you don't) you'd realize what a slimy used car salesman Alan Dershowitz is. "The Case for Israel" is a piece of discredited trash.
profd65 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Shut up Chomsky! Your a linguist! Why are you such a fucking big mouth know it all jew.
STFU! Commie filth!
honour123 2 weeks ago
@honour123 Fuckoff, you inbred swine. I hate right wingers
Frederiknshansen 2 weeks ago
@honour123
Grammar and racism aside, he's not only a linguist and he's an anarchist.
So, yeah.
ThisOneIsTaken 2 weeks ago
@ThisOneIsTaken
An "anarchist" drunk with collectivism...
LibertyRealm 2 weeks ago
@honour123 shows you have alot to bring to the table...
ElBank2012 2 weeks ago
I don't see how a simple term like "nanny state" can totally shift an attitude. A state that subsidizes institutions is can be an example of social darwinism. A strong institution can derive power from investing in other institutions but since it's the nanny state then it's totally different? I always laugh when i hear conservatives talk about the government needing to be runned like a business as if it wasn't already. They think debt is something that is universal.
catbuffalo 2 weeks ago
Nim Chimpsky rules!
Tsnore 3 weeks ago
The reason that Goldman Sachs are not example of "survival of the fittest" is the fact that they are protected by the government from the mob. If there was no government, and they rob the mob like they did, there would be lynching, which would be survival of the fittest. The weak (greedy) perish, the mob persists.
zapporius 3 weeks ago
how would a socialist anarchy where there is not central power survive an attack from a totalitarian state?
bizso09 1 month ago
oh dear, title fail
Aanthanur 1 month ago 44
@Aanthanur
Couldn't agree more. Poor Darwin...such undeserved bad press.
kuntyfucstik 1 week ago
The fittest will survive, not necessarily the strongest or largest.
And yes, his commentary has nothing to do with biological evolution by natural selection or "Darwinism".
vioscios 1 month ago
Please change the title of the video to ..."Social Darwinism". It's very different from "Darwinism".
beauxq 1 month ago 118
@beauxq People don't see the difference, but I agree with you.
AQGOAT24 2 days ago
"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas." -- Karl Marx
mtracy9 1 month ago 3
anyone with a brain by now knows chumpsky is a zionist Mossad insider made to shield public attention away from the real enemies of the world. Its not the US government despite what he says but the zionist banking elite and there proxy organizations such as the rothchilds, the tri lateral commision, and even the fucking IMF! The social darwinists are just one piece of the pie which the zionists promote in there war agains't the religious majority.
Ameer18 1 month ago
monkeys rule the world lol
boxermaf 1 month ago
A human's niche is his intelligence, like a cheetah's niche is his speed, so there often inconsistencies in terms of social Darwinism. Because: Intelligent people aren't always the most successful people on earth
MsTommyknocker 1 month ago
Denmark is a nanny state
MsTommyknocker 1 month ago
You're all fools, to think that man has the propensity and/or the ability, to discern if there is a GOD or not, when mankind hasn't the wherewithal or mental capacity to do so....keep debating what you will never know...conjecture and waste your time....after all, what else do you have to do?
lifeschild1 1 month ago
Comment removed
TheAlijun1 1 month ago
coined
osiris7nz 1 month ago
thomas malthus coied the term survival of the fittest
osiris7nz 1 month ago
I wish my voice sounded like that.
askdhuwuw 1 month ago
The Bible is gay.
SillySantaHat 1 month ago
Never underestimate the power of salt.
dave474c 1 month ago
The Bible is based on Survival of the Spiritually Fittest!!! In a nutshell: if you are "good", you go to heaven, and if you are "bad", you go to hell. I do not see why there was a big rift between Darwin and the Church, other than the possibility that Darwin may have "stole", accidently or otherwise, a central unconscious assumption/premise of the Bible.
TrafficSpark 1 month ago
@TrafficSpark
Your observation is flawed, as your statement regarding the "central unconscious assumption/premise of the Bible" as you put it, is incorrect. Rather, the Bible declares that ALL are "bad" and that only by the work of the only one "good", that is God, can anyone go to heaven. This is a fundamental and foundational difference.
Mathetes76 1 month ago
@Mathetes76 Yes, God is a Spiritul Darwinist. He choses the spiritually fit from the bad, so what? Either way, only a select few get to "Heaven". "God" selects them, who cares? It's still only a select few!!! It's still Spiritual Survival of the Fittest.
TrafficSpark 1 month ago
@TrafficSpark
No, you didn't read my comment carefully; I said "...the Bible declares that ALL are "bad"...". That means there are NO "spiritually fit" to choose. However, God does indeed choose but is not based on the merits of those whom He chooses. It is instead by His own imputed "goodness", or "spiritual fitness" if you like, to those He has chosen. This is His work of grace, not a meritocracy. Again, spiritual speaking, there are NO "fittest" and NONE "survive" in of themselves.
Mathetes76 1 month ago
@Mathetes76 prove it!!! You are relying on irrationality and some magical notions to argue your point. You are arguing from opinion based on your subjective interpretation of a 2000+ year old mythology. If it works for you, go for it. Just don't pretend you are arguing something that can be proven or that you are rational!!!
TrafficSpark 1 month ago
@TrafficSpark
What on earth are you talking about??? Irrespective of the veracity of the Biblical gospel, its outline and detail is what it is... the fact that you are ignorant of it, & therefore your original premise is entirely redundant, has nothing whatsoever to do with my view or "subjective interpretation". What I have stated is to be clearly found within the pages of holy scripture and is orthodox Biblical Christian doctrine. Attempting to move the goal posts doesn't mean you 'score'!
Mathetes76 1 month ago
@Mathetes76 if want to believe your mythology, then go and believe it. Just don't expect everyone else to believe your mythology. Notwithstanding anything written, the application of those written words is what counts, not your attempt to make the Bible as the final word or to use words as if they were the final "truth". The Bible as good as book as it is, it is still one form of mythology. The Bible, as a text wrriten by men, still contains the genesis of Darwin's theory.
TrafficSpark 1 month ago
@TrafficSpark
Still hung up on my beliefs rather than addressing the flaws in your argumentation I see. Your own words here answer your own point: "The Bible...contains the genesis of Darwin's theory". Okay, "if you want to believe your mythology, then go and believe it. Just don't expect everyone else to believe your mythology".
PS. Although I freely admit I believe the Bible to be "truth", nowhere did I rely on that assertion...I simply pointed out the factual error of your hypothesis.
Mathetes76 1 month ago
@TrafficSpark its not about being good or bad, my dear, its about believeing the right god. ghandi, as good as he was, is in hell, according to your bible. as for evolution, it contradicts the whole 7 day creation.
avalsonline2 1 month ago
@avalsonline2 you probably also believe the earth is only 4000 plus year old. But, if that works for you, then go for it. just don't expect everybody to believe in your mythology.
TrafficSpark 1 month ago
@TrafficSpark no, i dont. i dismiss the creationist view for what it is, pure and utter crap. but neither i nor you can deny that creatinst movement is real and relevant, and that it was inspired by the Bible.
avalsonline2 1 month ago
One of the primary flaws, or leaps of logic, in the "surival of the fittest" approach to morality and "social Darwinism" is that, Darwin's theory of evolution isn't a prescription... it is a description. It doesn't describe how nature should be, or how it should work; it only describes how nature is and how it does work.
QED1QED2 1 month ago 53
@QED1QED2 "Darwin's theory of evolution isn't a prescription; it's a description". Did you come up with that yourself? If so then hats off to you. It's concise but incredibly perceptive and eloquent. I intend to use that phrase in the future.
195ashes 1 month ago
@195ashes Yes, that is something I came up with that on my own. Thanks for the feedback.
QED1QED2 1 month ago
@QED1QED2 Should be? Why on earth should a fit individual effectively help an unfit individual to survive?
duubamg 1 month ago
@duubamg Why? Because if we take nature as a model we can see the incredible accomplishments of societies and colonies that stick together and work for each other's benefit and the good of their society. It works with bees, ants, animal who hunt together, etc. In this paradigm we see no in-fighting - only cooperation and mutual help.Humans can and should take lesson from this and stop fighting over petty differences, help one another survive and prosper and all will live and benefit.
JerrySPsy 1 month ago
@JerrySPsy Well, if we look at nature we could get other things too. For example, a strong male lion keeps all the young weak lions away and get all the females for itself. And I think you would agree that the life of lions is much more interesting than those of some insects, so to speak.
duubamg 1 month ago
@duubamg Lions show cooperation and often hunt together for the mutual benefit of all. If some behaviors are selfish why should we take our lessons from that? You reap with you sow in life and we all took the position of helping one another, being kind to one another, peaceful, tolerant, etc, this world would be a much better place and people would not suffer and die needlessly for greed, territoriality, intolerance, etc.
JerrySPsy 1 month ago
@JerrySPsy Maybe you're right after all. Strongers should cooperate as long as it's profitable.
duubamg 1 month ago
@duubamg Because we are not barbarians or unscrupulous fuck faces
munnosable 1 month ago
@munnosable We are not or the conditions for that haven't appeared (yet)? What if you had to fight for your food?
duubamg 1 month ago
@QED1QED2 bang on the fucking money! :P
munnosable 1 month ago
@QED1QED2 ....erm..does that not form a pretty powerful foundation upon which to build morality? It describes reality. 'a priori'. Reality IS a bitch and we OUGHT to act accordingly. Best we start from the ground up..not the sky down (as the lunatic philosophies of religion would have us do).
timeweston 3 weeks ago
@timeweston Great. You want us to start from the ground up and not from the sky down. This is impossible, since philosophy (and ethics) are SUBORDINATED to metaphysics. I believe that the lunatics philosophers are those who wrongly assume that there can be a moral code starting from the ground up, that means, without methaphysics.
AlternativaRed 3 weeks ago
@AlternativaRed Yes. I would rather base my actions on things that are true, not things I wish were true. The 'ground up' process is cumulative and deductive, as with evolution, at each phase the metaphysics is questioned, hence morality evolves. The 'sky down' process is unverifiable, inductive and essentially argumentum ad verecundiam (passed down from on high). In this world morality wouldn't evolve and we'd still have black slaves, stone gays and oppress women.
timeweston 3 weeks ago
@timeweston But this is not true. You NEVER start from the "ground up" - you always start by having something -assumed- (read Husserl) - And no. Black slaves were freed very much thanks to the idea that all human beings are created equal. And that black people are humans. Research about the abolition of slavery, they did not use "naturalist" arguments but methaphysical ones. "Human equality" is not veryfiable by experiments. Neither is human dignity. These are all methaphysic ideas.
AlternativaRed 3 weeks ago
@AlternativaRed Surely that initial 'assumption' is based on 'observation'.Those that aren't are consigned to the trash heap of fantasy or madness (unless they be incorporated into religious doctrine which is the same thing).One can freely assume something that isn't but in order to make sense one must have a concrete thing upon which to base the abstract thing(the assumption) otherwise all bets are off the table and we have to accept ALL ideas as equal regardless of their basis.
timeweston 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
AlternativaRed 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@timeweston NO. No, no, and no. Read the XX century philosophy. It is exactly the opposite. Senses don't tell you if something is good or wrong. They are just perception, not conception. And religion is not madness you arrogant materialist... Science (ironic) as showed the opposite. - And no, ¿you see? You are a materialist and a nihilist. "If we accept ideas first, we don't have any way to prove if one is better than other" - Reason can easily debunk this empirist fraud...
AlternativaRed 3 weeks ago
@timeweston You atribute the achievements of ethics and spirituality to science and empirisim. The truth is the opposite - rationalism and (to some extent) science, were responsible. And you don't know about what methaphysics really are. If you did you would know that science itself is based on methaphysical reason, like Unit, Line, Modality, Cause and Effect. - These are methaphysic ideas. Google it. See what I'm saying. Pleasure talking to you. =)
AlternativaRed 3 weeks ago
@AlternativaRed I attribute the achievements of ethics to science and empiricism.Yep. The more we understand about physics(verifiable truths) the better equipped we are to apply that understanding to other fields such as ethics..which are abstractly contrived. We are more 'moral' now because of free exchange and experience NOT isolated meditation.You cannot say someone is moral if their actions are done out of ignorance (regardless whether the outcome IS in fact the moral one).
timeweston 3 weeks ago
@timeweston But this is absurd... ethics has nothing to do with science. Science is a DESCRIPTIVE arrange of disciplines not a prescriptive imperative. Many philosophers have pointed out the absurdity of using science as an ethic tool. Just read. And yes, ethics come out of "isolated" (¿can something be "isolated"?) meditation and reasoning. Experience is another variable, not superior or inferior to "meditation" - that you hate so much...
AlternativaRed 3 weeks ago
@AlternativaRed Ethics has nothing to do with science?I beg to differ.As I said;The more we understand about the physical world the better equipped we are to apply that understanding to ethics.eg As we discover more about neuroscience we eliminate(or reinforce) archaic thinking about the way we behave and interact(the realm of ethics). One no longer 'condemns' a man with turrets, schizophrenia, OCD's, addictions or bi-polar because we understand the science underpinning them.
timeweston 3 weeks ago
@timeweston Yes. Ethics has nothing to do with science. Since ethics is a prescriptive discipline and science a descriptive one. And now you are mixing things. Understanding the physical world has nothing to do with behave ethically. You can understand the physical world and be a warmongering dictator. Or you can have no clue on why stones fall to the ground and be a kind mother. Science can, in effect, collaborate with ethics, but never replace them (or vice versa).
AlternativaRed 3 weeks ago
@QED1QED2
Not really... Darwinism could better be understood as 'survival of the *fit*' -- that is, how well an organism fits into its habitat.
pazomblez 3 weeks ago
Social darwinism is legit, but the survival of the fittest is kinda out dated. Its more like; survival of the best adapted to their environment. There is no "best" cultural trait, they are all created from a environmentally derived necessity. Though some are perceived as being necessary, while in reality other "better" (usually only allow myself to express something this way if it is a major human rights violation) cultural traits, that can fill that need.
subnoize123 1 month ago
How ignorant are people? He isn't talking about evolutionary darwinism, he's talking about SOCIAL darwinism. I suppose the title is misleading.
faz1991 1 month ago
So, the way power systems function have nothing to do with the reality of the world?
chichigord 1 month ago
Survival of the fittest has been misinterpreted. In biology it is not survival of the biggest and baddest necessarily, it is survival of those with the widest complement of genes - the average. That is why the dinosaurs became extinct, their genes were over specialized and they could not adapt. Ask any gardener - a hybrid is stronger. A "pure" white, anglo saxon, blonde haired blue eyed human being is overspecialized and doomed biologicially. The "mutt" wins.
clarkewi 1 month ago
@clarkewi Are you fucking kidding me? You obviously have no education in anthropology or genetics whatsoever. Overspecialized for what? I agree with you Anglo-Saxons are doomed but that's because they're a bunch phony liars and fucks. European people have proven to be the most adaptable on Earth.
IntronDepot1 1 month ago
@IntronDepot1 yeah, adaptable people to be able to adapt to anything. Which translates into assholes and losers and weak minded dumbasses that simply go with whatever politically friendly prevailing wind might say.
sanchojds 1 month ago
Misleading title
marmitetruth 1 month ago 3
Mit romney's economic policy OWNED, thank you nom for setting the record straight
Shogundavis 1 month ago
Social Darwinism is basically 'artificial' selection. It is removed from biological evolution in actuality but not in principle.
JimBowie1133 1 month ago
@JimBowie1133 But we are part of biology. The same kind of selection happens when a man rejects an ugly or unintelligent woman, except he is less conscious of his reasons than social Darwinists are for theirs.
matprithellodave 1 month ago
@matprithellodave , but are we adapting to conditions that are 'natural' or to conditions that are set by powerful ruling powers of the group. If economic survival in a society requires extreme selfishness, this trait will be promoted and become acceptable.
JimBowie1133 1 month ago
A linguist discussing economics. Where is the error!
WalangDiyos 1 month ago
@WalangDiyos
I see no Error in someone with high IQ *and* healthy common sense *and* lotsa experience and exceptional memory, who happens to "be" a linguist discussing economics; whereas
" You know, economists are, in fact, not economists at all, they are propagandists of money value. " --ZG3
and
" 'economists' ... something even more stupid you couldn't find in all the zoos of the world ! ... you have more intelligent lifeforms in your home, growing on your shower curtain ! " -VP
Tibet2138 1 month ago
From Wikipedia:Crony capitalism is a term describing an economy in which success in business depends on close relationships between business people and government officials. It may be exhibited by favoritism in the distribution of legal permits, government grants, special tax breaks, and so forth.
The problem is not capitalism but gov'ts who distort and profit from manipulating the markets.
The solution is small government. More government=more corruption.
WalangDiyos 1 month ago
@WalangDiyos
Capitalism certainly is A problem. And current (globalized) capitalFascism a HUGE --and likely fatal for homo (hur hur hur) 'spaiens'-- one.
---
" Capitalism is the absurd beLIEf that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all. " -- John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946)
" Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power. " -- Benito Mussolini (1883-1945)
Tibet2138 1 month ago
Social Darwinism is very different from Darwin's theory on natural selection. This is extremely misleading.
thinkingguy87 1 month ago
@thinkingguy87 What is misleading? Herbert Spencer adapted Darwinism to explain and justify English economic injustice, arguing that as the natural arena is where natural selection plays out to the advantage of the fittest, so in the social arena the fittest become the richest. That is, if you are poor it's because you are a lazy, stupid, morally weak, no 'count good for nothing who deserves to sink to the bottom and die. Humane, huh?
Vcubed1 1 month ago
@Vcubed1 Social Darwinism has very little to do with actual Darwinism. Evolution is a scientific theory about the origin of species, Social Darwinism is a social doctrine which was used to justify a social order
thinkingguy87 1 month ago 4
what is Dawinism?
thesoundengine 1 month ago
Why the FUCK are people having a debate on biology and religion on a video that is about politics and economy?
gulbirk 1 month ago
@gulbirk Because the video was titled Chomsky on Darwinism, and should have been titled Chomsky on SOCIAL Darwinism.
IntronDepot1 1 month ago 16
@IntronDepot1 OR, maybe people should watch the video before they comment on it, since a word or expression might have several meanings.
Take Tea Party for example. It can simply mean a bunch of people getting together and having a party in which they drink tea. Or, it can refer to a bat shit cracy american group.
gulbirk 1 month ago 2
@IntronDepot1 Bingo
nyomythus 1 month ago
@IntronDepot1 No. It should be titled this way. Darwinism is a fraud... Evolution was not even discovered by Darwin. It was done first by Lamarck. And evolution is not a random struggle for life, it's an intelligent development of life. Darwin's theory is based on Spencer and Malthus, and they were fascistoid thinkers. Darwinism is in effect; fascism.
AlternativaRed 1 month ago
@AlternativaRed
Prove Goodwill's law all you like. Just because you can name drop doesn't mean that you can disprove on of the few things science actually totally certain of. Which is the origin of the species. We know more about how the species came to be than other theories we have, like gravity etc. Theory is actually a very strong word. It doesn't mean "just an idea".
btw Fascism was the movement the of the Italian Catholic far right. We know Darwinism has little to do with Catholicism.
scandapoodle 3 weeks ago
@scandapoodle I see a colosal ignorance in your statements. First, evolution is not being discussed here. Natural selection is being discussed. It's not the same. We know evolution happens, the question is ¿How and Why? - And Darwin says: Natural selection. Today there is a huge debate with regard to theories on wich to base the natural sciences, so you don't know the actual state of science.
AlternativaRed 3 weeks ago
@scandapoodle Second... ¿fascism was catholic? ¿Have you read anything from Mussolini and Hitler? I was a fascist a long time ago... And precisely I can tell you that I was by no means a "cristian catholic" when I considered myself a fascist. Quite the opposite. Fascism comes from Nietzsche, Heidegger, Schmitt, Stirner - all of them, were strong darwinists, and very anti-cristian. So you don't know of history also.
AlternativaRed 3 weeks ago
@AlternativaRed
Funny that you actually admit that you have been a fascist. You seem to me like a very confused individual.
I only said that fascism came from the catholic routes both Mussolini and Hitler were catholic. The Vatican prayed for Hitler on his birthdays, the SS was mainly made up of catholics etc etc. Fascism is still strong in Catholic nations like Italy and Croatia.
scandapoodle 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
AlternativaRed 3 weeks ago
@scandapoodle I'm not confused by any means... you simply don't know about the history of fascism. I told you that the philosophical roots of Nazism and Italian fascism were born from Nietzsche, Stirner, and many other XIX century philosophers. All of them were strong darwinists. Darwin took inspiration from Malthus and Spencer for his work "On the Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection or THE PRESERVATION OF FAVOURED RACES IN THE STRUGGLE OF LIFE"
AlternativaRed 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
These are all non sequiturs. First, Mussolini and Hitler were not catholics... and catholics did not pray "in the name" of Hitler in his birthday, catholics pray "for" (and not "in the name of") many people without being agree with them. Catholics were persecuted during Mussolini's regime and hundreds of them were murdered, being FORCED to preach allegiance to the regime. And the SS and SA were a private army payed by New York and London bankers who supported Hitler.
AlternativaRed 3 weeks ago
@AlternativaRed
Also Darwin's "Origin of the Species" only explains what the title says.
it is usually a misconception about "fit" and "strong". most times "fit" has nothing to do with "strong". this is how "Darwinism" has been perverted thru the years, by people who did not understand the theory.
How the species came was explained by Darwin. Social dynamics however is a much more complicated matter which i doubt we will one single elegant theory to explain it with.
scandapoodle 3 weeks ago
@scandapoodle @scandapoodle ¿So what if fascism is strong in a catholic country? Argentina (were I come from) is a catholic country and it's mainly a left-liberal country. - And fit or strong it's just the same. It means this: "The being that is most capable of surviving - lives. The "unfit" dies." ¿What's the difference? It's the same. And how species came was NOT explained by Darwin. Lamarck explained evolution 60 years before. Darwin is a fraud.
AlternativaRed 3 weeks ago
I had question arising in my mind always. Consider following situation :
1) If a person is not fit enough able to survive because of his limited mental abilities. How does they fit in capitalist monetary system. We all know how he is treated. Especially in India, since I am an Indian....
2) If a person is physically disabled, again he had to go through hard condition. How does they fit in....
Capitalism is lie... It is utter failure... Works only for people who are strong. Not for weak people.
balkiprasanna1984 1 month ago
Why are people talking about science when this video is about social Darwinism...something completely unscientific/removed from biological evolution "Darwinism."
lundymaphone 1 month ago 52
@lundymaphone The title is faulty, I guess.
DerEchteSenf 1 month ago
@lundymaphone
"BUT IT SAYS DARWIN!"
Good call, lundymaphone. Social Darwinism is an intrinsically evil concept that is frequently touted by those that are completely opposed to the instruction of evolutionary Darwinism in school, ironically...
plasterdbastard 1 month ago
@lundymaphone Good call. It's a pity - although hardly an unprecedented one - that an otherwise great contributor to early Darwinism is mainly remembered for founding a pseudo-scientific doctrine founded on his own prejudices. If there were one ethical lesson to be gleaned from Darwinism I would've though it was "Thank goodness we as humans can circumvent this mechanism & the dictates of our genetic heritage (to a large degree) & find our own values & social policies."
MrIamSamIam2 1 month ago
@lundymaphone yes... thank crunchie someone reads words and just doesnt watch and learn. darwin said ' survival of the best adapted'....... so we have the choice right now, adapt or go extinct...... my intelligent thought will curtail my need to breed and unfortunately my scientific world view will be diluted by the mass delusionists... way of the road....
iwasgozz 1 month ago
@iwasgozz It was the neo Darwinist model that prevailed, thats where the biggest guy gets to have everything and keeps just enough dependents to keep him safe in the wilderness...,,,+++
stiffex 1 month ago
@lundymaphone
Maybe because the buttfuck who uploaded the video titled it "On Darwinism."
Redfingers 1 month ago
@lundymaphone The title is misleading. Darwin would have been anti social darwinism, if his writings and views are anything to go by. Read "The Miss-Portrayal of Darwin as a Racist" by R.G. Price
ProgressiveAudio 1 month ago
@lundymaphone Right, because people are exempted from the laws of nature and the methodology of science
AccumulatedKnowledge 1 month ago
I have to turn up my volume way up for all noam chomsky videos
ssdeepintrbl 1 month ago
Chomsky........YAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNN.....zzzzzzzz.....
mustafaweewees 1 month ago
Darwinism has become a belief system supported by its share of dogmatism and politics. Although in its infancy and lacking thousands of years of myth building as other religions, there are a multitude of followers who take it on faith that their ministers preach the truth. There are as many gaping holes in this theory as there are in any religion, but as in any belief system, most can defend themselves by putting down their opponent. The degree of emotion parallels their degree of faith.
DTK5689 1 month ago
Comment removed
Konicava 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DTK5689 Study what darwinism is before you start jabberish such ridiculous statements such as "many gaping holes in evolution as there are in any religion", really? In a evidence filled theory we confirmed a hundred years ago through experimentation, examination of the natural world and reasanable dialetics, there are as many flaws and gapes as there are in RELIGION? Which doensn't even possess one single claim backed up by evidence, or even reality if you allow me, well sir, you're a moron.
Konicava 1 month ago
@DTK5689 ^_^ ..................................................... BLASPHEMY, I SAY BLASPHEMY YOU FILTY HEATHEN I AM GOING TO TAKE THE MOST FOUL OF VENGENCE UPON YOU FOR NOT RECPECTING THE DIVINE MAJESTY OF OR MOST SACRED DOCTRINE.
karikon11 1 month ago
@DTK5689 Naturally you can illuminate these, "Gaping holes," in evolutionary theory with peer-reviewed, empirical research, yes? Your rapt audience awaits your rational dialectic FINALLY exposing this dogmatism which has escaped scientists for 150 years. This should be amazing... :-)
coco7010 1 month ago
@coco7010 I am not religious nor am I a Darwinian evolutionist, although I was both at early parts in my life. What I can't help notice is the striking similarities between the religious zealots and fanatical Darwinian evolutionists, which I know is a slap in the face of those on both sides of the fence. Both defend their stances with presumed reason and educated assumptions with fervor and contempt to adversaries. The stronger your belief, the more adamant you become. (cont.)
DTK5689 1 month ago
Comment removed
DTK5689 1 month ago
@DTK5689
"What I can't help notice is the striking similarities between the religious zealots and fanatical Darwinian evolutionists"
I know what you mean, recently a gang of Darwinists began chasing Christians and nailing them to crosses while throwing pig entrails at Muslims. They did this after they prayed to Darwin himself...Sooner or later they're going to bomb anti-abortionists and shoot up those who deconvert from atheism/Darwinism- we must be vigilant!
TurboDally 1 month ago
@coco7010 What Darwinian evolutionists fail to see is how politically motivated the world is. "Peer review" in many cases means "my cronies support me". The Darwinian model, which is characterized by gradual and constant change, would show up in the fossil record and be incredibly easy to find. The mere fact that there is no transitional evidence over 150 years of searching proves that his model is faulty, at best. The few examples for his model were very weak and fail to hold up to scrutiny.
DTK5689 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DTK5689
"The mere fact that there is no transitional evidence over 150 years of searching proves that his model is faulty"
I take it you're looking for a crocoduck then?
"Scientists have not found a single uninterrupted sequence of fossils demonstrating evolution from one species to another."
I haven't found a single uninterrupted sequence of photos of a babies turning into old people. I also don't believe in the fanatical ageists claims that we were all babies.
TurboDally 1 month ago
@DTK5689 I have seen this bizarre assertion before. What do you mean by, "No transitional fossils have been found"??? Simply open a university-level book on evolution and look at the photos. Or, go to a natural history museum. You will see a wealth of such specimens. The chain of transitional morphology is clear. This is really quite simple.
coco7010 1 month ago
@coco7010 Scientists have not found a single uninterrupted sequence of fossils demonstrating evolution from one species to another. The best that anyone had been able to manage was to assemble isolated fossils from different strata of different ages which looked anatomically similar and to claim that they must be ancestors and descendants -- because no other rational explanation was possible.
DTK5689 1 month ago 2
Comment removed
ErisMonky23 1 month ago
@DTK5689 If you cannot distinguish the difference between bronze age tribal mythology and modern scientific methods, I cannot help you. I am sorry.
coco7010 1 month ago
I'm sick of seeing capitalism and Darwin compared. Darwin was a scientist. He observed the natural world. End of story.
kevycanavan 2 months ago
Chomsky is at odds with Darwinism and in fact takes a rather non-scientific view of human nature.
JeffMaylor99 2 months ago