Social-Darwinism, An Ignorant Misrepresentation of Science.

[MyTheDarkKnight]

What is wrong with the following statement: We are an anomaly in nature and have through our intellect stalled natural selection. As a result, many genetically unfavorable traits (low intellect) are not being eradicated. Systematically killing idiots will help our species as it will filter our gene pool for the better.

[WarmongerWW3]

Actually Darwin was a social Darwinist.

"The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world. " - Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, p. 318.

[WarmongerWW3]

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world." - Darwin, Descent, vol. I, 201.

[rautaty1]

Now, imagine you give to those angry, sex orientated, xenophobic guys weppons?

[rautaty1]

It has nothing to do with social darwinism. The killing and xenophobia has to do with male behavioral strategies. Men are very competitive creatures, they are built to perpetuate their genes to the maximum descendents as possible, and they can do so because they don't have contraints as women do ( 9 months of pregnancy and high parental involvement). Men can tolerate other men, because they share a similar pool of genes but they show hi xenophobia to those unrelated to them. That's y wars exist.

[iagopseleme]

"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change"

I read somewhere that the very successful entrepreneurs go bankrupt an average of 15 times before they make much money at all... I guess the entrepreneur's success due to his ability to adapt to the change in consumer demand is very similar to the theory of natural selection.

[Aidan0128]

Believe what you want but when social darwanism seriously kicks in, and it will, hurricanes, disease, hell anything, only the strong and prepared will live, the weak and unprepared, sadly, will perish, but it is how nature works.

Herbert spencer, Charles Darwin and the order of nine angles are ingenious. the order of nine angles can be a bit.. meh but there theory makes sencel.

[BloodyPup]

Eugenics is different, and eugenics are needed to keep the species smart if we are going to have the life belt of civilization.

[TakisAthensGr]

What the unscientific fuck is this? Social Darwinism promotes suicide? S.D. is all about killing at random? Is the basis of genetic similarity subjective and ill? Whoever kills members of the same species is representing N.Selection by proxy? Does ants have brains or does N.S. itself promotes organized conflicts? Wasn't Darwin a racist? Are races a nazi invention? Races do not compete as units?

This video, or writings are the most ignoramus misrepresentation of what Darwinism is ! Theists !

[asmodeus585]

In other words, we are only paws in a game played by our genes. ;)

[STEPHENWRAYSFORD33]

social darwinism is an economic idea, used by H, Spencer. He saw all aspects of life as a struggle for survival, so instead of fighting it, we should go with it. The fittest would survive & prosper & this would be natural. Some governments still use this theory today to justify raw free market capitalism. However in reality buisness isn't as simple as this, luck has a large part to play in ecomoic success. The company ENRON tried to use Social Darwinian principles & the company soon collapsed.

[vayuturbo66]

what is the song

[CDiddy51]

People who saying Darwin is responsible for the Nazi's is the same as someone claiming that ship building is responsible for slavery.

[shrikechan]

So refreshing, thank you :)

[cherylwens]

I didn't claim that you MUST know 10 languages in order to survive. Do you understand the definition of an "example"? A read of the dictionary is due imo.

[Guevaristas]

'With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination.

[cherylwens]

The weak can adapt to societal needs by clamouring for help. They appeal to our altruisism. You can very well be a school dropout. Rather dense in the thinking department. But if you can satisfy the demands of the world population, you'll become a billionaire. That's the difference between "survival of the fittest" and "survival of the most adaptable". It's not always the smartest, tallest, strongest, healthiest, most attractive that are successful.

[cherylwens]

Sorry, mangled up the spelling there. Correction: "altruism".

[Guevaristas]

That's just such a generic statement.

"But if you can satisfy the demands of the world population..."

How, by becoming eg. an Artful Dodger (Dicken's novel "Oliver Twist"), Machiavellian, manipulative, deceptive, criminal even?

What exact human qualities, if they can be described as such, are you speaking of?

[cherylwens]

Human needs are constantly evolving. But what remains is that money is accrued from the satisfaction of demands. Simple supply and demand economics here. Think of the energy sector. Energy is one of our greatest, incessant needs. Hence, you can make billions out of oil. Do you really need me to spell it out for you? The more needs you fulfil, the more money you get.And within certain needs, there may be an intricacy of needs or criteria e.g a mobile phone with a camera.That's how you make money.

[Guevaristas]

yes yes, but the question was this:

'Charles Darwin said:

"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change".

Can the the quality of a species that is '... most adaptable to change" , be separated from it's intellectual and physical qualities.

Q: What exactly does adaptability mean, is it different from strength and intellect, if so how?

[Guevaristas]

We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.'

Charles Darwin, "The Descent of Man"

(1871)

Q: What does Darwin's statement mean? Do you claim it was all about "adaptability"?

[Guevaristas]

Charles Darwin said: "It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change".

But surely the more intelligent, the more stronger of the species is the one more adaptable to change? Those elements must assist the strongest of the species.

It just seems that Darwin's statement, or claim, is just too finely worded

[cherylwens]

What's the difference between strong and adaptable? If I can speak ten different languages in ten different countries and integrate seamlessly, I would say that I'm strong, in an evolutionary sense. "Strong" is not just confined to physical prowess, you know? Anyone who can survive and gratify according to his whims is strong.

[AdamWhistle]

Have you even paid any attention to the video? The theory of natural selection deals with populations, not individuals.

Knowing ten languages is a very useful skill and one that can guarantee a good job. However it does not guarantee that you will have a child that in turn will be successful (because you can be a neo-nazi prick that most women find appalling).

Meanwhile, knowing only one language but being sociable and tolerant, and not picking fights because of delusions, one can pass genes.

[cherylwens]

What's the distinction between populations and individuals?

[AdamWhistle]

To answer that, I urge you to consult a dictionary.

[cherylwens]

A population is a people made up of individuals. I fail to see the distinction. You won't have a population if the number of individuals read: 0.

Getting a good job does not guarantee that you will have a successful child. Because genes can mutate. Financial strength and your "neo-nazi" assumed physical strength are subjected to personal taste, more than anything else. Crux of the matter is that they both mean the same to different women: power.

[AdamWhistle]

Except that you won't have a population with some lose individuals because a population is defined by being in one are, by having something in common.

Again, get a dictionary.

Evolution has nothing to say about "power". Evolution deals with adoption, not justification of the "powerful". If you actually knew the theory, you would know that evolution does not define an ideal form or shape. Anything goes.

Humans do that. If you would have actually read the video, you might have knew that.

[Jarut195]

Yes but you can take rationality to the point of heartlessness, its not rational to have a pet dog, but dogs make people happy regardless of the fact they cost you time and money. It'd be rational to kill all the mentally disabled and the old people in the world, they use up resources and dont give any back, but thats cruel and heartless, so humanity needs to find a delicate balance between kindness and rationality.

[AdamWhistle]

Except "rationality" implies morality as well as logical thought. And you may be surprised by this, but there are logical and independent (you don't have to make non-morality-related assumptions to make them work) systems of morality out there that does not require you to find a balance between emotions and rationality.

[cherylwens]

Why is it rational to murder another human being and endure the pain of watching him suffer and die?

[goliathlup1]

The whole thing reminds me of Contra.

[TheLunarmonkey]

great video just a shame the message just doesnt get through to ignorant people.

[AdamWhistle]

Hear, hear, although the video maker goes into the details far more than he should. He should be refuting popular claims, not answering a written examination to the world.

[breedofthe45]

don't bother...these people get insulted when anybody uses Darwins name in vain..is a blashemy for them..you know like for islamic muhamed is holy and is a sin to say his name....we christian get insulted everyday by these people but the get touchy when we ask them about eugenics,all of a sudden Darwin did not had nothing to do with it even do Francis Galton was his cousin,and even Darwin keep his blood line in the family.atheist belive in free speech if it only apply to them.fuck Darwin

[AdamWhistle]

Another Christian seeking self-prosecution. Typical.

Darwinism isn't a religion. Science is not a religion. It is a superior methodology to determining how the universe works than "I say so". Which is how religions work (which is essentially that and dressed up in clever rhetoric and spewed from charismatic speakers).

I do not care or have any reason to believe whatever you say. As you sound like a creationist, you must be a liar. Creationists have to lie because they can't handle truth.

[breedofthe45]

yeah,thats right,atheists love to put labels on people who disagree with them,but the truth of the matter is simple,you people belive in something known as evolution(the word is tricky )not because is real but because you need it,you breathe for it,live for it...if this so called "science" is debunked(and it has),you people love to point fingers,but hey Stalin,Mao together kill 120 million people,the crusades kill 4 million in 300 years,Stalin kill 60 in 12 years,yeah atheists are mind players.

[AdamWhistle]

That's creationism for you as well. You will happily cherry-pick facts like Stalin and Mao killing people and that they were atheist, while ignoring the fact that they didn't do that out of atheism. They did it just because they thought that they needed to do it for their own crazy ideology-based reasons.

I don't believe in evolution. I merely acknowledge it exists because the non-bullshit science heavily supports it. It's not a religion, but I expect that to not register in your lying mind.

[breedofthe45]

and you are doing the same bullshit but even worst...you said cherry-pickin but Stalin isn't cherry-pickin..Stalin,Mao and Hitler love the Darwinian methood,the leading scientists under their governments were obssesed with darwin just like you thinkin they were doing good to humanity by destroying civilization,just with Mao and Stalin the death toll was 129 million people in less than 12 years,those are facts but what tha hell you people know about history,you only worry about monkeys..

[AdamWhistle]

Like I should trust the authority of someone who can't capitalise or punctuate. :)

Oh, and look up and read a bit of Mein Kamf (or whoever its spelled). Hitler made choke-full of statements referring to how he's doing God's work.

I find it ironic that a creationist (I presume you are Christian) accuses someone else of delusion about doing good while destroying civilizations. Aztecs (and pretty much most of the North American civilizations) anyone? How about the Cathars? Byzantine?.

[breedofthe45]

can't even write the name the name of a book but want to teach others how to write,

are you a proffesor?

do i have to pass your class?

did Oprha told you about that book?

What about the nazi belts?i haven't heard that one for a while,

Im not going to tell you about the pegan roots of the nazi party since is plenty documentaries here in utube that show it,

but i don't even need Hitler to show how full of shit is an atheist,Joseph Stalin is enough,64 million kill in less than 12 years..wow.

[MemeScythe]

what's the song at the end?

[jowns0]

"The classes and the races too weak to master the new conditions of life must give way They must perish in the revolutionary holocaust" karal marx.

[Justinfhtube]

For you social darwinist out there, what's your opinions on people with mental and physical abilities? Do you condem these people as 'weak' and that we shouldn't bother with these "inferiors" or is that a gros misrepresentation of what social darwinism is about?

[lesssugar1]

weak, yes but what do you mean by bother with them?

[MysteriousMaskMan]

Charles Darwin said: "It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change".

This simple sentence alone shows how Social-Darwinism, Nazism and Neo-Nazism have NOTHING to do with the darwinian theory of evolution.

[MyTheDarkKnight]

@MysteriousMaskMan Adaptability is defined by intelligence in regards to human beings. Also, that's in reference to what some would call gross evolution (adaptability). There is no gross evolution now. Humans don't have to adapt to any external forces of nature. Humans now, compete for money and power. As we approach an infinite number of cases, intelligence is the trait that achieves this. For the galactic empire to come to fruition, the intelligent must live and the stupid must die.

[aMinorityView]

And regarding the animals. OK, sure they remember who maltreated them, but this is not the same as forming plans to go kill another creature of their own species...Sure, animals fight over terrain, mates etc. but perhaps they hardly kill one another because the weaker animal will admit defeat, and so wander off. In the animal kingdom, isn' t it more about what they are fighting to achieve then to kill another over feelings towards the spesific animal regarding envy, hate etc.

[aMinorityView]

Oh, well, but this depends of course on your definition of "the weak" - and I don't belive that all women have the advantage of picking and choosing a male with high status, and so there might be a downwards spirale, where the weak reproduce with other weak and get even weaker children.

Sure, high mortality rate, but also a lot of children.

[TheAtheistVisionary]

Anyone who is unable to think rationally, anyone who is too lazy to work their butts off to make it in life, and anyone who doesn't become the best of the best is weak and therefore, they should shunned and we should not help them and instead let them die. I don't mean murder these weeklings, I mean just let nature kill them. That way, the human race would be a much better place.

[therealgtarbeast666]

and how do you supoose natrue to do this

[aMinorityView]

and btw. Animals doesn't kill each other because they have not got a mind that allows them to hold grudges, form plans to revenge and so on. There is a difference.

[MysteriousMaskMan]

aMinoityView, more misconceptions here. Actually, it is known that other primates, elephants and other animals with big brains have good memories and also hold grudges. They remember very well who maltreated them.

[aMinorityView]

Well, this is based on the presumption that the human species today is under Natural Selection. However, in the western welfare systems for instance, the ones that cannot take care of themselves financially are taken good care of by the state welfare system and in that way they can sit home on their arse and reproduce. Here you get more financial support the more kids you produce. This is a way of hindering natural selection.

[MysteriousMaskMan]

aMinorityView, you have a misconception about natural selection. Natural selection is based on the selective pressures of any environment ( altered by culture or not ). An environment where the weak is not let to starve do death still has selective pressures ( they are just different ). Women, for instance, continue to choose those males with higher social status and better survival resources.

[MysteriousMaskMan]

Therefore the weak tend to reproduce less or not reproduce at all.

In countries where the poor reproduce a lot there is also high mortality rate in children due to bad nutrition and diseases.

[lesssugar1]

the weak find other weak and reproduce carelessly even when they lack sufficient resources to raise their kids

[killarunao]

@MysteriousMaskMan What weak are you talking about? The hungry? Nature selects what exactly in this model? Remember, it is not the individuals that are being selected. Don't make the same mistake as social darwinists. In bio evolution it is the genes that are being selected, the more adapted the gene makes it's individual, the greater the chances of it being selected. In humans, cultural info (memes) affect our behavior. If a meme increases survival it is acquired, replicated n of crse selected

[lesssugar1]

these are human imposed, they are not "natural" selection

[killarunao]

@MysteriousMaskMan Women choose this because of their genes? No it is not an effect of genetic information because genes act slow. They only provide a brain capable for higher cognition. Due to our brains though, we are capable of learning from other people that's why we have accumulated information to create advanced technology. It is this info being transmitted from gen to gen varying according to culture that affects our behavior. The transmission of info is subjected to natural selection.

[killarunao]

@aMinorityView Natural selection can only work if there is a inheritance system involved. In a modern human society, what exactly is being inherited for darwanian processes to act upon? One is from individual to individual, genes that transmit information for physical make up. The other which is uniquely human is cultural information which, as coined by Richard Dawkins, is called memes. It is a dual inheritance system.

[archdeaconj]

Neo-liberal capitalism is also predicated on social Darwinism. The ethics of it is: competition, survival of the fittest is 'natural'. Well, of course it's natural, but so too is caring for and helping one another. Man 'in the state of nature' will feed and shelter a stranger. Let us not ask: what is natural? Evolution has thrown up fascists, but it has also thrown up those who are opposed to fascism. It has thrown up the cat that kills the bird, but also me who tries to stop it.

[BlacklitFloater]

awesome music and good message of f the nazis..

[anon4234]

I wonder, is the scenario portrayed by Idiocracy and The Marching Morons a real possibility?

[MissPuduhepa]

5 +

[LuccaLuv]

great vid

[InternetRevolution]

I agree mainly.

Social darwinism is in many points a disgrace to the natural form.

[kentmage]

What's the music from?

[sakurasexyclone]

unfortunately the world needs people like hitler in order to survive without World Wars we would have so many more problems so much sooner than when we did get them.I cant say it was a GOOD thing but a necessity for the human race to survive.

As the old saying goes "Too much of anything is bad; too little of something is equally destructive"

[MysteriousMaskMan]

How genocide can be good in any amount ?

They are human beings, not cattle.

[sakurasexyclone]

i didnt say good i said if we didnt do it we will die from overpopulation

[Importantspectator]

I hear you say: We needed hitler and stallin unfortunaly for the survival of our species.

But i dont see you type why that is :)

[sakurasexyclone]

simply because they killed lots of people thats all once your overpopulated you'll need more food, living space, and plenty of other things to sustain those people so unless we can live on the moon in the next couple of hundred years we'll simply run out of room to put people.(thats if we find a way to feed them all)

[samsonlovesyou]

There is no population problem. The entire population of the world could fit onto the Isle of Wight with plenty of room to spare.

It's not up to dictators who to kill. If people are so worried about over population, they can make a conscious decision not to reproduce. The rest of us are quite content just now. If we ever see a problem, we'll take a collective decision, such as the Chinese did with the One Child Policy.

Bigger populations need more food, but there are more producers.

[rickmongler]

How long do you think the entire population of the world would be able to live on the Isle of Wight? That's like saying that you don't need a house since you are able to fit in a closet..

[rickmongler]

The amount of land available is just one resource that humans need to live. A whole lot of land means nothing if there is only a little food in it, for example.

[samsonlovesyou]

I think you misunderstand my point. It's not a suggestion that we live on one small island. I'm merely putting into perspective the population of the Earth in order to illustrate the over-reaction which sees it as a "problem". In fact, there is lots of room and plenty of resources. Food is not scarce either. Rather, the distribution of resources is the problem. The amount of food wasted in the developed nations (US and Europe especially) is repulsive.

[smilingsmyfavorite]

Not even stupid people like you deserve to die. While I agree over population can be a problem the solution is not mass murdering and torturing innocent people. There is absolutely nothing good to that and I'm sure if someone in your family was affected by the holocaust or genocide you would feel differently. I cannot see the problem in having to little hate either.

[sakurasexyclone]

well what would you do to solve overpopulations problems? (i didnt say anything about torture and hate(and if i didnt deserve to die what would you do, torture and hate me? )

[samsonlovesyou]

I have an idea for you to help with the overpopulation problem.

You could kill yourself for the rest of us.

[4now5]

It is more preacious to live and be responsible for what is wishing and going to do- when using his(her) best abilities to creat a better life is helping us and himself(herself)at the same time.

[HyperSonic1987]

And so the rights of one particular group are being protected, while the rights of many are being taken away to protect those rights of that particular group. Thus it doesn't necessarily make the most sense that they get to do whatever the hell they want, just because they have the most money.

In fact, considering the anti-Social Darwinian

approach appeals to most of humanity, it really is the most logical choice.

[HyperSonic1987]

And so the last line of defense they have is that it's their money, and they have the right to use it however they so choose, and that they rightfully own it and no one has the right to tax them higher than anyone else. However, what this means is that even though one particular group gets to keep those rights, another group is getting their rights taken away. For if they can do anything they so choose, that means they have the right to steal the rights away from others using that right.

[HyperSonic1987]

The fact of the matter is, it really isn't about being the fittest. Their career of choice just happens to pay the most, whereas being a Psychologist doesn't. But that doesn't mean they're somehow stronger than a Psychologist.

If they really want to play the Social Darwin card, then they are in effective agreeing that they don't have the right to trample over everyone, because their careers aren't justifiably a gauge for "the strongest".

[HyperSonic1987]

Furthermore, it's giving the credit to these CEOs soley, when in actuality it's not merely them that's making these things happen. Sure, they own the company, but that doesn't mean they are doing all of the work. They need people to work for them in order to help keep the company sustained.

They aren't the fittest. They make themselves out to be with their title, and because their careers happen to pay the largest sums.

[HyperSonic1987]

The truth is you're not exactly weaker if you are working for McDonalds or the like. Such jobs have rather harsh conditions and the high labor demand. The hours people have to work in order to sustain living conditions are enormous. To say that people like that are somehow weaker than a CEO and therefor deserve to be constantly under their thumb is not only arrogant, but an un-founded claim.

[ragnar336]

i didnt finish because you said everything i already know. my question is how come its not stupid to say certain dogs are smarter than others, but somehow humans do not apply to what every single species does. thats stupid. im sorry but the harsh reality is that we did not appear at the same time and therefore we cannot all be the same, we know we all come from africa, earliest bones show this

[ragnar336]

and its not a bad thing at all its actually quite breath taking

[bluecrossrifles]

OK...well I agree with you. The problem is that Education is controlled by the government and the media. I'll define education as how we come to understand reality. Some people have a play in our education like teachers and parents, but governments use education to further their devious plans..ie Stalin, HItler...some could say the USA. People are told that competition is the key. Mutualism, Conventialism is ignored or not taught or promoted enough and we get the problems we have today.

[redsantiago]

I want to know the name of the song pleaase

[marinello6]

There is a theory of "Hybrid Vigor" that no one talks about.

[marinello6]

"Survival of the Fittest" is bullshit. Luck can play a role in survival or random protection with money or being taken care of by another human. This is not fitness. People years ago got on these stupid bandwagons of science....and they still do today without questioning who is pushing the new fad science and their real motives.

[ragnar336]

how to those people usually get that money to protect? a more fit brain.

[marinello6]

Inheritance Genius.

[Astrocopus]

Aldrich/Hodgson/Hull/Knudsen/M­okyr/Vanberg WOULD agree despite important detailed differences in the mechanisms and processes involved..economic terminology like "labour force", "equilibrium", "elasticity", and "velocity of money", are no accident..markets act as the major selection vehicles..so thew WIKI goes!

[marinello6]

Skip...they had a

[marinello6]

Darwinism was just a fad pseudo-science created by elites that had disdain for the underclasses. When they tried to inbreed amongst themselves:  Darwin, Galton, Huxley, Wedgewoods....they had a 90% of their children either died at birth or were severely physically or mentally handicapped.

[marinello6]

Some of you people just want to believe that you are superior. Your parents must have been snobs. Poor blacks have survived untolled horrors. They must be the fittest people according to you people.  My point is that these theories attract people with psych issues. They want to feel power or superior or rationalize their abuse or murder of others.

[NPFTM]

I say we should follow our instincts, just like all other creatures on earth, just like my friends cat, it have killed about 14 mices,, should it be called for a horrible killer?

[koz233]

No. But if it lived in a society where mice made its food and everything else it might need to survive, then I would call the cat a horrible killer. We don't kill the members of our society because being in a society is what drives our race forwards. We don't call the butcher "a horrible killer" for killing 14 cows, but if he started slaughtering the humans in his society, then we would.

[NPFTM]

We humans wants to be humans but we arent nothing then animals, animals that have lost our instinct and when we lose our instinct, our compassion grows,,, because our big compassion we call our selfs for humans, because we "know" whats right and wrong... But how can we know for sure whats wrong and right?

[VoDkAbkt]

I agree... And it's amazing like in this vid that human species is seperated from the nature - like we were outside the natural system and therefor not "allowed" to affect it "naturally." There's no laws how natural selection should be happened "correctly".

[villeppi]

Every fuckin social animal feels compassion towards other animals of the same species. Your arguemnts are ignorant.

[villeppi]

"We humans wants to be humans but we arent nothing then animals"

Yeah, and dogs want to be dogs, but they are nothing more than animals!!! What the heck are those damn dogs trying to pretend!!!??? They are animals, not dogs!!!

[NPFTM]

I mean that we humans want to be something speciall we dont want to see us self as animals.. When we do that we deny our true nature...

[villeppi]

Well maybe it's in our nature to deny our true nature.

[VoDkAbkt]

If we're a part of nature, why shouldn't we be a part of natural selection? And - new mutations, combinations and such will surely occur, but how they can the most useful and evolving genes become more common, if every single individual is able to produce as much descendants as they want?

[villeppi]

You should realize that natural selection occurs ONLY WHEN NEEDED! Evolution doesn't affect animals all the time, only when they are FORCED TO EVOLVE IN ORDER TO SURVIVE! We human beings are so well adapted to survive here on earth, that WE DON'T NEED TO EVOLVE IN ANY DIRECTION! You have this werid pseudoscientific belief that humanity needs to evolve. No we don't.

[tjinga2u1]

@VoDkAbkt we are part of natural selection im a little confused on your message.look the THEORy of evolution is a theory in other words there are flaws in it,just because we dont have it right yet does not make it fake or a lie.Science has its way of correcting itself most people dont realize that just because were in the modern era means that everything is know and solved.one life is to short to learn everything in the world.

[iandoell]

Brilliant video, I will watch more and strongly consider subscribing.

[Svark001]

Nature will pwn those unfit to exist slowly, but surely. End of story.

[draugtroll]

Really nice to see you're still going strong maskman:) Like i've said before, keep it up:)

[MysteriousMaskMan]

Thanks :)

[Vicce]

o.O What a beautiful song... What is it called?

[0rcryst]

Subscribed, bitch.

[GentleSavage1]

dude, that was an excellent video. *subscribes*

What I often wonder when I hear utterances of such self-proclaimed "social darwinists" (like black metal nazis) is, why the hell they consider themselves to be one of the most fit, valuable individuals that need to prevail in genepool... More often than not those people are so stupid that it hurts, I'd say removing their genes from the pool would actually be a better idea to improve mankind...

[Gringoman911]

The prophet is viewed as omnipotent and infallible like god. So is he a demi god?The last time people gave that much devotion and even willingness to kill for a flesh and blood man is when their was god kings like Pharaoh and Caesar or even Stalin a more modern one. Mock Stalin or criticise him and hear comes the KGB.

[only1duk]

People will come to realize that Islam has two faces: 'moderate' and 'extreme'. These 'two faces' have been designed to throw the host countries (which they have already invaded) off the scent of the true agenda of Islam, which is to make EVERY human on EARTH abide by Sharia law, and everyone who does not will be allowed to live in these new Muslim lands, but will have to pay a special 'kuffar' tax, and be classed as second rate citizens, or in some cases slaves.

[McLarenMercedes]

We are all DEVO!

[MysteriousMaskMan]

Devolution is NOT a scientific concept.

It is a ridiculous travesty fabricated by intellectually flawed or lazy minds.

Evolution has no direction. It can even turn complex organisms into simpler ones.

[MysteriousMaskMan]

I am moved by your appreciation, gentlemen / ladies.

THANK YOU ALL.

[k23893]

Cool video. Ability to adapt socially may partly depend on the mixture of genes too. Misfits may become dropped out and become more irrational. But luckily skills can be learned to some extent. Lets not drop out people. Its better help them fit.

[Luxaquitaine]

Even though I do not agree with naturalselector89, the fact is that most human beings in a modern western society grow up to reach maturity and have access to modern healthcare. During the medieval times, we would'nt have epidemias of for example diabethes or asthma.

Naturalselector's main fault was not a misinterpretation of evolution, but that he thought that evolution had some sort of "higher goal" (intelligence), while intelligence may be a disadvantage even.

[MysteriousMaskMan]

1) Remember, the referential frame that "decides" who has more or less adaptive traits is the ENVIRONMENT.

So as you can see BIOLOGICAL FITNESS is a RELATIVE concept. For instance, a fish is very adaptive in its aquatic environment but it quickly dies outside this natural medium.

[MysteriousMaskMan]

When humans use medicines and other technological advantages, they are CHANGING THEIR REFERENTIAL FRAME. In this new environment, modified by humans, traits that were previously less adaptive become more adaptive. That is why they survive and reproduce despite having traits that are less adaptive to the broader wild environment.

[MysteriousMaskMan]

I think, however, that this trend cannot continue forever, otherwise we will become completely restricted and dependent of this ENVIRONMENTAL "BUBBLE" that we created. That is why the GENETIC ENGINEERING SCIENCE should accelerate to a point where it could rescue us from this dependence by replacing the genes of our gametal cells that could generate descendants unfit for survival and reproduction in the broader, wild and harsh natural environment.

[MysteriousMaskMan]

As you can see, in the near future, there will be a PEACEFUL, HUMANE AND RATIONAL WAY to eliminate our genetic defects ( regarding to the wider environment ) and improve even further the adaptability of our genes.

Social-Darwinism and Nazism are totally wrong anyway when they ignorantly assume that the "best genes" belong to a given "race". And even wronger regarding their inhumane and barbaric methods.

Race, in terms of the human species, is not even a scientific concept.

[MysteriousMaskMan]

Furthermore, any populational group labeled roughly as "race" regarding to some subjectively chosen traits has almost any of its intellectual traits distributed in a wide bell curve that MOSTLY OVERLAPS with the corresponding bell curve of any other populational group of other "race".

So, if the bell curves of each "race" OVERLAP for most people of their populations, talking about "superior race" is an IDIOTIC NON-SENSE.

[MysteriousMaskMan]

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

2) And yes, nature ( the environment ) does not "care" of any particular attribute ( unlike humans ).

( Obs: I am anthropomorphizing nature as didactic device, obviously nature has not consciousness, feelings or judgmental capabilities. That is why I put some words between quotes. )

[MysteriousMaskMan]

Nature only "cares" if the resulting combined fitness of all individual traits would make the individual ( or entire populations ) more likely to survive or reproduce better or not.

Intelligence and other intellectual attributes are important for some humans because they value them very highly.

Nature "does not give a shit" about our subjective judgments and values.

[MysteriousMaskMan]

Nature "is only concerned" with the final result: better survival and better reproductive capabilities by any successful "method".

Even more stupid, delusional and arrogant than the "racial fallacy" is someone deciding that he / she is the "superior" one.

Only nature can "decide" it.

[McLarenMercedes]

Exactly. But the neo nazis brainwashed in their superiority of the "white" race,will firmly believe in their fabricated facts. WTF is the white(!)race?? White is a color.

There's a really sad nazi who call himself FrenchColonialist1540 or thereabouts on the imdb boards.He is usually found on the 300 boards posting loads of posts about how the spot races by the shape of their skulls.

The guy thinks what he read on some white supremacy site are scientific facts.

[Luxaquitaine]

Yes, there I do agree. The only thing that I was saying was that a lot of the current population in the western world would not survive without artificial support (modern technology and medicine).

It is the environment which decides, did I ever say anything to the contrary?

[chrisreb222]

pekka-eric did make some valid points though. but i do agree that killing others was not natural selection. however, if he killed enough people to affect certain parts of the social structure, natural selection would be "put back on its tracks" but his actual murdering of people was not natural selection. you cant be a "natural selector". but he did make some good points otherwise though.

[MysteriousMaskMan]

Nobody is always wrong nor always right.

Everyone makes valid points, even the most ignorant, retarded, despicable or murderous people on earth.

You see. Some few valid points do not excuse or compensate big flaws of one's character or his belief system.

[fidetecabraodemerda1]

Very good, altho its almost common sense. dumb social-darwinists...

love the music as usual

[FunkyJogaBonito]

Good video, Mysterious!

The shooting in Finland was obviously by a man who claimed to be a Social Darwinist. But, he also made reference to 'survival of the fittest', which has nothing to do with evolution. It was Herbert Spencer--a philosopher--that coined the phrase, and it was about sociology and ethics.

The only answer is for us to continue educating people about what evolution really is. These incidents will obviously be used as another reason for not teaching of evolution, however.

[OnTheFritz602]

well done!

[Hupar]

This video should be featured on the main youtube page, not all that halloween crap...

[MajorityPreferLies]

Great Video !

Social-Darwinists know nothing about evolution and natural selection.

[AntiBrainwashing]

Social-Darwinism is based on fake science.

Good video.