Noam Chomsky - on Darwinism

jsscm02 Says:

May 18, 2012 - Little understanding? You are talking about Darwin without having read him (I actually teach it) you deny the complex argument he made in response to Alfred Wallace (but you probably do not know what I am talking about). You are using Nietzsche without knowing what you are saying. You are faced with the scientifically established fact of evolution but you prefer to reiterate the old myth of creation. You sound like an evangelical fanatic: better perpetuate religious lie than seek knowledge.

JayGatsbyOdysseus Says:

May 18, 2012 - I do not believe in creationism. I read Origin of Species. I read Geneology of Morals and Thus Spoke Zarathustra. 

MarcGanancias Says:

May 18, 2012 - This is not about Darwinism. It is about Social Darwinism, which is a socio-political topic, not a biological topic.

TurboDally Says:

May 19, 2012 - The theory of evolution is DESCRIPTIVE of nature, that doesn't mean we should imitate nature's cruelty. Man people can be dumb :S

grsadr Says:

May 20, 2012 - This should be named "Noam Chomsky - on Social Darwinism ". Dishonest.

jonny7748 Says:

May 21, 2012 - mumble mumble. Chomsky is a narcissist who simply doesn't fact check or is he willing to have an open debate. He is not a linguistic god like he would like people to think since he is so afraid of state religion, of which he is the only one mentioning when atheists ("new" sic) are mentioned. Has anyone ever wondered why he doesn't include facial expressions or body language into his studies? He is not an expert on evolution either since it is cooperation that prevented extinction of our species.

195ashes Says:

May 21, 2012 - The theory of evolution via natural selection is a description of nature; not a prescription for human society. That is the conclusion you'd have come to if you had actually bothered to properly examine the theory as well as the Nazi philosophy instead of making superficial and unjustified statements. Broad strokes are often made by narrow minds. Try to do the necessary research while remaining impartial; you'll benefit greatly from doing so.

195ashes Says:

May 21, 2012 - Are you suggesting that's a bad thing?

JayGatsbyOdysseus Says:

May 21, 2012 - Ha!

TommoCW1 Says:

May 21, 2012 - Sorry to jump in here, but I would like to ask how you know that Darwin lied in his writings?

VictumRoManius Says:

May 22, 2012 - Well if Hitler is right then I don't understand why:1. The first civilizations in the world came in Middle East. 2. The Egyptians were building pyramids and making huge contribtution to Medicine, Mathematics, Architecture and Astronomi while others, including Aryans, were still in stoneage.Only because Europe has been better then the rest of the world for about 250-300 years does not mean that they always throughout the 7000 years since the first civilizations have been better.

JayGatsbyOdysseus Says:

May 23, 2012 - I'm not rooting for Hitler.  All I am saying is if we evolved from apes 100,000 years ago in what is not Ethiopia as evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins says, then life is not teleological. In other words, as Albert Camus wrote, Life is Absurd, with no ultimate meaning. Right now we have 7 billion people. By 2050, there are to be 10 billion. This is not sustainable for earths resources. Someone needs to kill a lot of people. You can't be an evolutionist and be nice. This is a paradox.

JayGatsbyOdysseus Says:

May 23, 2012 - People on here think that being nice is connected to our evolution. No, killing each other is connected to our evolution. If you believe in evolution, and I do, then you know that we have killed each other in order to survive. I wrote that if Dawin is right then Hitler is right. People don't like this and try to wiggle out of this truth. World population n 2050 is to be 10 billion. Someone needs to take over the world and start killing people. I don't like this truth.I wish it was differ

VictumRoManius Says:

May 23, 2012 - "You cant be evolutionist and be nice" - thats not true. Nature does not have any absolute law on what is nice and what is bad. Nice and bad are relative. I like Heavy Metal music. Do you? If not then we both have a different idea of what nice music is.Nature does not have any preferences. It does not "like" or "dislike". We humans are special because we can reason. We are concious. We dont have to submit to nature. We are part of it. Most of us know that killing billions of people is wrong.

JayGatsbyOdysseus Says:

May 23, 2012 - 99 percent of all species that ever existed are now extinct. This is evolution. Is this nice?

VictumRoManius Says:

May 23, 2012 - Its not nice nor is it bad. Without them dying you and I would not be here. Its survival of the fittest. Beeing altruistik and helping others might ensure your survival in some cases and in some cases it wont.

JayGatsbyOdysseus Says:

May 23, 2012 - There's no hope your you to understand the world. You need to make a quantum leap in your thinking in order to transcend conventional ideas. Your neurons are fixed, no longer capable of innovation. Nietzsche proved that being altuistic is perpendicular to leaps in movement. REad Geneology of Morals and get back with me when you finish. Don't drink your bath water.

unbornanddeathless Says:

May 23, 2012 - no. he is suggesting that it is meaningless.

rockslavesoft Says:

May 24, 2012 - For those who think that biology doesn't explain altruism, google George R. Price.

HugoBossUnzipped Says:

May 25, 2012 - Darwin never said or implied "survival of the fittest". Darwin said all the evidence to human survival depended on our ability to be empathetic and sympathetic. We would typically call the Liberals. He also admitted there were flawed individuals in any group who lacked those traits and in the long term held back advancement and survival of any species. We would typically call them conservatives. No matter how far back in history you look, in any species you'll find those two traits.

anarchoalican Says:

May 26, 2012 - Biological Evolution does not imply "survival of the fittest" but "survival of the population". Social Darwinists ignores the complexity of human nature which brings both egoistic and altruistic behaviours. Also, there is a huge problem while extrapolating scientific theories or facts to social implementation which can be called "is-ought" problem coined by Hume.

anarchoalican Says:

May 26, 2012 - David Sloan Wilson and Elliot Sober also work on altruism

gledalac1979 Says:

May 26, 2012 - Chomsky lives in a million dollar house and charges thousands for his "speeches" only to scuttle any real criticism and dissent. Bare that in mind when he talks about "rich and powerful"

bellbottoms4life Says:

May 27, 2012 - I could say somethig here, but you're all acting like children, so I couldn't be bothered. Think for yourself, and stop referencing dead people