Hypotheticals and Why This One Makes Me Mad (or 'Oh John Ringo No!)
Check out ' Oh John Ringo No!' as to why this allusion is particularly appropriate.
No cuts, for extreme anger.
Okay, THIS just amazes me. People are seriously having discourse about this and cannot see how it is wrong in fundamental ways?
"Consider two men, A and B. Man A steals food because he’s starving to death, while Man B commits a rape because no woman will agree to have sex with him. From a Darwinian perspective, the two cases seem exactly analogous. In both we have a man on the brink of genetic oblivion, who commandeers something that isn’t his in order to give his genes a chance of survival. And yet the two men strike just about everyone - including me - as inhabiting completely different moral universes. The first man earns only our pity. We ask: what was wrong with the society this poor fellow inhabited, such that he had no choice but to steal? The second man earns our withering contempt."
Darwinian perspective: I assume he means survival of the fittest - and let's be clear here, most people actually misunderstand that phrase. Darwin never advocated 'survival of the fittest' in the sense of 'the most fit (ie, strong, nubile, etc).' What Darwin said can be summed up better as 'survival of the most adaptable.' Darwin's point was that the creatures who can most adapt to a changing environment are the ones most likely to survive and breed. This is why platypuses (platypi?) and pandas are in such trouble - they have set breeding cycles and dietary requirements and are not adapting well to the rapid changes that people have wrought on the world. They have backed into an evolutionary dead end and thus their species would die out without human intervention. This sums up the essence of 'survival of the most adaptable.'
There are two elements being confused here - the supposed genetic drive and societal mores. Do humans really feel the need to fulfil genetic imperatives over everything else? Do we even have genetic imperatives? I would argue that we don't have genetic imperatives to eat or procreate - the number of people who choose not to have children or choose to starve themselves to death are evidence of that (I do not include people here who cannot have children or who starve due to circumstances outside their control).
Now, the examples given above are NOT comparable. The urge to feed oneself is a personal survival drive - it only benefits you. Rape, in the example above, is less about one as an individual and more about spreading genetic material - thinking long term rather than the short term 'I must eat or I will die' action. No man, regardless of what you hear, has died from not having sex. No one has ever had to 'fuck or die' in truth, regardless of how pent up their sexual frustration must be. A more comparable (but still problematic) example would have been that there are two starving people, but the second man beats someone else to death to take their food. Certainly a more obvious equivalent to the violence in the second man's actions.
Let's look at this from a genetic point of view - ignoring the fact that we actually don't know much about human genetic behaviour that that this is the sort of thing that scientists argue about for hours - nature versus nurture. Apparently this man is getting 'genetically desperate' to propagate his genetic material. He cannot get a woman to sleep with him.
This is Darwin in action! The very fact that no woman will sleep with this man can be construed as Darwinian processes in action. He is not seen as a suitable partner by women, therefore he cannot breed and his genetic material drops out of the gene pool.
You may argue, perhaps this is his way of fighting back? Perhaps he is trying to dodge out of his evolutionary niche by forcing himself on women, thus propagating himself that way? Could this be seen as him 'adapting' to his circumstances? Well, for a start, that assumes that genetic propagation is on his mind when he commits the rape and I sincerely doubt that is the case, either consciously or unconsciously.
Rape strikes me as a pretty pathetic genetic survival strategy. First of all, in modern society, a rapist of the kind mentioned above (attacking random women as opposed to continuous abuse) will generally only have one chance to abuse a victim. This is hardly going to ensure that he will spread his genetic material. How does he know she's fertile? That she's at the right point in her cycle? That she's not pregnant already? All of which would make his attempts a wasted effort. In nature, it is a careful balance between likelihood of results and energy expended - no creature can generally afford to waste time and effort on something that is unlikely to produce desired results. I'd say rape falls into that category, and possibly always has, given that humans tend to live in societies or groups. This isn't even considering the fact that rape often leads to injuries that can inhibit the possibility of conception. Which leads me to my second point.
Rape has NOTHING to do with sex, lust or even really genetic spread. It's about power and therefore the 'Darwinian drive' is irrelevant. What about rapists who attack their own kids? That's hardly a viable genetic strategy. Or male rape? How is that a drive to increase one's offspring - perhaps using it as a dominance technique? Because, that's right, rape can all be explained away as a 'genetic push' rather than individual responsibility.
Ultimately, this hypothetical angers me because it is trying to lay a genetic excuse as a catch all for rape. It also ignores all questions of self-control - the author of this question also summed up his scenario above as:
Why do we, as a society, provide food stamps for the hungry but not sex stamps for the celibate?
Perhaps because being celibate is not a life threatening condition. People can choose not to be celibate - just like they can choose not eat. Does the author of this hypothetical also argue that people on hunger strikes should be force fed? That anorexics should be force fed? That priests should be sent to prostitutes because there is clearly something wrong with them for not wanting to breed?
Also? Apparently he thinks that our society is biased because we don't think much about sexual inequality - for men, that is. Because men have a right to sex. And that is what this whole thing seems to be about. Why don't men have the right to sex when they want it? And that, my friends, has nothing to do with Darwin, genetics, or evolution.
That's all pure entitlement. It comes from an assumption that women can get laid whenever they want - because the dating dance is so easy for us (/sarcasm). It ignores the fact that most of us actually ARE choosy about who we sleep with - and probably for not completely understood genetic reasons. If a woman won't sleep with you, there's a reason. Adaptation would be trying to make oneself more pleasing - the traditional human ways involve bathing, improving appearance or 'impressing' women to try and achieve their favour. Forcing yourself on women to spread your seed is not an acceptable approach in modern society, in older societies, in ancient society and I suspect, even in pre-historic society, otherwise rape would be a lot more endemic in human society. And no, the idea of cavemen supposedly throwing women over their shoulders and kidnapping them is rubbish. Further, while it is true that some cultures practice 'kidnapping' of brides, note that that is something that is an exception rather than a rule. It is not common to most human societies and cultures as a whole.
So if you can't get laid, then genetically, that implies that you are in the platypus pool and slated for extinction. It is not a justification for rape.
Ever.
No cuts, for extreme anger.
Okay, THIS just amazes me. People are seriously having discourse about this and cannot see how it is wrong in fundamental ways?
"Consider two men, A and B. Man A steals food because he’s starving to death, while Man B commits a rape because no woman will agree to have sex with him. From a Darwinian perspective, the two cases seem exactly analogous. In both we have a man on the brink of genetic oblivion, who commandeers something that isn’t his in order to give his genes a chance of survival. And yet the two men strike just about everyone - including me - as inhabiting completely different moral universes. The first man earns only our pity. We ask: what was wrong with the society this poor fellow inhabited, such that he had no choice but to steal? The second man earns our withering contempt."
Darwinian perspective: I assume he means survival of the fittest - and let's be clear here, most people actually misunderstand that phrase. Darwin never advocated 'survival of the fittest' in the sense of 'the most fit (ie, strong, nubile, etc).' What Darwin said can be summed up better as 'survival of the most adaptable.' Darwin's point was that the creatures who can most adapt to a changing environment are the ones most likely to survive and breed. This is why platypuses (platypi?) and pandas are in such trouble - they have set breeding cycles and dietary requirements and are not adapting well to the rapid changes that people have wrought on the world. They have backed into an evolutionary dead end and thus their species would die out without human intervention. This sums up the essence of 'survival of the most adaptable.'
There are two elements being confused here - the supposed genetic drive and societal mores. Do humans really feel the need to fulfil genetic imperatives over everything else? Do we even have genetic imperatives? I would argue that we don't have genetic imperatives to eat or procreate - the number of people who choose not to have children or choose to starve themselves to death are evidence of that (I do not include people here who cannot have children or who starve due to circumstances outside their control).
Now, the examples given above are NOT comparable. The urge to feed oneself is a personal survival drive - it only benefits you. Rape, in the example above, is less about one as an individual and more about spreading genetic material - thinking long term rather than the short term 'I must eat or I will die' action. No man, regardless of what you hear, has died from not having sex. No one has ever had to 'fuck or die' in truth, regardless of how pent up their sexual frustration must be. A more comparable (but still problematic) example would have been that there are two starving people, but the second man beats someone else to death to take their food. Certainly a more obvious equivalent to the violence in the second man's actions.
Let's look at this from a genetic point of view - ignoring the fact that we actually don't know much about human genetic behaviour that that this is the sort of thing that scientists argue about for hours - nature versus nurture. Apparently this man is getting 'genetically desperate' to propagate his genetic material. He cannot get a woman to sleep with him.
This is Darwin in action! The very fact that no woman will sleep with this man can be construed as Darwinian processes in action. He is not seen as a suitable partner by women, therefore he cannot breed and his genetic material drops out of the gene pool.
You may argue, perhaps this is his way of fighting back? Perhaps he is trying to dodge out of his evolutionary niche by forcing himself on women, thus propagating himself that way? Could this be seen as him 'adapting' to his circumstances? Well, for a start, that assumes that genetic propagation is on his mind when he commits the rape and I sincerely doubt that is the case, either consciously or unconsciously.
Rape strikes me as a pretty pathetic genetic survival strategy. First of all, in modern society, a rapist of the kind mentioned above (attacking random women as opposed to continuous abuse) will generally only have one chance to abuse a victim. This is hardly going to ensure that he will spread his genetic material. How does he know she's fertile? That she's at the right point in her cycle? That she's not pregnant already? All of which would make his attempts a wasted effort. In nature, it is a careful balance between likelihood of results and energy expended - no creature can generally afford to waste time and effort on something that is unlikely to produce desired results. I'd say rape falls into that category, and possibly always has, given that humans tend to live in societies or groups. This isn't even considering the fact that rape often leads to injuries that can inhibit the possibility of conception. Which leads me to my second point.
Rape has NOTHING to do with sex, lust or even really genetic spread. It's about power and therefore the 'Darwinian drive' is irrelevant. What about rapists who attack their own kids? That's hardly a viable genetic strategy. Or male rape? How is that a drive to increase one's offspring - perhaps using it as a dominance technique? Because, that's right, rape can all be explained away as a 'genetic push' rather than individual responsibility.
Ultimately, this hypothetical angers me because it is trying to lay a genetic excuse as a catch all for rape. It also ignores all questions of self-control - the author of this question also summed up his scenario above as:
Why do we, as a society, provide food stamps for the hungry but not sex stamps for the celibate?
Perhaps because being celibate is not a life threatening condition. People can choose not to be celibate - just like they can choose not eat. Does the author of this hypothetical also argue that people on hunger strikes should be force fed? That anorexics should be force fed? That priests should be sent to prostitutes because there is clearly something wrong with them for not wanting to breed?
Also? Apparently he thinks that our society is biased because we don't think much about sexual inequality - for men, that is. Because men have a right to sex. And that is what this whole thing seems to be about. Why don't men have the right to sex when they want it? And that, my friends, has nothing to do with Darwin, genetics, or evolution.
That's all pure entitlement. It comes from an assumption that women can get laid whenever they want - because the dating dance is so easy for us (/sarcasm). It ignores the fact that most of us actually ARE choosy about who we sleep with - and probably for not completely understood genetic reasons. If a woman won't sleep with you, there's a reason. Adaptation would be trying to make oneself more pleasing - the traditional human ways involve bathing, improving appearance or 'impressing' women to try and achieve their favour. Forcing yourself on women to spread your seed is not an acceptable approach in modern society, in older societies, in ancient society and I suspect, even in pre-historic society, otherwise rape would be a lot more endemic in human society. And no, the idea of cavemen supposedly throwing women over their shoulders and kidnapping them is rubbish. Further, while it is true that some cultures practice 'kidnapping' of brides, note that that is something that is an exception rather than a rule. It is not common to most human societies and cultures as a whole.
So if you can't get laid, then genetically, that implies that you are in the platypus pool and slated for extinction. It is not a justification for rape.
Ever.