Is it safe to say Darwin thought of modern man as a domesticed animal?

[E.A Rumfield]

Especially after reading Descent of Man I feel he did. Reading Origin I couldn't help arriving at this conclusion though it wasn't directly stated. I think he saw common men like cattle or farmed pigs.

[OrphanPip]

Especially after reading Descent of Man I feel he did. Reading Origin I couldn't help arriving at this conclusion though it wasn't directly stated. I think he saw common men like cattle or farmed pigs.

Um no, that would run contrary to a central point of his thesis in Descent of Man, which was that humanity was the product of natural selection like wild animals.

[prendrelemick]

Leading on from the two posts above, did Darwin imply that now Man is domesticated natural selection has stopped - for the present at least.

[E.A Rumfield]

Um no, that would run contrary to a central point of his thesis in Descent of Man, which was that humanity was the product of natural selection like wild animals.

No denying that. Cattle, pig, goat, sheep etc as well as the plants we farm evolved from some wild ancestor and still evolve. That is besides the point. Man much like farmed animals are no longer subject to natural selection. Animals are subject to evolution by selective breeding and humanity is evolving due to the survival of the weakest in an unnatural world. Hence his ideas on eugenics. I think it is obvious.

"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised 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. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. The aid we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected." (Chapter 5)

This is a little off the subject but I think places like Africa are less developed than the rest of the world is because of predators. Being prey kind of keeps you in check. Now there are less and less wild areas and less and less predators humanity will continue to run free, and if I may make a Darwinian prediction, eventually destroy itself. Just think about what happens when a foreign species is introduced to an ecosystem where it has no natural predators.

[cacian]

Especially after reading Descent of Man I feel he did. Reading Origin I couldn't help arriving at this conclusion though it wasn't directly stated. I think he saw common men like cattle or farmed pigs.

For him to assume animals are domesticated to start is a mistake.
Animals primary basic instinct is wild. They could not be domesticated to start with.

[PeterL]

Leading on from the two posts above, did Darwin imply that now Man is domesticated natural selection has stopped - for the present at least.

Domesticated is not meaningful in that situation.

Natural selection continues, but there are different factors fopr selection than there were before civilization.

[Anton Hermes]

Man much like farmed animals are no longer subject to natural selection. Animals are subject to evolution by selective breeding and humanity is evolving due to the survival of the weakest in an unnatural world. Hence his ideas on eugenics. I think it is obvious.

First off, domesticated animals or organisms are still subject to natural selection. The point is that other selective pressures are also in play: human selective breeding, etc.

And the passage you quoted from Darwin appears to be against eugenics, not in favor of it. He admits that the survival of the weakest will harm the race, but asserts that we need to tolerate such harm. Did I read it right?

[Charles Darnay]

Darwin's theories are not tied up in moral judgement. People mistakenly believe that evolution is a hierarchy - putting Man above Animals. This is a religious construct. Natural selection is not a contest, it is an observation. It is not Man evolved because Man is great, but Man is the way Man is because of this and that in the environment that caused this and that change.

Evolutionary theories explores the evolution of all things independently. Man is in no way superior to a plant in this regard.

So claiming that Darwin thought of man as some domesticated animal is just throwing your own moral judgements on a work that makes none.

[OrphanPip]

Leading on from the two posts above, did Darwin imply that now Man is domesticated natural selection has stopped - for the present at least.

Darwin believed mankind would continue to evolve, but he didn't propose any predictive path of evolution humanity would follow. Those who thought mankind would be static were exceptionalist like Wallace, who thought that humanity was either created as it is, or was directed by God to a specific end point. On the other side, you had the social Darwinist who believed you should direct human evolution through interventions to make the race as a whole "more fit." However, they were not using a Darwinian definition of fitness.


No denying that. Cattle, pig, goat, sheep etc as well as the plants we farm evolved from some wild ancestor and still evolve. That is besides the point. Man much like farmed animals are no longer subject to natural selection. Animals are subject to evolution by selective breeding and humanity is evolving due to the survival of the weakest in an unnatural world. Hence his ideas on eugenics. I think it is obvious.

He didn't really have strong ideas on eugenics, he mostly opposed it. In general he accepted some of the observations made by social Darwinist, but he always rejected their prescriptions. You're misreading the passage below (I'll explain how). Humanity is still subject to natural selection.



"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised 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. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. The aid we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected."


The important thing to note about this passage is that Darwin is summarizing the arguments of Galton, who was a social Darwinist. Darwin is being polite to his critics and presenting these arguments in a pretty strong light. Yet, he goes on to argue that the social structures of humanity (those nobler parts of our nature which make us protect the sickly) are ultimately checked by natural selection, and that overall these social structures make us individually more fit. This is building off of the previous chapter where he argues that man evolved as a social animal, and that sympathy, morality, and religion are important components of that social nature.

[JCamilo]

Eugenics was also a sligt different concept before the XX century, a guy with no intentition to prune or select flaws or races, could talk with some apparent sympathy for it because there was an apparent idea of improvement, disease control ,etc. But I recall the description of meeting between a german biologist and darwin - in the biography (Desmond/moore) - and the german was apparently enthusiastic with the possibility to determine the evolutionary path towards a better human species and Darwin complained with his wife, stopping to keep correspondance with the guy because he felt it was a misunderstanding of evolution to try to apply it for poltical or social work.

[E.A Rumfield]

I think you miss understand my assumption. I am not saying that Darwin supported the view point of Hitler or like men. Reading his work it seems a reasonable connection to make. Humanity is not wild, so what is it? I'd say man shows every sign of being domesticated. What is man but a tamed animal?

[JCamilo]

It is more simple to mean that Darwin didn't consider any difference between domesticate or wild, rather than human intervention would not stop natural laws to happen, just like anything else. So, he just saw humans as humans, their specific conditions, not as a group.

[E.A Rumfield]

It is more simple to mean that Darwin didn't consider any difference between domesticate or wild, rather than human intervention would not stop natural laws to happen, just like anything else. So, he just saw humans as humans, their specific conditions, not as a group.

I understand his talks on the feebleness of mans efforts in his selection of traits versus the epic scales of nature. But there is an interesting passage in Origin where he says that if at the present rate of growth human beings were growing at there literally in a few thousand years wouldn't be enough standing room on the planet for all the offspring. So he indication should be clear to us today and down right simple. So could human beings have reached this population without artificial means? We know that cattle don't naturally exist in as great numbers as we farm them, no where near as much. Or are humans an invasive species that had no natural predators and grew out of check. Clearly we have grown out of check and by Darwins rules we will be checked soon. But my question is what explains us, no creature has ever inflicted as much damage upon the Earth as mankind. We have sped up the extinction process if not directly exterminated a great number of species. Look at the natural world today, the African lion, the polar and grizzly bear, the tiger and the great white shark. All well adapted to their surroundings with little to no natural predators, animals that would otherwise be thriving if not for one shared link. No one creature has probably ever reigned over a food chain as we have. Consuming everything. Not only food but resources of every kind in destructive abundance. So what explains us?

[JCamilo]

hmmm. You are going to far.
Humans have natural predators. They are usually tiny, very tiny, but if you go to hospital you will see many humans being attacked by another living organisms.
Now, cattle numbers are imense thanks to us. If we didn't like meat, there would be a very small number of cows.

You are mixing things, Humans are not responsable for even (insert a small number here)% of the extinction. Mass extinction had happened a lot before. For Darwin this is not relevant: he is not talking about extinction, he is talking about survival. He is giving traits that make us humans and increase our capacity of adaptation.

Ants pretty much consume everything, just like us. You must take a break, Darwin and all evolutionary thinking in the first half of XIX century was under huge influence of Malthus. Until then, the idea of continual progress was almost granted. Pretty much from Darwin the world will get more pessimistic. Just wait a little :D

[E.A Rumfield]

hmmm. You are going to far.
Humans have natural predators. They are usually tiny, very tiny, but if you go to hospital you will see many humans being attacked by another living organisms.
Now, cattle numbers are imense thanks to us. If we didn't like meat, there would be a very small number of cows.

You are mixing things, Humans are not responsable for even (insert a small number here)% of the extinction. Mass extinction had happened a lot before. For Darwin this is not relevant: he is not talking about extinction, he is talking about survival. He is giving traits that make us humans and increase our capacity of adaptation.

Ants pretty much consume everything, just like us. You must take a break, Darwin and all evolutionary thinking in the first half of XIX century was under huge influence of Malthus. Until then, the idea of continual progress was almost granted. Pretty much from Darwin the world will get more pessimistic. Just wait a little :D

Darwin is looking at things from the big picture. Just stating pure facts. I am merely drawings conclusions from the world around me. I never had to read Darwin to see that we cannot persist the way we do for too much longer. But it just goes to show you that it is not some insane notion. I think the time is now and the responsibility lies with my generation to really decide where we head in the future as a species. We can either continue making the same mistakes over and over or come together and try to solve some of these issues. As much potential man has for destruction he has for great things. I would say that mass extinction would make sense expect for the fact that mankind's effect is obvious on this planet. From massive deforestation to pollution to irresponsible hunting and fishing practices. It is far to probably assume that this life cycle was probably on the decline, some of the forests in the north west of North America are thousands of years old, but can it really be said that man did not speed the decline tremendously. Would the buffalo have vanished so fast? Look anywhere you want and you can see a drastic and marked decline in just the last two hundred years. Africa was wild and nearly untouched two hundred years ago now the game is concentrated in small reserves. You don't even need to look that far. North America especially the north western portion from Alaska to Oregon that rain forest has been decimated just since World War One. The ocean is the unwilling recipient for all our waste and it shows. To discount the effect we have had is foolish and allows our irresponsible behavior to continue.

[JCamilo]

Look, it is all nice to have a sense of ecology, but the part you quoted or any predictions about the future is not "darwin stating facts". Yes, he is worried, he is an humanist, but what you get in the end is pretty much "doh and we tought we are that important". Not the contrary.

[E.A Rumfield]

Look, it is all nice to have a sense of ecology, but the part you quoted or any predictions about the future is not "darwin stating facts". Yes, he is worried, he is an humanist, but what you get in the end is pretty much "doh and we tought we are that important". Not the contrary.

As long as we are living and breathing I say we can do better than this. It's hard to watch some of the **** that we do over and over again without ever learning. And it could be said that these things are natural and must occur and do occur in nature but why do we have this brain, to magnify our best and most of the time worst qualities. Intelligence seems to be a completely useless adaption that does more harm than good. What's the good of guys like Darwin and Einstein if we're just going to run ourselves into the ground anyway? If Plato never started this whole mess would humanity be any different? Why has anything been said? Don't you see it has all been a waste if we throw it away now which I think we are on the precipice of doing.

[JCamilo]

Sure, sure. But at this momment, we can go off topic and make this thread be about porn too. It is a recent trend here, i heard :D

[OrphanPip]

I understand his talks on the feebleness of mans efforts in his selection of traits versus the epic scales of nature. But there is an interesting passage in Origin where he says that if at the present rate of growth human beings were growing at there literally in a few thousand years wouldn't be enough standing room on the planet for all the offspring. So he indication should be clear to us today and down right simple. So could human beings have reached this population without artificial means? We know that cattle don't naturally exist in as great numbers as we farm them, no where near as much. Or are humans an invasive species that had no natural predators and grew out of check. Clearly we have grown out of check and by Darwins rules we will be checked soon. But my question is what explains us, no creature has ever inflicted as much damage upon the Earth as mankind. We have sped up the extinction process if not directly exterminated a great number of species. Look at the natural world today, the African lion, the polar and grizzly bear, the tiger and the great white shark. All well adapted to their surroundings with little to no natural predators, animals that would otherwise be thriving if not for one shared link. No one creature has probably ever reigned over a food chain as we have. Consuming everything. Not only food but resources of every kind in destructive abundance. So what explains us?

You're making an artificial distinction between human behaviour and nature, there is nothing unnatural in agriculture. Darwin says this precisely when he argues that cooperation and sympathy are evolved traits. Even if humanities growth is self-destructive, this is a well recognized trend in ecology. You see this with hares who multiply exponentially until they cause massive food shortages, then their population drops radically from food shortages, and then they start over again. Pathogenic bacteria also grow in a way that is unsustainable for them in the long run.

[prendrelemick]

I understand his talks on the feebleness of mans efforts in his selection of traits versus the epic scales of nature. But there is an interesting passage in Origin where he says that if at the present rate of growth human beings were growing at there literally in a few thousand years wouldn't be enough standing room on the planet for all the offspring. So he indication should be clear to us today and down right simple. So could human beings have reached this population without artificial means? We know that cattle don't naturally exist in as great numbers as we farm them, no where near as much. Or are humans an invasive species that had no natural predators and grew out of check. Clearly we have grown out of check and by Darwins rules we will be checked soon. But my question is what explains us, no creature has ever inflicted as much damage upon the Earth as mankind. We have sped up the extinction process if not directly exterminated a great number of species. Look at the natural world today, the African lion, the polar and grizzly bear, the tiger and the great white shark. All well adapted to their surroundings with little to no natural predators, animals that would otherwise be thriving if not for one shared link. No one creature has probably ever reigned over a food chain as we have. Consuming everything. Not only food but resources of every kind in destructive abundance. So what explains us?


Survival of the fittest could still explain us. You have to entertain the possibility that we aren't the fittest after all.