If Evolution is true, why is there society?

Question

If evolution is true, I could hold it true that Survival of the Fittest in the largest sense is true as well. If there is nothing more to do with our lives than survive and reproduce, why is there society?
While we humans hold coexistance and peace to be things of high moral magnitude, if evolution is true, doesn't our love and peace get in the way of our primal need to kill, survive and reproduce?
In the "millions" of years we've been here on earth, why would we take the time to find the concept of peace, if our whole universe is based upon a concept of death, defeat and survival above ALL OTHERS?
I mean this not as an attack, but a question. How does an evolutionary standpoint allow for a society that counters the ideals of the rest of the universe? If man was meant to kill and reproduce, why bother with peace and love? Asking to have sex gets in the way of our primal need of reproduction, no?
If necessary, I'll elaborate on the above as time goes on.

In a short conept, if evolutionary theory holds true, and morals are subjective, and the strongest beings survive while others die, why bother with morals and society, which value the exact opposite values?

Red, your claim is unbased. Just because I'm questioning evolution doesn't mean that I'm out to "get" it. This is an honest-to-goodness question. If you don't like that I'm questioning something so frequently accepted, don't bother me with your insults.
Irish: When did I mention Creation? I believe it, but that's not the point of the question. I'm not looking for someone to say "ZOMG UR RIGHT EOVLUTION IS TEH SUXXORZ" and quit Y!Answers.
-_-: Thank you for going through length to answer my question. However, I can't seem to find much consistency with your answer.
Why would evolutionary theory stop just for us humans? How do we dictate when/where evolution ends?
As for the definition of "fitness", why would it change just around us humans? It's remained the same for as long as life has existed, right? Doesn't "fitness" mean "ability to survive in the physical sense"? It holds other definitions in English, but I'd think it'd need to stay consistent enough for the theory to stay true.

Oh, and:
If it looks like I'm trying to start a debate instead of accept answers...
...I am. I want a consistent answer, one with enough logical consistency to hold true. -_- has come the closest to an actual answer so far.

Answer 1

Look, evolutionary theory EXPLANS how species diversify, adapt, and eventually evolve through mutation. THAT STOPPED. Humans are the end. We don't have a "nature". We don't reproduce according to the "fittest" because the concept of "fitness" is constantly changing. Natural selection is a slooooow process. And one that won't happen for humans because we have interfered with that process. If you want to read stuff on social darwinism read "Mein Kampf" or some other lunatic racists that undoubtedly continue to exist.

*** look "fitness" in a darwinian sense really means "ability to reproduce". So the more children you have, the more fit you are. In the models he looks at, the populations overproduce, which causes a struggle-- and those with traits best suited to that environment live to reproduce, the rest die, starve, freeze, get eaten. But we are a people that CHANGE our environment. We use birth control, sunscreen, clothing, fire. Those that 'survive' to reproduce aren't "selected" by nature anymore-- it's fortuitous. I mean discounting very forbidding birth "defects'. the human individual isn't "being-selected" to reproduce based on his adapted genetic variation-- More likely than not, it's because of socio-economic factors that supervene over this level of the "natural" weeding out of individuals.

Say an "evolved" characteristic develops-- that doesn't mean it will disseminate. Like a super-genius may have NO progeny. In which case you'd define that super-genius as unfit. Survival is automatic basically, but it doesn't necessitate "fitness".

We will invent AI long before any random 'evolution' occurs.

Answer 2

It is logically possible that humans act as other animals do in a society. Lions, elephants, penguins, and many others live in a society, and the reason could be as simple as safety in numbers, or it is more efficient to share a kill, and split the workload. Making less work for individuals means they are available to do more, and therefore able to contrubute more to the group; adding to the capacity of the group.
Humans are thought to have evolved in much the same way, we are naturally defenseless, and it makes for better survivability for us to hunt, and live in numbers. It is more than likely that social groups existed before humans, and therefore all the more likely that we evolved with this trait as a survival mechanism.
You ask why we evolve concepts such as peace, and I offer an explanation by posing a question: is peace as you see it peace between humans, or between humans and all species on earth? As I see it humans are very warlike (there's at least one going on at any given moment), and so I would have to say that your point is actually pointless when it comes to peace coming between man and his need to kill. On the other hand, how many cows are killed for us so we can have our hamburgers, and steaks? Death is not out because of an idea.
I think you have some confusion in nurture, and nature. Although Science is often confused about the boundaries of each, I can assure you that morals are learned, and not pre-wired.
This previous argument can take care of most of your assumptions about morals, and human nature.
I do not understand how you got that the universe is based upon death as a concept. Concepts are similar to morals in that it is not likely that nature is responsible for individual concepts, only the ability to conceptualize.
I will attack your primary argument now: If evolution is true....?
I do not understand the leap in logic that enables you to get to having nothing better to do with our lives. There is a hole there, and I would challenge that premise all day long because of the gaping hole in your logical form.

Answer 3

Well, over time, people have, or were supposed to "Civilise." That does not hold true just yet for everyone, as we can see in times of war and conflict, and those are caused by the human flaws, of which none of us are exempt: greed, corruption, hubris...So, some people still do try and go above All Others, and if we look at it, the aristocratic rich are above all of us, as they have been through the cenuries. If man was truly free, we would have no police, no government, no king or president to rule over us; our society would exist in an equilibrium, and if that equilibrium would be of hate, death and succumbing to the primal instincts, well, then the society would not be as good for all of us...
The thing is, we associate the word society by the modern meaning of an organised community, a modern town, for example. Still, even the most primitive village is a society, but one of a different order, and one in which diferent instincts and intelectualism prevail, that what causes all the hate and death; differences and belief of superiority. So, as long as people live in this planet, we will never form a perfect "society" of peace and love, but always one where at least one person's flaws and ambitions will take over. Communism was an attempt to create everyone equal, but again the corruption of human reason leads to disastrous events... So, man evolved from his instincts to kill and reproduce into an elaborate being that can learn and reason (or at least should be able to), and conquered the world by thinking himself "superior" to the rest of the sniam world, who does "only" reproduce and survive... Why bother with peace and love? Again one of our basic flaws sets in :greed, as we want a better lifestyle and better everything. If you leave an uneducated child in the middle of nowhere alone, of course it will seek only to kill to survive, and will become what we nowadays deem as a "barbarian", even though it is difficult to say who the barbarian is in the modern world...good question!

... I am open to further discussion...

Answer 4

I'm sorry that this is not an answer more just input-

This question has been asked before, which I like to call the Rousseau quandary, but there are several names for it. His thoughts were that humanity in its natural was innately good because of elements of egoism and moral evolution. However, society placed false values.
Keep in mind when man first an ape it was not wrong to kill, so they did not have the same morals. You see this question on human nature in the reverse, but yet you are basically asking, " Is man good or evil? We call animals evil, but how can we define righteousness?"
How I see it is that man has survived a greater leap in evolution- mental supremacy. Ethics, society, and religion are forms of mental exercise and ways to keep us from killing each other. So even though an animal wants to kill its neighbors and increase its population, humans have evolved differently as a result giving them a unique mindset to which they had to adapt in a new and higher way.

I suggest watching Space Odyssey 2001 if you haven't already.

Answer 5

'Fittest' isn't as you imply. Consider how we as a species have multiplied through the advantages of grouping up and enforcing a societal will. Any individual who kills out of hand is like a cancer cell in an organ. For the many more cells of an organ to survive, that cell must be dealt with.

You might better make your argument by treating nations or other broad groups as evolutionary elements by themselves. In the same way that any animal's cells survive by passing down their genes through the survival of the whole animal, so too do people survive by passing down their genes through a society that does better than another society.

It may happen that someday whole planets will do the same thing- pass down their biospheres by warring against other planets.

And remember, there isn't any intelligence involved here at all, no morals other than those we create for our own benefit, no right or wrong- just an intractable process as much a part of our universe as gravity.

Answer 6

The formation of hives, herds, bands, tribes etc is a well known and tried survival mechanism that has evolved for many organisms. There is safety in numbers. Once those herds, bands, tribes etc form there is a great advantage in hard wiring behaviour for cooperation within the group. It improves the prospects of society, and the individuals in that society, immeasurably.

People have no difficulty in accepting the efficacy of cooperative behaviour in bees, wasps, ants, fish, widebeest, antelope, elephants, chimpanzees and innumerable other species. For some reason, because we can analyse behaviour, we are expected to be different. We aren't. We are a herd animal.

Creationists would be much better able to understand evolution if they could discard the fallacy that we are somehow special. We aren't. We are just another critter in the continuum.

Answer 7

You are forgetting one thing, as man evolved, man began to reason and gained understanding, with this came morals and knowledge.

However, in a life or death situation, people will kill to survive. The primal instincts will take over.

People do reproduce, people do kill...I hunt to supplement the cost of food in the supermarkets, I bust hump for every dollar I get to survive, and yes I did reproduce...have a 14 yr old to carry on the name...so to speak. So the instincts are still there, but more refined and evolved.

Even in the animal kingdom, there is a social structure, mating cycles and peaceful existance (for the most part)Therefore, I believe your logic is flawed.

Answer 8

Aproximately 4 million years ago, there was 3 mutations that allowed what was passing for human at the time that gave us the ability to speak. When we had enough language to to put together a sentence, the weaker peoples were able to gang up on the bullies and either kill them or drive them out. So we survived better in groups.

Answer 9

i fully belive that we evolve but i dont belive in evolution becuz we are not monkeys. ITs like saying snakes are twigs or rats are ants they have nothing to do with each other so why would they evolve from each other even if they did. Talking about the chances of amino acids coming together to form a human cell, he said, "What are the chances that a tornado might blow through a junkyard containing all the parts of a 747, accidentally assemble them into a plane, and leave it ready for take-off? what if god is a person who traveled back in time!!! Something made us there is a better probbabilty of it being true. thats all for tonight peace!@

Answer 10

i think society exists to help evolution...i believe that all philosophers agree on the fact that society it is not always the "weak" that die in a battle. it may even b the more wily/cunning of the 2. so, if we were to go killing each other it need not always b our capacity that helps us defet our opponent, even luck plays a role in it. but living in asociety and co-existing will surely prevent such a loss. and the fittest can still survive and reproduce while the weak is given another chance. got it?;-)