If the fittest survive, why is it bad to kill people or races?

Question

My point is...if evolution is true, then why wouldn't it be feasible for mankind to turn into a murderous monster an a global scale?
Or, maybe we are meant to pollute or destroy the planet to usher in some new type of species that will thrive in that environment. Why aren't scientists celebrating the depletion of the ozone..."thanks to the pollution, that only we could create, the planet is finally on the way to destruction..."
I don't see any other "animal' on the planet "fixing or changing the direction" they are on! If scientists/individuals believe in evolution why are they deadset on creating cures for disease, etc.? More scientists are trying to save life than destroy it (who says we have to take care of it)...If the fittest survive, why are we imprisoning serial killers, murderers, etc? Shouldn't we be admiring them for their cunning, their advancement in culling the weaker of us "animals"?
It seems to me the evolutionists don't believe in what they have discovered...

Some of you are not answering my question...what moral behavior, who says we have to be moral? Where do evolutionists get the standard for their morality and saving the masses...from a scorpion, chimpanzee (known to be cannibalistic), great white sharks, dolphins (they have been known to wipe out smaller porpoises in their territory).....Stop giving me the same old answer....WHO says that we should not wipe out the weaker of the species...to make room for the healthier ones....OR, WHO says we have to save the planet at all, DESTROY it for some up and coming species....I don't know the future, the majority of us seem more apt to destroy than to preserve, why are we not meant to do that? Give me a REAL answer.....

Again, I am getting the condescending attitude..."Dearie"...that I need to research, etc....thank goodness you're not a teacher, "no one can ask a question unless they have a degree first"...could someone please tell me...PLEASE....who says that evolution has anything to do with saving anything....it seems to me that the more people we have on earth (LIKE NOW!!!!) the worst shape the planet is in!
Where does it say in evolution that we have to be the caretakers of this planet or keep so many people (BILLIONS) alive???!!!????

Extinction is NOT bad, supposedly, it lead to the Human Race! Maybe, according to evolutionists, there is another species waiting in the wings for us to depart! What do you (people answering how bad it is for a species to disappear) know about the future that I do not?

Answer 1

I agree if evolution is true it should be open season on anyone that can't defend themselves against it.

Either your for the party and their ideas or your against it.

Answer 2

What you are talking about is a variation of Eugenics, and America practiced it in the 1920's through forced sterilization of the mentally handicapped and prisoners. As a society, we've been there and done that, to some degree.

And to Bryton100 (below)
When was Evolution "proved" fraudulent? Have you ever read a science book? It's pretty well established as a fact... Now on the other hand, there is no empirical evidence of any "creator", and the Bible has many contradictions...

Additional Comments: in response to some of the commentary below, are you really telling me that you are only prevented from killing your neighbor by your religion? I have never heard of an Agnostic or Athiest going on a killing spree because they are an Atheist or Agnostic. Is your moral code solely caused by your religion? That's pretty scary, and indicates a pretty low opinion of humans if you depend upon a "God" to keep you from killing others... More people have been killed throughout history because of religion, not in spite of religion...

Re: Additional Details
Generally speaking, human morality comes from a combination of empathy and societal development. Within one's own society, one cannot kill, as society cannot survive if people walk around killing each other. As various societies begin to interdevelop, such rules for societal behavior are "exchanged" in order to allow the dual societal existence. In ancient times, the Romans destroyed the entire civilization of Carthage after the last Punic war, killed 80-90 percent of the population, and destroyed the entire city of Carthage. More recently, the Spaniards in the New World had no problem eliminating the civilizations found in the Americas and comitting genocide upon the participants. They would not have done this had they been fighting the French on the European continent...

Should you not wish to be moral in certain ways, have at it. Commit adultery: have fun. If, however, you kill someone, you are breaking a rule without which Human Beings cannot live in a society.

Answer 3

You have a point? Other than your hamhanded and roundabout approach to saying evolution is amoral, I don't see a point.

You confused evolution and technology when you said, "turn into a murderous monster an a global scale". The fact that history is filled with wars where neighbor kills and enslaves neighbor shows that given the destructive technology at our disposal, we are moving in the opposite direction.

When you said, "we are meant to pollute or destroy the planet", you demonstrated that you don't grasp the basic concept that natural selection is undirected.

Killing isn't fitness. How do serial killers benefit from their actions?

Evolution includes both natural and artifical selection. You love muddling them. I suggest that you limit your "intellectual" questions to the movie "Independence Day". You're not ready for the gray areas.

Answer 4

evolution as well as the survival of the fittest theory mainly has to do with animals.Which you would probably consider yourself an evolved form of. The one thing that seperates us from animals other than thumbs is our brains' ability to reason. Animals kill either for food or territorial reasons basically on instinct because they dont know any better. Humans on the other hand are not limited to only those two reasons and do know that it is wrong. So when they do kill it is a simple maybe subconscious or even obvious lack of integrity.

Answer 5

Dearie, you may be a bit confused as to the definition of 'fit'.

We imprison serial killers because we deem them NOT fit to get along in our society. Ditto genocide - it's not good for anyone to have one group going around killing all the others. Who's next? Such a group would then turn on its own self. A cycle of destruction benefits no one.

One little understood concept in evolution is that the MOST successful strategies for survival have been those of COOPERATION, not wanton destruction. That's how we got multicelled beings, and schools and herds and packs and tribes. The fittest survive - but these aren't the ones who go around killing the world around them. Those who learn to work together have a much better chance of passing on their genetic material than things that destroy everything around them (and mark themselves as next, as their neighbors prepare for self-defense).

It seems to me you don't fully understand the concept of evolution, and you shouldn't use it in arguement until you do some more research on it.

Answer 6

You disrupt your own arguments by critiqung the single phrase on "animal" change. Wolves, assured their base species by evolving into the "best friend" of mankind--not the best killer.

As to your use of the word "fittest," any dictionary wil give many evolved meanings and nuances. Few actually have links to any violence.

As to the scientific....evolution culls naturally as well as creating.

Terry

Answer 7

I see what you're saying. I think it's sort of a morality issue. Just because the fittest survive doesn't mean that the rest should have behavior meant to destroy, ya know?

Answer 8

"Fittest" can be defined in many ways. What you're describing is Social Darwinist nonsense that no decent person believes anymore. It's the sort of thing that used to justify slavery and genocide.

"Fittest", in an evolutionary sense, simply means "able to survive in their environment". Cute, fluffy bunnies are just as "fit" as ferocious tigers, since they survive and thrive in their environment. A species is "unfit" when they can no longer survive in their environment, generally due to some environmental change. For instance, woolly mammoths died off after the Ice Age because they couldn't survive in the warmer climates. It had nothing to do with stronger beasties killing them off, since those cute, fluffy bunnies were one of the "fitter" species.

Humans are a social species. Read as much Ayn Rand as you like; it doesn't change that we rely on each other for our survival. A homicidal maniac is not more "fit". They are, in fact, a terrible, terrible mistake for our species. A person who kills other people within his or her social group can lead to the extinction of that group. Therefore, psychopaths are Bad. Their behavior towards others in their species works out fine for other animals- reptiles, for instance, which are not friendly- but it'd be the downfall of a species that relies on each other for survival.

As for the environment, well, we don't want to change it to cause the destruction of our own species. Survival is the number one drive for all creatures. Honestly, living is such a pain in the @ss and such hard work that any organism that wasn't dead set on it wouldn't last very long. We _want_ humans, and ourselves, to be around as long as possible, because that's as basic a drive as sex. And evolution doesn't only happen when the environment changes drastically. Yeah, that's surely when a lot of spectacularly stuff goes down, but evolution is constantly at work. Minor environmental changes, random mutations, these things drive evolution constantly. No scientist in their right mind would say, "Yippee! Let's risk destroying our own species just to see what would come out of the toxic mess we can make of our own planet!", especially since you really don't need to do that to see evolution at work. As an example, the flu bug mutates all the time. You know how you have to get a new flu shot every year? That's why. Between last winter and this, the flu has mutated so that it's enough different that your body no longer recognizes it.

And just because scientists accept the fact of evolution, doesn't mean they won't use it for our species' best interests. Admitting gravity exists and discovering the laws that govern it didn't stop us from trying to fly. In fact, we can use what we know of evolution to protect us from disease, whether genetic, environmental, or from nasty bugs. The flu shot is just one example. Thanks to that basic drive for the perpetuation of our species, scientists are just as committed as most others to ensure our survival and our comfort.

Okay, so why am I, a scientist in a field that relies on evolutionary theory and someone who has serious doubts about the existence of God, so moral? My mom raised me well. No, really. That's what happened to you, too. Okay, show of hands? Who here is prevented from killing because you think God will strike you down if you do? And who here doesn't kill because you know you'd be wracked with horrible, horrible guilt? Yeah, I thought so. The reason that we do the right thing is because we are taught to do so from birth, by our parents, our peers, and our society in general. Since we are social creatures, we are very interested in the approval of others. If everyone around us deems something bad, then we either won't do it or we become guilt-stricken because we did it. Even if we don't have that ingrained in us, there's also the outside punishment that would be inflicted if caught. Even if there's not jail time involved, there're still things like social ostracism, which, frankly, is much worse. Look at the high suicide rates among GLBT teens. Those poor kids feel that they are doing something terrible, not because God is raining punishments down on their head, but because they have to deal with all the disapproval from friends, family, and society.

Answer 9

WEll, Ghandi was one of the most peaceful and greatest philosophers on earth.... The way you'd have it, you would have killed him?

You can take your version of Evolution with you, thanks... See, thats not the evolution I beleive in. thats the evolution that you made up and put into my mouth. Not the same thing Kemosabe.

Do I state that you beleive in an angry, murderous, jealous God who suddenly got bipolarism and changed his ways??? Its the truth, but not to you....

Answer 10

If you follow the logic here then there would be no problem for people who believe this because life is really not worth much at all when taking this perspective.

This is why the suicide rate skyrocketed after the theory of evolution began being taught in schools - because it devalues life and removes hope from peoples life.

Although having said this there are atheists etc who do live moral lives as far as human standards go but they certainly don't have any requirements to do so within their belief system.

Answer 11

you see.....the difference between us and other animals, is that our tool, our weapon or our protective device is our mind. killing is something that is considered non-evolved. if we could lock into the powers of the mind.....and actually use this gift/power......we would see some fantastic things. if we could get past judgment upon others, fear, hatred for differences, we would see the human gift. our minds are awesome when used correctly. that is true evolution. to kill.....would be to go back. to devolve.