3 ms·

Money hasn't existed long enough for it to have any hand in human evolution. Social and economic Darwinism don't describe the real world, they describe how some

Money hasn't existed long enough for it to have any hand in human evolution. Social and economic Darwinism don't describe the real world, they describe how some people feel the real world should operate. Furthermore, the fact that inherited wealth is a longstanding tradition isn't a qualitative judgment one way or another, post facto rationalizations notwithstanding. Not everything that's existed for a long time is necessarily some happy equilibrium that benefits all sides.

ChaitanyaSai 18y ago
Money is a proxy for other evolutionary factors. Is there are a good reason to disagree with this? Money by itself does not promote the well being of its holders, the underlying factors do. Lottery winners squander theirs within a few years, let alone a generation. Observing that money is a proxy for many desirable traits, and helps, and has helped, in bettering survival chances is not social Darwinism. To assume that the unintelligent wealthy are somehow more lucky, and that morons must be filtered out is. Inherited wealth is much a tradition in the same way gestating your young (outside of the womb) is. Happy equilibrium or not, that is the way culture and nature have co-transformed, and determining the causative reasons is not necessarily blind Darwinism. Here's a statement: On average, the wealthy are smarter, prettier, and taller, than the not-wealthy. Do you disagree with that? Or do you agree, but attribute the correlation to happenstance?
- MaysonL 18y ago
  I agree, but the correlation also applies to adopted children of the wealthy. Would you attribute that to happenstance, or dispute it? The children of the wealthy are also richer than the rest of the population. Would you dispute that?
- prospero 18y ago
  Money is a proxy for other evolutionary factors. Is there are a good reason to disagree with this? Yes, there is: wealth doesn't imply a greater number of offspring. Survival is a relatively low economic hurdle, as is raising and nurturing children. By asserting any real similarity, you're conflating survival with some modern concept of success. Here's a statement: On average, the wealthy are smarter, prettier, and taller, than the not-wealthy. Do you disagree with that? I agree that wealth is a social signal. It might even imply things that aren't immediately apparent (though you'll know someone is tall and attractive before you'll know they're rich, most of the time). But even the facile comparison of a peacock's feathers and a rich person's designer clothing doesn't really hold water in my mind. I think a lot of our evolutionary urges might be sublimated in our struggles for success, but that doesn't make them the same things.
  - theoneill 18y ago
    wealth doesn't imply a greater number of offspring It did in preindustrial times, which is to say for practically all of human history. I recently read a quite impressive study of birth records in a scandinavian country (forget which) that showed a significant difference in the number of surviving children of rich and poor women.
    - prospero 18y ago
      I would argue that in preindustrial times the rich and the poor were on different sides of a subsistence level income. This was a huge distinction until recently, but in the present day Warren Buffet doesn't have a harem, nor does he have several hundred children. Wealth and progeny don't scale.
- rsheridan6 18y ago
  >Observing that money is a proxy for many desirable traits, and helps, and has helped, in bettering survival chances is not social Darwinism. To assume that the unintelligent wealthy are somehow more lucky, and that morons must be filtered out is. The unintelligent wealthy are more lucky, because they don't have to struggle. The letter writer struggled his whole life doing things he appears not to enjoy very much to get into the right school, make the right deals, etc, so that he could retire and go live on a diamond-studded houseboat and smoke weed or whatever he's going to do with his life now. If he had been born extremely rich, he could have done what he's doing now from the start. If he had been born moderately rich or an Ivy League legacy, he could have done it with less difficulty. >Here's a statement: On average, the wealthy are smarter, prettier, and taller, than the not-wealthy. If you want to select for smarts, looks, or height, then select for smarts, looks, or height, not some proxy which will never be as good as direct measurement.
- nextmoveone 18y ago
  On average the wealthy attend better schools, receive tons preparatory courses, are providing with learning assistance, receive better health care and endure more plastic surgery than the not-wealthy. Do you disagree with that?
jhancock 18y ago
Most "white male Americans" have inherited "wealth". They were born white male Americans. You start at the top of the global order even if you are penniless relative to a few others.

ChaitanyaSai 18y ago

Money is a proxy for other evolutionary factors. Is there are a good reason to disagree with this? Money by itself does not promote the well being of its holders, the underlying factors do. Lottery winners squander theirs within a few years, let alone a generation. Observing that money is a proxy for many desirable traits, and helps, and has helped, in bettering survival chances is not social Darwinism. To assume that the unintelligent wealthy are somehow more lucky, and that morons must be filtered out is. Inherited wealth is much a tradition in the same way gestating your young (outside of the womb) is. Happy equilibrium or not, that is the way culture and nature have co-transformed, and determining the causative reasons is not necessarily blind Darwinism. Here's a statement: On average, the wealthy are smarter, prettier, and taller, than the not-wealthy. Do you disagree with that? Or do you agree, but attribute the correlation to happenstance?

MaysonL 18y ago
I agree, but the correlation also applies to adopted children of the wealthy. Would you attribute that to happenstance, or dispute it? The children of the wealthy are also richer than the rest of the population. Would you dispute that?
prospero 18y ago
Money is a proxy for other evolutionary factors. Is there are a good reason to disagree with this? Yes, there is: wealth doesn't imply a greater number of offspring. Survival is a relatively low economic hurdle, as is raising and nurturing children. By asserting any real similarity, you're conflating survival with some modern concept of success. Here's a statement: On average, the wealthy are smarter, prettier, and taller, than the not-wealthy. Do you disagree with that? I agree that wealth is a social signal. It might even imply things that aren't immediately apparent (though you'll know someone is tall and attractive before you'll know they're rich, most of the time). But even the facile comparison of a peacock's feathers and a rich person's designer clothing doesn't really hold water in my mind. I think a lot of our evolutionary urges might be sublimated in our struggles for success, but that doesn't make them the same things.
- theoneill 18y ago
  wealth doesn't imply a greater number of offspring It did in preindustrial times, which is to say for practically all of human history. I recently read a quite impressive study of birth records in a scandinavian country (forget which) that showed a significant difference in the number of surviving children of rich and poor women.
  - prospero 18y ago
    I would argue that in preindustrial times the rich and the poor were on different sides of a subsistence level income. This was a huge distinction until recently, but in the present day Warren Buffet doesn't have a harem, nor does he have several hundred children. Wealth and progeny don't scale.
rsheridan6 18y ago
>Observing that money is a proxy for many desirable traits, and helps, and has helped, in bettering survival chances is not social Darwinism. To assume that the unintelligent wealthy are somehow more lucky, and that morons must be filtered out is. The unintelligent wealthy are more lucky, because they don't have to struggle. The letter writer struggled his whole life doing things he appears not to enjoy very much to get into the right school, make the right deals, etc, so that he could retire and go live on a diamond-studded houseboat and smoke weed or whatever he's going to do with his life now. If he had been born extremely rich, he could have done what he's doing now from the start. If he had been born moderately rich or an Ivy League legacy, he could have done it with less difficulty. >Here's a statement: On average, the wealthy are smarter, prettier, and taller, than the not-wealthy. If you want to select for smarts, looks, or height, then select for smarts, looks, or height, not some proxy which will never be as good as direct measurement.
nextmoveone 18y ago
On average the wealthy attend better schools, receive tons preparatory courses, are providing with learning assistance, receive better health care and endure more plastic surgery than the not-wealthy. Do you disagree with that?

jhancock 18y ago

Most "white male Americans" have inherited "wealth". They were born white male Americans. You start at the top of the global order even if you are penniless relative to a few others.