Tarzan

[AV1611VET]

I notice Tarzan went feral too, but he didn't shoot anybody.

Tarzan ("...the Apeman") is a fictional character, an archetypal feral child raised in the African jungles by the Mangani "great apes"; he later experiences civilization only to largely reject it and return to the wild as a heroic adventurer.

SOURCE

 

[HitchSlap]

I notice Tarzan went feral too, but he didn't shoot anybody.


SOURCE

Correct.

 

[durangodawood]

Smeagol went feral too. He did throttle some orcs, though... and probably would have killed the hobbits given half a chance.
.

 

[pgp_protector]

I notice Tarzan went feral too, but he didn't shoot anybody.

SOURCE

Because the fictional writers didn't have him shoot anyone. You do understand what fiction is right?

 

[HitchSlap]

Because the fictional writers didn't have him shoot anyone. You do understand what fiction is right?

Well, he is an internet creationists.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because the fictional writers didn't have him shoot anyone.

With respect to evolution, or in spite of evolution?

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

What does shooting people have to do with feral children? Because feral children do exist (tragically), but I've never heard of one of them shooting anyone.

 

[AV1611VET]

What does shooting people have to do with feral children? Because feral children do exist (tragically), but I've never heard of one of them shooting anyone.

You would have only been 7 years old at the time I'm thinking of.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

You would have only been 7 years old at the time I'm thinking of.

I'm pretty sure you're talking about Columbine. The two shooters weren't feral children. Most feral children are so mentally damaged that their ability to learn how to fire an automatic pistol (or to act in a way that is truly morally evil, as the Columbine shooters obviously did) is very doubtful. The shooters were just two mentally disturbed and violent individuals. Obviously their psychological profiles were complicated, and it's impossible to say ultimately why they did it, but they weren't "feral", nor did they act in such a way because of evolution.

Had they wanted to act according to well-understood evolutionary principals as their sole ethical guidelines (not something that I recommend, but assuming that evolution had been the basis of their actions), they would have acted as relatively functional members of society so that they could live for as long as possible and have a high number of children.

 

[keith99]

Smeagol went feral too. He did throttle some orcs, though... and probably would have killed the hobbits given half a chance.
.

Let's not forget he killed Deagol his best friend.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm pretty sure you're talking about Columbine. The two shooters weren't feral children. They were just two mentally disturbed and violent individuals. Obviously their psychological profiles were complicated, and it's impossible to say ultimately why they did it, but they weren't "feral", nor did they act in such a way because of evolution.

Had they wanted to act according to well-understood evolutionary principals as their sole ethical guidelines (not something that I recommend, but assuming that evolution had been the basis of their actions), they would have acted as relatively functional members of society so that they could live for as long as possible and have a high number of children.

So no eating their own children, or anything like that that animals are known for?

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

So no eating their own children, or anything like that that animals are known for?

No, because if you want to have a high number of children in a modern society, you can't go around eating them. You get locked in prison for doing that, and if your sole ethical imperative is to perpetuate your gene pool (again, not something I would ever recommend), then that's not conducive to having more kids.

Even in a system where ethics were developed based off of spreading your DNA as much as possible before you die (which is such a terrible idea that yes, it probably could be used to justify infanticide), what they did wouldn't make them more evolutionarily viable.

 

[Tomk80]

No, because if you want to have a high number of children in a modern society, you can't go around eating them. You get locked in prison for doing that, and if your sole ethical imperative is to perpetuate your gene pool (again, not something I would ever recommend), then that's not conducive to having more kids.

There is evidence of different pioneering societies eating their own children when times were harsh. Basic survival. Either you and the kid die, or you eat your kid.

 

[HitchSlap]

Kapoooooya, Kapoooooya!

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

There is evidence of different pioneering societies eating their own children when times were harsh. Basic survival. Either you and the kid die, or you eat your kid.

I know that there are societies where infanticide was (and some where it still is) practiced. Obviously, because I consider some things to be morally wrong regardless of the circumstance, I don't believe that it's acceptable. Desperate people do desperate things sometimes, though. That's not the topic at hand.

The point I was making is that it wouldn't have made you more evolutionarily viable in Colorado in 1998, but regardless, this thread punches at a strawman. Let's say that there's a hypothetical society where whatever allows your DNA to propagate most successfully is socially promoted, even if it is morally abhorrent. What the two gunmen did would have only made them more viable in a handful of very militaristic societies throughout history, and then only if perpetrated against an enemy or a heavily subjugated underclass. Therefore, even if an ethical system based solely off of evolutionary goals did support the Swiftian logic brought up by AV, it wouldn't support Columbine.

 

[Tomk80]

I know that there are societies where infanticide was (and some where it still is) practiced. Obviously, because I consider some things to be morally wrong regardless of the circumstance, I don't believe that it's acceptable. Desperate people do desperate things sometimes, though. That's not the topic at hand.

Well, in times of extreme stress, I'm not so sure it is morally wrong. What good is served by everyone dying, rather then 1 person?

Off topic, sure. But as a discussion topic much more interesting than the red herring AV started with.

The point I was making is that it wouldn't have made you more evolutionarily viable in Colorado in 1998, but regardless, it really is a strawman. What the two gunmen did would have only made them more viable in a handful of very militaristic societies throughout history, and then only if perpetrated against an enemy or a heavily subjugated underclass. Therefore, even if an ethical system based solely off of evolutionary goals did support the Swiftian logic brought up by AV, it wouldn't support Columbine.

Definitely. Completely agree. The fact that both gunmen are dead, should be kind of a hint that they didn't exactly choose the evolutionary viable strategy.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, because if you want to have a high number of children in a modern society, you can't go around eating them.

But I believe it's the father that eats them, and he's usually the type that doesn't stick around anyway.

So what would he care anyway?

 

[AV1611VET]

There is evidence of different pioneering societies eating their own children when times were harsh. Basic survival. Either you and the kid die, or you eat your kid.

Like this?

[youtube]DGNdvKvbxYQ[/youtube]

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

Definitely. Completely agree. The fact that both gunmen are dead, should be kind of a hint that they didn't exactly choose the evolutionary viable strategy.

Even if they hadn't chosen suicide, though, they would be inside of the prison system and very unlikely to receive conjugal visits. Therefore, they would not be able to propagate their DNA. Massacres do not increase your evolutionary viability. Period. From a biological perspective, they would have been evolutionary dead ends.

But I believe it's the father that eats them, and he's usually the type that doesn't stick around anyway.

So what would he care anyway?

Well, let's say that these two are total deadbeats. They just have as many children as possible, making certain that they leave them with mothers who can support them to the extent that they will grow up to propagate their DNA to the next generation, which will pass it on the next generation, and so on (which is really a very good reason for them to provide at least some assistance to the mothers, but let's say that they've ensured an adequate support network to avoid that being a problem in the very minimal goal of allowing their DNA to continue to exist).

They still would not kill any of the children, if for no reason other than the fact that they would risk losing their freedom. That's a crummy reason not to kill infants, of course, but it is a reason.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, let's say that these two are total deadbeats.

Why? can't they be the animals they were told they were?

If we are being taught we are animals subject to flight-or-flight, what's the deal if some of us choose to actually believe it and act like one?

Why threaten them with prison?

The term that evolutionists use in describing one that eats his young is filial cannibalism.

I'm sure evolutionists don't think it's a crime if a polar bear eats his young'uns.

Yet, for some reason, we Mangani are supposed to follow a set of rules and regulations that, for some, go against our nature.

What's the deal?

Are you suggesting there's a moral code that came to us outside of the Animal Kingdom that we should be following?