The Other Side
I thought about this very issue a couple years ago and came to an interesting conclusion - an inductive proof of G-d - from these observations.
In fact, yes it's true that the idiots and evil people SHOULD be surviving as individuals, and society as a whole should be breaking down as a trend as the evil and idiotic individuals overtake the world by shear numbers. Yet, somehow people still hold onto their self-destructive behaviors for the sake of the community.
Why?
Because G-d hard-wired us to survive as communities. Only as communities can we function to serve G-d's purpose of surviving Himself. If we disappear, G-d may not in fact disappear but without anybody to worship Him, his existence to Himself becomes absurd. He in some sense requires creations, the more intelligent and G-d cognizant the better, upon whom he can bestow of his beneficense.
Basically this thought is a bastardization of one I found in Derech Hashem by Ramchal - who would never say that G-d is in anyway dependant on anything, but he DOES say that G-d's purity of goodness requires people to be manifest. If people disappear, then so would his ability to manifest Himself.
Anyway, just a thought - that G-d hardwires survival intincts not to ensure the survival of humanity, but that survival of humanity serves the purpose of ensuring G-d's survival. It is a manifestation of His instinct, not ours.
Maybe I'm missing a nuance; what exacly is he promoting that's new and novel? I think even Darwin discussed group selection...
Thought provoking twist on survival of the fittest -although neither platform for understanding a specie's likelihood to 'make it' in the competition of a spot in the gene pool endorses a morality. You're right about that.
But evolution isn't a philosophical theory, although as with every other hard science we transform the descriptive data for prescriptive benefits. Living in a way that we learn from evolution will best benefit us and our posterity is still quite a hop, skip and a quack from laying the golden egg of religion or God.
Morality has a very good name I'm sure she wouldn't want to spoil by admitting to being a simple nifty little tool to survival; just as a long bill 'can' be for the bird to obtain food but that same bill can stand in the way elsewhere. Morality conjures images of purity, but don't fall for it. It's one way for feeling good, fitting in, not getting killed back for being an a** (that can also happen to the wicked, despite your referring to them as 'likelier' to survive) and finding er, chickens in your crate to reproduce (gotta have some nice moves for attracting a mate, evolution definitely tells us that). Again, I see a smooth line from evolution to good values -not a guarantee but an evolutionary advantage in many situations- but from there to religion it all becomes a blur.
Shai:
I find 'God-did-it' to be of questionable explanatory value, and practically worthless when a more comprehensible explanation is available, a la Wilson.
BHB:
I don't think Darwin did. Group selection of traits (when those traits would be harmful for isolated individuals) is very controversial -- so much so that it is considered an invalid theory in evolutionary biology. Mathematical models show it would be impossible for traits that only benefit the group as a whole to evolve. But Wilson tweaked the traditional theory and claims it does work in his model -- a model he calls multi-level selection. The jury is still out, as far as I can tell.
Shpitzle:
"Morality has a very good name I'm sure she wouldn't want to spoil by admitting to being a simple nifty little tool to survival"
Well, it isn't. The evolutionary benefit conferred by a certain trait may explain how that trait came to be, but it does not say that any particular trait is SIMPLY a 'nifty tool for survival.' That is a value judgment, and as I argued, evolution has nothing at all to say about values. Even if evolution explains how our ingrained sense of morality came to be, morality cannot be said to be 'simply a tool for survival' anymore than sex (in humans) is 'simply a tool for procreation' -- even though the evolutionary reason for sex is undoubtedly exactly that. (Oh, wait...)
"but from there to religion it all becomes a blur"
Wilson attempts to clarify that line in his book Darwin's Cathedral.
It looks like you may have answered yourself in that last moment, but I think I should point out that from an evolutionary perspective morals are SIMPLY a means to survival and saying it's anything beyond that is *the* value judgment.
The key question is obvious: What comes first, the chicken or the egg, eh?? 
Morality or evolution? If you'll have evolution first, I don't think your basic argument holds. If evolution gave us cognitive capacities and the ability to reason how can a "moral conundrum" about evolution follow from the very morals that were created by evolution? Moral wouldn't even exist if evolution wouldn't have created it! Unless... You subscribe to the view that morals came first, which puts you in a completely different mindset.
I'd say: 1. We CAN take from the descriptive prescriptive, that's what medicine is. 2. Morals don't tell us what we should do just the same as evolution doesn't. 3 Okay, I will read the book before getting into double digits.
"from an evolutionary perspective morals are SIMPLY a means to survival"
Morals aren't anything from an evolutionary perspective. Evolution has no foresight or will of its own. Evolutionary theory can explain how things came to be -- that's all.
"and saying it's anything beyond that is *the* value judgment."
Exactly.
"Evolutionary theory can explain how things came to be -- that's all"
And
"Morals aren't anything from an evolutionary perspective."
That's a contradiction. If evolutionary theory can explain how things came to be, then it can tell us how morals came to be. Which is, by the evolution of emotions/moral-feelings that are sensitive to a community (semi-private, semi-social specie) working in benefit of gene reproduction.
When we understand the way morals came to be we may choose to behave a certain way, that is, if our concern is to... Yeah, what? Survive? No. Pass on our noses to a thousand generations hence? Whatever the motive, if we seek 'evolutionary immortality', analyzing evolution and adapting its survival techniques is a logical route. That is, act moral per Herr Wilson's theory.
I actually think Social Darwinism to be strangly catty, more so than you'd (I) observe in life. I am intrigued by this perspective because it seems to explain human behavior better. Will read the book.
"if we seek 'evolutionary immortality', analyzing evolution and adapting its survival techniques is a logical route"
This is correct. However, seeking 'evolutionary immortality' is itself a value based on something else, not on evolutionary theory. The theory of evolution cannot tell you whether this (or anything else) is a moral value or it isn't; all it can tell you is how a trait came to be. If you already decided that 'evolutionary immortality' is moral and "good", then yes, adopting these techniques can be useful.
In more concrete terms, evolutionary theory says the fittest will survive and pass on their genes. But it doesn't say that the fittest SHOULD survive to pass on their genes; that is a value judgment we need to make. Notably, we think it proper and "moral" to use much valuable resources to heal the sick even if the they are infertile. Most people would agree this is a moral value even if it can be shown that in the long run, this takes away resources from people who COULD pass on their genes to the next generation. Evolutionary theory cannot be used to judge what we should do, only what is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n...h?
v=nfjs9aNtlgw
"However, seeking 'evolutionary immortality' is itself a value based on something else, not on evolutionary theory"
Seeking immortality/self preservation *is* an aspect of evolutionary theory ---of course as an instinctual drive not as an imperative.
"Notably, we think it proper and "moral" to use much valuable resources to heal the sick even if the they are infertile. Most people would agree this is a moral value even if it can be shown that in the long run, this takes away resources from people who COULD pass on their genes to the next generation"
It does *not* take away resources if we subscribe to your friend's view of communal survival.
Besides, evolutionary advantages are only a benefit relative to its context. What has "been fit" at one point cannot be generalized as a "better" feature or one that will endure elsewhere. If we developed an urge to extend kindness, say, for purposes of reciprocation or harmony, there is no guarantee that you'll always get harmony. Evolution isn't AT ALL as precise, a lot more is left up to chance whilst the fit get lost. It's a combination of factors: circumstances, genes and chance.
Our moral values can be self defeating. If Darwinian Socialism is right its bearers will likely go extinct. How tragic a thought; A la al kiddish hashem.
Or perhaps it serves to our advantage... Enter group theory.
The theory doesn't have to have practical implications, that's your prerogative. Here there isn't hell, only inertia. Unless you're a pantheist, reading nature's clues doesn't commit you to anything but it can teach you something.
"It does *not* take away resources if we subscribe to your friend's view of communal survival."
I see. So suppose it turns out Wilson is wrong (as some think he is); will you now think It *is* moral to withhold resources from the infertile sick and/or poor?
"will you now think It *is* moral to withhold resources from the infertile sick and/or poor?"
Hmm. I like the question. Here's one for you:
Suppose it turned out that the mass of the dinosaur which gave it excellent reproduction advantages and resources caused its extinction, will you now think they *were* small creatures?
I was going to link the definition of morals but its ambiguity makes it useless. [Webster] "MORALS: Having to do with right or wrong". Yes. Very informative.
So what does RIGHT mean? "Correct, upright...virtuous..." Vague!
If we define right as 'the balance we seek between serving individual (self) and group (selfless)' I think we pretty much defined what we think of as morality notwithstanding the gray areas.
Just thought I should include my def to make myself clear.
Commenting by HaloScan
