Can natures and social laws oppose each other?

[Fraggle Rocker]

"Survival of the fittest," in a species that is solitary by nature, tends to apply to the individual. In a species that is social by nature, it tends to apply to the community, whatever size it is. Small family groups of jackals, tribes of fifty apes, herds of hundreds of bison, flocks of a thousand macaws.

Our paleolithic ancestors were right in there with the apes, but we invented civilization and our tribes now number in the thousands or millions. In fact, we're on the verge of applying the principle of "survival of the fittest" to the entire population of our species.

Therefore, to apply this "natural law" to humans rightfully involves all of the "unnatural" artifacts we have created in order to keep peace within our communties and to keep civilization from collapsing. That would likely kill off about 99% of the human race in an ungainly return to subsistence farming.

So there is no conflict. It's all a matter of semantics and defining your terms logically.

 

[Kumar]

"Survival of the fittest," in a species that is solitary by nature, tends to apply to the individual. In a species that is social by nature, it tends to apply to the community, whatever size it is. Small family groups of jackals, tribes of fifty apes, herds of hundreds of bison, flocks of a thousand macaws.

Our paleolithic ancestors were right in there with the apes, but we invented civilization and our tribes now number in the thousands or millions. In fact, we're on the verge of applying the principle of "survival of the fittest" to the entire population of our species.

Therefore, to apply this "natural law" to humans rightfully involves all of the "unnatural" artifacts we have created in order to keep peace within our communties and to keep civilization from collapsing. That would likely kill off about 99% of the human race in an ungainly return to subsistence farming.

So there is no conflict. It's all a matter of semantics and defining your terms logically.

Sorry but genetic changes,evolution, resistences, natural selection etc. shold be individual.

If we take too much alcohol or use unhealthful thing excessively, we can't say it is valid because it is "unnatural" artifacts...

Anyway, we should be fully exposed to all "unnatural effects" introduced recently to get the benefits by "natural selection" for fighting/accomodating these by our next generations. Whether our current interventions are not deviating us from the suitable exposure to such unnatural effects or modern introductions? How our offsprings will be get suitable "natural selection for these modern introductions?

If fully treated(common), how our offsprings will get resistances from diabetes2, hypertentions etc. via natural selection?

 

[Oniw17]

They won't, and there are many other conflicts of nature vs. society. Global warming is the most regocnizable one. Again, look at the lion, the wolf, and many other mammals. The strongest male is the only one allowed to reproduce.The strongest females are the only ones who can survive. By this notion, the strong genes are separated, and the species is ever evolving. Early societies used this means of reproduction. Caertain studies suggest that the average size of the human male reproductive organ has increased over the past decades. That is because the female of our species perfer that. Natural selection is still seen, but not in a way that will help the survival of our species.

 

[Kumar]

Male organ increased...

Probably, It can also be due to that sperm lost their previous motility and so it is to be attained by increase in size to reach the destination. It may also indicate we are also losing previous strength of our sperms/children by increasing our strength.

 

[Kumar]

I think, there is a science law/rule hat "everything tends to return back to its ntural form"..somewhat like it I just have faint idea.

We shall be getting some natural initiations which may oppose social laws. Which should have more weightage..GOD/Nature or King/Society?

 

[Oniw17]

Nature should dictate our lives, and because it doesn't, our species has developed depression, an emotion not found in any animal until we created false realities(society) of leisure and materialism around us.

 

[one_raven]

Nature should dictate our lives

I agree, but...

an emotion not found in any animal until we created false realities(society) of leisure and materialism around us.

Bullshit.
First of all, how can you know that?
Secondly, there have been plenty cases of animals appearing to exhibit the same signs and symptoms as depressed human beings.

 

[Oniw17]

Aniamals in the wild? Also, if animals are able to be depressed in the wild, they'd die off anyway. That's natural selction.

 

[Kumar]

Nature should dictate our lives, and because it doesn't,

Why nature doesn't?

 

[baumgarten]

Clearly they can.

Natural law: F = GMm/r^2
Social law: Thou shalt never mutually attract with thine other body with a magnitude inversely proportional to yonder distance squared between thee. (The Lost Eleventh Commandment)