Value of the "profession," bereft?

[AleoMagus]

Quote:

"I could easily argue that poker falls far below the level of Mother Theresa's work in terms of it's societal worth, but I could argue equally well that Mother Theresa's work was aimed at assisting those who would not have survived without her, and from the perspective of a social Darwinist, her work -- while meretorious -- was ultimately unnecessary."

Well! lol. What can I say?

To suggest that Mother Theresa's efforts were uneccessary because those who received her aid "would not have survived without her" is tantamount to suggesting that a trauma surgeon's efforts are unneccesary because after all, what happens to a car crash victim who does not receive his/her aid?
Why help the car crash victim, when CLEARLY they have a genetic tendency to get in car crashes? Who wants a bunch of bad drivers and unlucky people poppulating the earth. That would be contrary to the evolutionary force of natural selection and would be a step backward for society? wouldn't it? I don't think so.

Social Darwinism was a 19th and early 20th century collection of doctrines that no serious academic would stand behind today. It was only ever touted by the well to do in an attempt to justify political and social callousness to the poor in a (pseudo-) scientific way.
Social Darwinism tries to tie social success to reproductive fitness when, in fact, wealth and education are inversely correlated to birth rates.
Darwin himself saw his theories as having no implications whatsoever about the social standing of man. Natural selection can be seen as a well organized theory in genetics whereby certain beneficial genetic traits help an organism procreate and pass on those same traits. Economic success cannot be tied to genetic traits in the same way at all. Unless I am to assume that George Bush's (for example) economic and social success is somehow tied to an actual physiological structure in his brain (as opposed to the handouts and opportunities his family provided), then I am kidding myself if I think that he got where he did by any sort of evolutionary mechanism. You might even think he is a great man (who knows?), but rest assured, that is not because of Natural Selection.

There is also the fact that our decisions about society are largely MORAL. We make decisions that we feel are right in an ethical sense. To think that evolutionary processes have anything at all to do with morality is senseless. If I am to assume that what happens in nature is any guide at all for my own ethical behavior then I'd eat my children if they were unhealthy and murder my competitors. I certainly would not try to save premature infants and I'd abolish hospitals and old age homes.

Sigh.

I hate when people pick one tiny point that might not even be central to the argument a thread is making and go on and on... and here I am ranting away (to Lou Kreiger no less!). I am sorry. Perhaps this is my own unfulfilled need to fight for the rights of the weak and impoverished, but I sure hate social darwinim in all it's forms. I need to go call World Vision. I wonder if Sally Struthers is still up?

Regards,
Brad S

[CountDuckula]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:

"I could easily argue that poker falls far below the level of Mother Theresa's work in terms of it's societal worth, but I could argue equally well that Mother Theresa's work was aimed at assisting those who would not have survived without her, and from the perspective of a social Darwinist, her work -- while meretorious -- was ultimately unnecessary."

Well! lol. What can I say?

To suggest that Mother Theresa's efforts were uneccessary because those who received her aid "would not have survived without her" is tantamount to suggesting that a trauma surgeon's efforts are unneccesary because after all, what happens to a car crash victim who does not receive his/her aid?
Why help the car crash victim, when CLEARLY they have a genetic tendency to get in car crashes? Who wants a bunch of bad drivers and unlucky people poppulating the earth. That would be contrary to the evolutionary force of natural selection and would be a step backward for society? wouldn't it? I don't think so.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe that Lou was advocating Social Darwinism here. I think he was making the point that no matter what someone does with his/her life, there exists a point of view from which it can be viewed as non-beneficial to society (as an extreme example, and I'm not trying to invoke Godwin's Law here [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img], a Nazi would view charitable work done on behalf of Jewish people as evil).

I also think that the car crash analogy you propose doesn't represent the way a real Social Darwinist thinks; such a person is likely to consider a single car accident (as opposed to a pattern thereof) to be a misfortune that could befall anyone through the fault of antoher person, whereas long-term poverty is indicative of a moral/intellectual lack (i.e., the notion that anyone with enough drive and intelligence can pull him/herself out of poverty). BTW, I am not a Social Darwinist, myself.

In any case, I think the bottom line is that asking what a professional poker player is contributing to society is simply a silly question. People play poker for their own reasons, and if someone is capable of making a living at it and chooses to do so, that's entirely their business, and they don't need to justify it on the basis of their contributions to society.

-Mike

[NotReady]

You said:

Darwin himself saw his theories as having no implications whatsoever about the social standing of man.

Darwin said:

I have hitherto only considered the advancement of man from a semi-human condition to that of the modern savage. But some remarks on the action of natural selection on civilized nations may be worth adding . . . With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. . . .The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected

You said:

Unless I am to assume that George Bush's (for example) economic and social success is somehow tied to an actual physiological structure in his brain (as opposed to the handouts and opportunities his family provided), then I am kidding myself if I think that he got where he did by any sort of evolutionary mechanism. You might even think he is a great man (who knows?), but rest assured, that is not because of Natural Selection.

Darwin:

But the inheritance of property by itself is very far from an evil; for without the accumulation of capital the arts could not progress; and it is chiefly through their power that the civilised races have extended, and are now everywhere extending their range, so as to take the place of the lower races.

It should, however, be borne in mind, that the enforcement of public opinion depends on our appreciation of the approbation and disapprobation of others; and this appreciation is founded on our sympathy, which it can hardly be doubted was originally developed through natural selection as one of the most important elements of the social instincts.



Darwin - Descent of Man

[brad]

in mens societies anyway, competition itself is very worthwhile in itself as it serves as a way to stratify or weed out the weakies.

so in that sense competititon in itself (and poker is definitely competition) is very valuable to men.

as i understand it (heh heh) , women's society structures are different.

[AleoMagus]

The first excerpt that you cite has it's greatest impact when considering the purely biological examples such as the small pox vaccinations. And this again falls into David Hume's 'is'/'ought' fallacy. Just because nature is a certain way, that is no basis for concluding that that it ought to be that way. Modern geneticists will redily concede this. Should we not have saved millions from smallpox? In 19th century fashion, Darwin speaks of the evils commited in the aid to the weak or sick, but is this really an evil, or simply counter productive to the continued evolution of human beings. Morality does not find it's basis in how nature IS, it finds it's basis in what we see (know?) as the right thing to do.

Perhaps I have confused Darwin with the many naturalists, scientists and geneticists that have followed in his research. It would seem (to my surprise) that Darwin himself could occasionally ponder the meaning of his theories beyond the biological. Darwin was, however, a moral man who did not push these ideas in the rigourous way that he did the purely naturalistic side of his writings. Your second excerpt indicates this and illustrates the way in which our sympathy is a byproduct of evolutionary processes. That excerpt does not indicate at all that GWB's economic success is a matter of his own superior genetics, but rather that the sympathy and help he received arises from traits which propogate and further our species - namely, our goodwill towards our kin, and fellow man (and I suspect that includes the weak and poor). Daddy Bush wants his own genes to advance and succeed so he gives what he can in the way of money and opportunity to his offspring. I would contend that the development of emotion and a heightened sense of love and empathy has been a major evolutionary step which has benefited and better enabled the human race to survive. It is natural that we would want the biggest recipients of our own aid to be our own kin, but this does not imply they are in the greatest need of it nor that they will benefit most from it.

You said it yourself, or rather, Darwin did:

It should, however, be borne in mind, that the enforcement of public opinion depends on our appreciation of the approbation and disapprobation of others; and this appreciation is founded on our sympathy, which it can hardly be doubted was originally developed through natural selection as one of the most important elements of the social instincts.

All that said however, we should be cautious about trying to tie our social values with what we see or conclude from the state of nature for the very reasons I have already stated. Just because nature IS a certain way, that does not imply it OUGHT to be that way.

Regards,
Brad S

[AleoMagus]

Oh, I know that Lou is not really advocating social darwinism here. If anything, I am trying to point out that though we can make those kinds of arguments - some of them are really wrong. Come to think of it, the Fascist example you give is even better.

Though we can try to adopt a completely subjective outlook where "anyone can justify or condemn a profession based upon their own rationale, so I'll just do what I want" there still has to be a point where we ask ourselves, how much merit is there in MY particular rationale?

The simple fact is, some people do contribute more to society and those people should be admired, praised, and emulated. Does that make a career in poker wrong? Well... No. But it sure doesn't make it right either. If you can have that kind of life but also give back, that's another thing. We are, after all, defined by a lot more than just what we do to pay the bills.

As for the car crash analogy, it may not represent the way a social darwinist thinks, but it is fitting. After all, evolutionary changes or patterns are measured over eons. To think that a single car crash is an isolated example of bad luck, while being born into poverty is somehow long-term is misleading at best.

Regards,
Brad S

[morgant]

you are providing a salary for the casino employees, their families, the surrounding areas of the casino emerge with businesses to cater to tourists and so on and so on. if any profession were truly bereft how could it sustain itself? i have no numbers whatsoever but poker overall as an industry must be pretty large and provide income in one way or another for many different people involved the game directly or indirectly. now saying it is bereft leads me to believe your deeper feelings about the game might be in line with the average joe who feels it is just a dirty game, or that opinion has rubbed off on you a bit. but most anything that provides the transfer of money and stimulus to the economy has some value. poker's level of positive impact might not be as great as a doctor who is working in underpriveleged areas to fight malnutrition, but the taxes paid on poker(in general) do trickle into those sorts of goverment programs as well.......

[angry young man]

Generating income for yourself allows you to circulate the money to people that run restaurants, movie theaters, car dealerships, etc. and in that way contributes to society. Other than economic vageries like that I wouldn't say playing poker contributes anything to society or is a profession to be particularly proud of but I don't think it's doing any harm or anything to be ashamed of either. I certainly don't think it's dishonest to try to be better at a game than someone else and reap the benefits from that.

[angry young man]

I don't think the morality of the group of players as a whole is at issue here. We're talking about the proffession's contribution to society.

And as for the athletes do bad things poker players don't argument, a couple of the best poker players I know have sexual morals that are pretty reprehensible, they probably haven't slept with 600 women but if they were famous enough to have young girls throwing themselves at them everywhere they went I don't doubt they would take advantage. I don't know any that use drugs but I'm not part of the drug culture so I really wouldn't know if they did, perhaps if some guy beating the 20-40 game at the Commerce becoming addicted to coke would sell papers we'd hear more about it. And speaking of things damaging to the body, how about obesity? I sure know a lot of poker players guilty of that and I'm pretty confident that's at least as bad as for you as occassionally using pot.

As for why poker isn't a respectable passtime; it's gambling and people have been taught from early on through cartoons, sitcoms and every other bit of conditioning that we can throw at them that gamblors always lose and people who gamble a lot are addicted and are destroying their lives.