Evolution vs Welfare State

[Randomface74]

Evolution
Welfare State

I know you're trying to relax on a weekend... but I'm thinking about this...

Q: Does the welfare state counteract natural selection (those who fail to adapt would otherwise die), thereby reversing or slowing the natural process of evolution? Could evolution produce greater overall wellbeing than the welfare state?

 

[Randomface74]

By this rationale, all medicine counteracts survival of the fittest. Throw out your medicines.

One could argue that medicine is defence against other species. I wouldn't suggest that sticking to evolution means only fighting with sticks, medicine is okay because it's using our evolved intelligence.

That's different to treating a condition, or pain relief. Perhaps if we didn't have those we would evolve natural resistance.

Lets stick to the welfare state if we can though

Could evolution produce greater overall wellbeing than the welfare state?

 

[Randomface74]

Indeed. Airbags could be blamed for keeping thousands of idiots alive who "should" have been removed from the gene pool over the years.

True - but I would allow airbags because they protect you (a perfectly evolved human being) from some other moron (who perhaps shouldn't be allowed an airbag)

 

[Randomface74]

Can I get a definition for the "evolution" which you feel is being impeded by the welfare state?

I'd like to know which criteria you are applying to this particular brand of "evolution".

Welfare state in Britain

The concept of a welfare state is to re-distribute wealth to those most in-need. If you take the viewpoint that those in-need should remain in need, then any part of the welfare state is conflicting with natural selection. If you want to split it down and discuss the parts seperately, I consider there to be five parts of the welfare state in Britain:
- Job Seekers Allowance
- Child Benefit
- Income Tax
- National Insurance (Pensions)
- National Insurance (NHS)

 

[Randomface74]

Addressing the Stephen Hawking point:

I'm not suggesting we screw-over Stephen Hawking, he can pay for his own healthcare because he's smart enough. Restricting his care would be MORE interference with natural selection - this topic is directed at whether there should be LESS interference with natural selection.

 

[Randomface74]

Did you even read the question? He asked you to define "evolution" not "welfare state".

Yes, misread the whole criteria thing..

Survival of the fittest

Everyone who's pointed out that evolution and natural selection aren't the same thing is correct. Natural selection is a part of evolution by which those who fail to adapt die out. I would state that those who have dependency on the following have failed to adapt (but that's what's up for debate):
- Job Seekers Allowance
- Child Benefit
- Income Tax
- National Insurance (Pensions)
- National Insurance (NHS)