posted 05-25-99 02:36 PM ET        

---

Which of these theories do you subscribe to?

1. Social darwinism- It's a person's genes that determine whether they suceed or not. The strongest and most hard-willed survive. The ones that lose out do so because they don't have it in them to be sucessful.

2. Mechanical Materialism- The person social surroundings determine everything. Nothing, neither strive, genes, nor luck make a difference.

3. Dialectic Materialism- The social conditions are the major determining factor, however other factors such as luck, good/bad role models, ability, etc. Play in too.

posted 05-25-99 02:54 PM ET            

---

Hugo Rune,
I think that you are getting off to a bad start. You have defined "Social Darwinism" incorrectly. Social Darwanism was a concept developed by late 19th and early 20th century social scientists as a way of explaining why some societies (especially European) had "progressed" faster than societies in Africa, Asia and Aboriginal America. Totally discredited by the '50s IIRC.

And all three questions are too reductionistic to elicit more than people's personal opinions about things they are not too well informed about and don't really get at the complex interaction of the myriad of variables that influence each of us every day. :-)

posted 05-25-99 03:42 PM ET            

---

I�ll have to go with number 3 (surprise, surprise).

Bishop

posted 05-25-99 08:39 PM ET            

---

('Ed puts on the mystical cap of intellectual integrity)

Of course, its a combination of genes, to an extent, however, self motivation can overcome this (Gattaca comes to mind). Also, social conditions effect all of this. In a society that values knowledge, people will strive to be intelligent, while in one valueing strength, we have stronger people.

('ed takes off the cap and fixs the resulting hat-hair)

posted 05-25-99 09:21 PM ET            

---

It all boils down to luck!

1) If you're lucky enough to come from the right gene pool.

2) Your lucky enought o live in the right surroundings.

3) Ditto, and explicit luck...

----

Seriously, however, it's probably genes and environment for the most part. Luck, IMHO, plays an ever increasing role the more successful you are(by whatever standard). For example, I have no doubt that Bill Gates would be monetarily successful if Digital Research had landed the IBM contract instead, but he wouldn't have been the richest man in the world(non-head of state, anyway. I think the Sultan still beats him out). Similarly, Richard Feynman would still have been a greatly successful physicist if he hadn't won the Nobel prize, which often comes down to being in the right place at the right time.