In a recent thread someone seemed to be advocating Social Darwinism and I'd said - "Social Darwinism, not exactly a great model for a society is it?" To which they replied - Nature and all life on earth has always run on one underlying premise and always will. Survival of the fittest. It was the natural order of things before humans started mucking about in it, trying to change things they have no control over. It's ALWAYS been the model for society and always will be, as it is the model for all life on earth. But it does not HAVE to end up that only the most violent will survive. HOWEVER it WILL end up that only the SMARTEST and STRONGEST survive. That is how it is SUPPOSED to be. Otherwise, humans will simply breed themselves into extinction. ** I’m wondering what other people think? Take for example the often quoted phase ‘survival of the fittest’ How is it to be interpreted? To me is means ‘natural selection’ and I also believe humans have stepped out of that natural process by using unnatural processes of survival. We have build societies, institutions and mechanisms which for example allow humans to live way beyond what they would do without them and allow us to keep alive people born with disabilities that would result in a quick death in a ‘natural’ setting. Some have questioned if that is a good thing and wonder if ‘natural selection’ or ‘survival of the fittest’ shouldn’t continue to govern human destiny. Sometimes this is expressed in an economic way as a drain on a society’s resources others it is a matter of what would be best for humans progress genetically. Here is an example from US history - U.S. Eugenics Paralleled Nazi Germany http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/021500-02.htm ** Anyway I think this question is going to crop up increasing in the future as the era of genetic manipulation begins to take off. In a crude way it is already here, in may places in the world male births have overtaken female ones for the simple reason that ‘inferior’ female foetus’ are being aborted before birth due to scanners that can tell the sex of a child in the womb. **
Darwinism has always been the religion of the Elite. Keep in mind the Darwins were an aristocratic family, and they intermarried with the Wedgewood family for generations. These people and their ilk see what they call the "commoners" as basically cattle, who are merely the result of some evolutionary accident, who then die and turn to dust and that's it. They see themselves quite differently. Having been "perfected," they see themselves as having the natural right to lord over humanity. They literally see themselves as gods and as a seperate species from the average person. So that's where this "survival of the fittest" BS comes from. They are the fittest, and therefore us commers must be the ones who go off to fight and be killed in their wars, and basically be used as cannon fodder in their diabolical scheme.
i think that the human species has been devolving for a long time. we have brought our own evolution to a sreeching halt. medical advancements have increased the average human lifespan but more and more people are sick because we allow people with genetic diseases to survive and reproduce, and pass them on to the next generation. we pass rediculous laws to protect stupid people from themselves. we have become more reliant on these systems and computers to run our lives. we are becoming more and more useless. for example take a look at the obesity epidemic. just look at all the 300 lb fatasses walking around kept alive by a steady flow of insulin and lipitor. but this debate also brings up serious ethical issues. i dont believe that any laws should be forced on people i just believe that people should be more responsible. if you have a genetic disease or have cancer as a child, you shouldnt have kids. its irresponsible and selfish to have a child that you might pass those diseases on to, and to keep those genes in the breeding pool. besides there are plenty of kids out there who are already born and are in desperate need of a good home.
it must be an incredible burden to have the gift of knowing what people who died over a hundred years ago were motivated by, but i digress. social darwinism was abhored by darwin, not just because it's morally a cop out used to hurt other people, but because it is completely wrong about evolution. y'see, the 'survival of the fittest' doesn't mean that the people who are the most wealthy/educated will inherit the earth, quite the opposite in fact. it means that the fittest to reproduce will inherit the earth. and anyone who knows anything knows that poor people breed like rabbits. The upper classes have suffered from inbreeding too much to produce functioning offspring, at least at the rate of the common man. Darwinism, in fact, predicts the extinction of this group. but all this is irrelevant, because you don't make your money genetically (i don't mean wealth isn't inherited, i mean you don't have a special mutation in your gene code that says whether or not you'll be poor).
And what do you think this means? The elite have always saw themselves as the fittest to reproduce, and that's why they all interbred intergenerationally. It's because they believe they are of superior stock. It's known that the Darwins interbred with the Galtons and the Wedgewoods for generations. These people were of an aristocratic bloodline. They saw themselves as superior to the rest of the population. When you have these blue blooded elite families that interbreed from generation to generation, it makes sense that they will inherit great wealth along with it. The most wealthy and powerful families on this planet have all interbred, so yes, it does determine wealth because if you are born into wealth, naturally you will inherit that wealth. Social darwinism is the belief that the "common" people, being of lesser stock, are basically to be used as fodder for the utopian system these interbreeding elites wish to create for themselves. These people literally see themselves as gods with the natural right to rule over humanity, as they believe themselves to be the fittest. That is social darwinism in a nutshell, and it's what people like Darwin and the rest of his perverted ilk believed in. Darwin didn't come up with any of this himself. It was a belief that was passed on from generation to generation among these elite bloodlines. He was merely promoted to instill this belief in the public mind. His grandfather wrote about this long before he did. "Those who are the fittest to breed will inherit the earth." In other words, what they are telling you is that they, being inbreeding elitists, are the fittest to rule the earth and make all the "little people" their indentured servants. That's why these people are eugenicists and believe heavily in reducing the population. This is the same belief system used by Hitler. These people have written openly about culling off those they see as being off "inferior stock." You talk about the poor breeding like rabbits, and that's precisely these elites number one target for their eugenics programs.
How is Social Darwinism to be interperted? I imagine that it is to be interperted the same as any of the other ugly facts of life. Have humans stepped out of the process of Natural Selection? Well, sometimes yes and sometimes no. In a very few places: most of the time; in a great majority of places some of the time; in other places once and a while. Is it possible to step out of the natural selection process? Well if conditions are right, most of us can. Can all humans step out of the Natural selection process? Not likeley in our lifetime. Some have questioned if that is a good thing and wonder if ‘natural selection’ or ‘survival of the fittest’ shouldn’t continue to govern human destiny. Well its a good thing to question these issues and a good thing to be honest with ourselves about the probability and feasability of potential scennarios. We can never completely escape the laws of Mother nature. Life on this Earth means the strong influence of her laws. Sometimes this is expressed in an economic way as a drain on a society’s resources others it is a matter of what would be best for humans progress genetically. Todays dynamic economy requires the participation of all persons of talent. The automobile allows the person with weak legs to drive to his store or plant and to produce and contribute. People can work at home with todays communications technology. I work with blind and disabled people. todays economy allows disabled people to contribute. Todays economy is also unforgiving of those who are disinclined to work and contribute. In the modern economy it is less a question of fitness than a question of desire. Anyway I think this question is going to crop up increasing in the future as the era of genetic manipulation begins to take off. In a crude way it is already here, in may places in the world male births have overtaken female ones for the simple reason that ‘inferior’ female foetus’ are being aborted before birth due to scanners that can tell the sex of a child in the womb. Its a brave new world with all sorts of new rules for the game. Seems that those who stand in the way are branded as old fashioned or religous zealots. In the world of our grandparents these procedures were so highly stigmatized that laws and enforcement were hardly necessary. Today, one can pick and choose as to what new developments one favors and the one's that you disapprove of. :jester:
on a more complex scheme, yes i beleive it is true. weak populations/nations tend to suffer, and strong pop's/nations tend to prosper.
I noticed the fallacy of guilt by association. How ridiculous, that's like conflating obama is guilty of thinking exactly like his pastor just because they knew each other. Not everyone in my family thinks exactly the same. And lastly, I noticed the fallacy of Godwins law, people stop impling hitler utilized darwin. This just isn't true. Hitler wasn't even an atheist. And it's also important to remember just because anti-christian writtings were banned doesn't mean christianity is terrible or supported Nazism. http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler-myths.htm#myth1 http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler-myths.htm#myth2 http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler-myths.htm#myth3 Number 1.) Darwin didn''t coin the pharse survival of the fittest either, herbert spencer did. And Herbert spencer and darwin were not advocates of compulsory/bad eugenics. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/long5.html http://darwinianconservatism.blogspot.com/2008/04/good-eugenics.html Number 2.) Galton (Darwins half-cousin) whom Charles Darwin disagreed with when it came to compulsory sterilization which is today a pseudoscience form of eugenics, is not "necessarily Darwin nor inherently materailsitic in nature, and it's historical, social and philosophical roots reach far wider and deeper than the simple flow-chart Darwin > Galton > eugenics." E.g. "The Talmud explicitly endorses negative eugenics when it forbids marriage for individuals coming from families with perceived hereditary defects (e.g. lepers and epileptics), and positive eugenics by encouraging marriages with members of scholarly families (a bit self-serving from the highly educated Talmudic authors, for sure!). Greeks (not just the notorious Spartans, see also Plato and Aristotle) and Romans routinely and swiftly got rid of their “undesirables”, as many other cultures did (and still do) less officially and openly." http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/05/dr-west-meet-dr.html William J. Tinkle a creationist eugenicist was opposed to Darwinism. It's creationist eugentist like William J. Tinkle who approved of compulsory sterilization in the United States. Moreover, galton did not advocate the compulsory eugenics of euthanasia that was nazism bastardizing. i.e. It's a fallacy to conflate compulsory sterilization and compulsory euthanasia to Galton. Number 3.) The explanation for Survival of the fittest is much different from the explanation for natural selection. e.g. Paris hilton is of low intelligence. Yet as a low intelligent spieces she (utilized sex appeal) and found a "fit enough" way to adapt to her eviroment/condensations inorder to survive. The same way Steven Hawkins whom is considered physically handicapped yet a genuis (utilized his family/medical staff/mathematical skills) and found a "fit enough" way to adapt to his eviroment/condensations inorder to survive. The problem isn't with darwinism because darwin disagreed with his half cousin galton when it came to complusory/bad eugenics such as mandatory sterilization. Darwinism had nothing to do with the Nazi thought that led to the compulsory sterilization of 400,000 or the slaughter of millions of others whom hitler deemed beneath Aryans. Darwin's books were banned under the Nazis and Stalin embraced Lamarckism rather than Darwinism. The atrocities of Hitler and Stalin needed no scientific coaxing. Segregation... and slavery were around long before Darwin. http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/10/from_darwin_to_2.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA006_1.html The problem is with the imporper usage of eugenics which is when eugenics are wrongly utilized in a complusory/bad manner inorder to murder or sterilize a spieces ignorantly considered weaker. Which I wouldn't disagree with anyone on because weaker doesn't mean "unfit", and stronger doesn't mean "fit", All weaker and stronger mean to survival of the fittest is "fit enough". It's important to remember Eugenics can be done properly. Properly done Eugenics are also not outside of nature.... e.g. Why is it that anything humans do is considered outside of nature? What unnatural processes are we using for survival? Are they supernatural? I don't think so. We are surviving just as naturally as a beaver does when it builds a dam. See: extended phenotype. Mistakes were made in early eugenics but eugenists learned from these terrible mistakes. The idea in eugenics now a days is good eugenics as to better all of humanity. That is its goal. I don't believe you'll find one western eugenist today advocating compulsory eugenics nor as it was forcefully advocated back then.
