uberrobonomicon4000
Active Member
If you agree with evolution, are you a supporter of Social Darwinism as well?
If not then why?
If not then why?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Social Darwinism
- Thread starter uberrobonomicon4000
- Start date
No, social Darwinism misappropriates the Darwinian theory of evolution and applies it within a context it was never meant to address. It just doesn't really make sense. As social animals, we're codependent upon others. Whoever is 'at the top' would topple over without their foundation. No man is an island.
Based on my understanding of it, my answer would be no. As i don't believe there to be any legitimate reference to base upon which any supposed superiority of anybody over anybody else.
And by legitimate, i mean a reference that manages to put in mind every single aspect or attribute regarding human beings. That is also assuming that all aspects are measurable in such a way in the first place, which i don' think is at all likely to be the case.
And by legitimate, i mean a reference that manages to put in mind every single aspect or attribute regarding human beings. That is also assuming that all aspects are measurable in such a way in the first place, which i don' think is at all likely to be the case.
uberrobonomicon4000
Active Member
It shouldn't matter how I define them. But the answer probably boils down to how you define or view evolution.
If you agree with Bernoulli's laws, are you a supporter of campaigns to pump water downhill?
"Social Darwinism" violates several important tenets of evolutionary theory:
- the fitness of a population is a function of its genetic variation: the more varied it is, the more adaptable it is. Deliberately reducing genetic variation (e.g. through eugenics) makes a population less fit, evolutionarily speaking.
- the theory of evolution predicts that evolution will happen on its own without intervention. "Social Darwinism" implies that the outcomes of evolution (or rather, what a set of people think the outcomes of evolution are) need to be helped in order to happen. This is contradictory.
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
Even if social darwinism had anything to do with evolution, which it doesn't, it would still be wrong to use it to define personal beliefs or politics. Our species isn't bound by natural laws, no matter how natural something may or may not be, we always have the ability to make our own choices. People who use nature to guide their decisions are either immoral or lazy or both.
This. Social Darwinism is not consistent with science.
Exactly right, yet these bottlenecks are supposed to have happened many many times in our ancestory. There is supposed to have been a catastrophic bottleneck fairly recently, down to 100 individuals (I think).
If this happened we have survived it, and wipeing out a few million jews is hardly on the same scale. Paticularly if they are genetically inferior, as the Nazis would have had you beleived. Eugenics is about improving our gene pool by removing the inferior genes.
No it doesn't, social Darwinism is about increasing the pace of evolution. And why shouldn't we? Seriously. Assuming that evolution is true, what is wrong with it?
Survival of the fittest isn't just dependent upon the bodily constitution, but the particular environmental circumstances it arises within. Adaptability, or ability to change in effect to alternating circumstances, is paramount to any continuing survival. This is the reason why I believe the meek shall inherit the earth because they're more adapted to changing circumstances without the comfort of a wealthy conditioning. Common sense and street smarts constribute more to evolutionary advantage than any intellectually abstract construct. Social status is mostly arbitrary and a worthless pursuit if someone seeks genuine contentment and peace of mind.
Evolution is about reproductive fitness, not personal fitness. The meek may be more adaptable personally, but it doesn't mean they have more offspring. Rapeists and sperm donors have more offspring, not meek people.
Balderdash. In order to "increase the pace of evolution", as you put it, you would need to know where evolution is going. Evolution is non-progressive and circumstantial: Predicting its ultimate course is a fantasy.
No, they don't. Actually, those considered 'meek' or poor tend to reproduce more often than those considered 'educated' or rich. I guess us poor folk have nothing better to do than make love. For better or worse, the offspring of the 'less-fortunate' shall inherent the earth. Watch it pan out as the wealthy try to desperately hold onto whatever delusion of power they possess.
No. Just as you would not model a society after gravity, you would not model it after evolution. But most importantly... social darwinism is exactly what I do NOT want in a society.
I don't agree with evolution. But I think the title of Darwin's book sheds light on the question: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
According to g90 10/22 p. 27: The Columbia History of the World speaks about the reawakening of Social Darwinism in the ideologies of the Fascists, expressed both by Mussolini and by Hitler.
The Encyclopedia of the Third Reich agrees with this appraisal, explaining that social Darwinism was the ideology behind Hitlers policy of genocide. In harmony with the teachings of Darwinian evolution, German ideologists argued that the modern state, instead of devoting its energy to protecting the weak, should reject its inferior population in favor of the strong, healthy elements. They argued that war is normal in the struggle for survival of the fittest, that victory goes to the strong, and the weak must be eliminated.
Thus, social Dawinism is yet another terrible (but logical) fruitage of this baseless doctrine of evolution, in my opinion.
The Encyclopedia of the Third Reich agrees with this appraisal, explaining that social Darwinism was the ideology behind Hitlers policy of genocide. In harmony with the teachings of Darwinian evolution, German ideologists argued that the modern state, instead of devoting its energy to protecting the weak, should reject its inferior population in favor of the strong, healthy elements. They argued that war is normal in the struggle for survival of the fittest, that victory goes to the strong, and the weak must be eliminated.
Thus, social Dawinism is yet another terrible (but logical) fruitage of this baseless doctrine of evolution, in my opinion.
This is an agenda-driven post that lacks the courage of transparency. Having you define your terms is a first step in making the thread a bit more honest.
If we restrict the set in question to humans, then this simply isn't true. Social dynamics can't be so easily mapped onto reproductive fitness. Certain social groups (e.g., certain subsets of the Catholic population, certain Muslim populations, etc.) tend to reproduce far more reliably (i.e. a probability model will more accurately predict offspring) than any reproductive function based on economic variables.
Last edited:
No, you misunderstand the point. We are talking about social Darwinism here; evolution goes wherever we choose to make it go. Predicting its ultimate course is not fantasy if there is a person actively deciding where evolution is going.
I would have to agree with the first part of this statement. Any excuse for slaughter and genocide will seem logical to those who promote it for their own ends. Thank goodness it does not seem quite so logical to those who are contaminating the genepool with their weakness otherwise walking under high buildings would be problematic given the amount of bodies that would be dropping from them as they did their bit for evolution. Of course, genocide and mass slaughter have always been the way of it long before any ideas of evolution were suggested and indeed it is still carried out today by people seeking dominance who have no interest or understanding of Darwinism, social or otherwise. Using interpretations of evolutionary theory to justify killing those you want to eradicate is no different than using the bible to burn a witch. Neither idea negates the place they were born.
So? That doesn't mean it was good for us, evolutionarily speaking. Many, many species have been rendered extinct after "catastrophic bottlenecks".
"This tremendously bad event wasn't as bad as other historic events our species has gone through" does not translate to "this tremendously bad event isn't anything to worry about."
Which is where eugenics has its fatal flaw: removing genes from the gene pool never improves it. Even if you could identify "inferior" genes that code for traits that are poorly adapted for the current situation (which you can't, IMO, but for argument's sake), any trait that's poorly adapted now might be well adapted to some future environment. Multiple "inferior" traits might end up being "superior" when combined. You just don't know.
Increasing the diversity the gene pool with as much variation as possible "hedges your bets" that whatever ends up being the best-adapted traits after the next big environmental change, it'll be in your gene pool somewhere.
A few things:
- you don't actually know where evolution is going, so mucking around with who can and can't reproduce isn't about "increasing the pace of evolution"; it's about breeding "purebred" people... IOW, breeds of people that wouldn't arise naturally.
- evolution imposes no moral imperatives on us. Even if we can identify "inferior" and "superior" genetic traits, this doesn't mean that we need to abide by this ourselves. This is especially obvious if we compare evolution to other areas of science: you don't get people running around saying that we need to "increase the pace of the weather" and that rooves and storm sewers (devices to shield us from the effects of weather) are wrong, do you? "Social Darwinism" tries to derive an "ought" from an "is" (while getting what that "is" is wrong).