Social Darwinism: Why?

[suitepee7]

i agree with you, but i'm not really seeing what the discussion value is =\

 

[RuneDrageon]

The only solution is to take everyone who seriously believes in social Darwinism as an excuse, put them on a desert island, and watch nature do what it does best. The potential for irony is too great.

That would have very little to do with social or normal Darwinism though. Since "survival of the fittest" has nothing to do about small groups of people surviving in a place they are not meant to be. And unless the people on this Desert(ed) island were a large enough group they would probably all die.
But Darwinism is about evolution. And if you have a large enoug selection of people, that is allowed to procreate and therefore reproduce you will probably see that the people that have traits that let's them survive on a desert(ed) island live longer, and pass on their traits.

Social Darwinism is about taking what we know from Darwinism and applying it to society. Often though it has been used by elitist people, so it has a stigma to it.
But the idea is to let people with favorable traits procreate, while less favorable traits are not allowed to procreate, which theoretically should mean we will get a stronger gene-pool.
Problem is that historically "favorable traits" have not always been the traits that strengthens survivebility, but rather the traits the elite like. Look at the Nazis and their Atians...

But you could argue that modern medicine is screwing up with the evolution of humans. If a child was born with a terminal decease 100 years ago, that child would probably die young, never able to reproduce, and in turn not pass on the decease. But today we might be able to cure that decease, and let the child live a next to normal life, and the decease lives on.
A Social Darwinist would argue that the child not be allowed to have children, so that we could weed out the decease from the human gene-pool and become stronger.

However, a strong advocator of the process of adaptation in terms of Evolutionary theory would argue that attempting to control breeding in order to try and ensure that no one with any "negative" genetic traits/diseases survives past the womb or even initial fertilization could also make the human gene-pool weaker in the long term due to denying the body the opportunity to grow, interact and attempt to resist the deficiency in which the individual is born with, so that in the future we would be more naturally resistant to the deficiency when it occurs.

If we simply eliminate the disease wherever we see it, and never allow humanity to adapt to it's environment instead of completely forcing the environment to adapt to our comforts, that deficiency could most definitely become more potent as it evolves in the future and be an even greater threat for us, at a peak where our bodies have not had a chance to become familiar with the trait and develop resistances against it.

Not to say that eliminating diseases is not a noble venture to pursue, or even to attain in our lifetimes at some point, but sometimes it is better to actually deal with both of our positive and negative traits to the best of both worlds, rather than trying to ignore one or the other and placing too much comfort in the remaining trait. Not to mention that these diseases/deficiencies may act/react differently in non-Earth environments..

Thats true, and I agree, the "problem" is that modern medicine might let a lot of traits that would other wise be evolved out of the gene-pool to survive. Which could be viewed as a bad thing I think.
But yeah selective breeding is not a good thing for a population... just look at some dog breeds...

Your right, in evolutional terms, the way were reproducing ourselves right now isn't helping us to evolve. But we have outdone most of these terms at the time weve advance technologie to a certain point, we can now reach nearly every place on earths surface and even reach out into space. Eventually we'll advance even further, where ever that will be, so the only things that can test mankinds survivalskills are global dangers.

 

[RuneDrageon]

P.S: I'm sorry for my english and this extra post, but i don't know how to delete it -.-

 

[Aurgelmir]

Your right, in evolutional terms, the way were reproducing ourselves right now isn't helping us to evolve. But we have outdone most of these terms at the time weve advance technologie to a certain point, we can now reach nearly every place on earths surface and even reach out into space. Eventually we'll advance even further, where ever that will be, so the only things that can test mankinds survivalskills are global dangers.

We'll "survival of the fittest" might not still be a thing, but I am not sure we stopped evolving.

Space travel will probably affect evolution if humans travel through space for a long time or to other planets.
First it will be a selection of who can actually physically be able to survive prolonged travel in space, and then there will be a selection based on what children survive it too.

We need to send people to space FOR EVOLUTION AND SCIENCE!

 

[Yopaz]

First off, there's the fact that "survival of the fittest" applies to entire species, NOT individuals. If one species of mouse is more able to hide from owls, that species is more likely to live and thrive than the others. That's it. That's the entire principle.

OK, so let me stop you there. You're dead wrong in that statement. Really so far from hitting the correct answer that I want to close my eyes and try to forget I ever saw this. Survival of the fittest means that the individuals that are unfit to leave in a certain habitat wont be able to reproduce because they will either migrate or get killed. This is the most basic, yet the most important and essential part of evolution and you got it wrong. The mice with the best ability to hide will reproduce, they will transfer their genes that make them able to survive to a new generation. Those who can't hide as well will get eaten by the owl and not able to reproduce as much. Over time the population will adapt more and more to that habitat while the owls will adapt to counter that. Natural selection works on individuals, not species.

Cooperation. Teamwork. Kindness. Peace. These things will allow a species a much greater chance at surviving than any brutal, dirty, or cowardly method.

Actually a blend of selfishness and selflessness is theorized as the most successful state. Good deeds are valued on how much is gained overall.

I agree with what you're trying to say. Using "survival of the fittest" as an excuse for being an asshole doesn't make you anything but an asshole and it only makes things worse by using that phrase. Still you present opinions as facts, while the facts are completely different than your opinions. Sorry I have to correct you, but if you want to debate something at least look these things up. Talk about ethics and morals rather than science. Humans are based more on that than science. Why else would be take care of children born with diseases like Downs syndrome? An animal born with a birth defect is rejected by its mother. That is science. Taking care of a kid with downs and treat him/her like that person is no different than us is what we have learned to be morally right. That's how we should act. Moral over science. Just please try to keep those apart in the future.

 

[Kordie]

2. I should clarify this point to the NUMEROUS folks who pointed at that yes, SotF applies on the individual level. It does, in that traits beneficial to the individual become beneficial to the species over time. The point I was trying to make, unsuccessfully it seems (I never was very good at explaining things), was that individuals who are assholes will assume it means "Individual fitness at the detriment of other members of my species" ie, hurting a bunch of other people for your own gain. THAT is not beneficial to survival at all.

If I get your argument correctly, you are refering to people who activly put their needs ahead of societies. A likely example being a man on welfare because society will look after him while he contributes nothing back.

Once you add the "Social Darwinism" part it adds the feeling that somehow their leeching off society is rationalised by saying that their individual benefit will somehow help society more so in the future.

I would liken that to a man on welfare who spends his time raising cats saying that someday we will need those cats. He is leaching from society while at the same time engaging in his own individual love of cats on the grounds that someday society will need said cats.

I may have misunderstood that though..

 

[Yopaz]

Your right, in evolutional terms, the way were reproducing ourselves right now isn't helping us to evolve. But we have outdone most of these terms at the time weve advance technologie to a certain point, we can now reach nearly every place on earths surface and even reach out into space. Eventually we'll advance even further, where ever that will be, so the only things that can test mankinds survivalskills are global dangers.

We'll "survival of the fittest" might not still be a thing, but I am not sure we stopped evolving.

Space travel will probably affect evolution if humans travel through space for a long time or to other planets.
First it will be a selection of who can actually physically be able to survive prolonged travel in space, and then there will be a selection based on what children survive it too.

We need to send people to space FOR EVOLUTION AND SCIENCE!

I disagree with this. Evolution wont happen if we travel through space. If we want to travel long distanced through space we need to create a space shuttle that mimics earth's environment or we'll die within a few months. We will live just like we do on earth and not need to evolve. We're also unlikely to change our mating pattern or let people who aren't fit to survive their first few years die. We will treat diseases that could kill a small child and that child will grow up to be the same. No evolution because there's no new mating pattern based on who survives. The reason we currently aren't evolving (or evolving slowly) is that nature doesn't take its course. When we stop treating diseases we might evolve. If that's what it would take then I think we're better off staying like we are.

 

[Aurgelmir]

Your right, in evolutional terms, the way were reproducing ourselves right now isn't helping us to evolve. But we have outdone most of these terms at the time weve advance technologie to a certain point, we can now reach nearly every place on earths surface and even reach out into space. Eventually we'll advance even further, where ever that will be, so the only things that can test mankinds survivalskills are global dangers.

We'll "survival of the fittest" might not still be a thing, but I am not sure we stopped evolving.

Space travel will probably affect evolution if humans travel through space for a long time or to other planets.
First it will be a selection of who can actually physically be able to survive prolonged travel in space, and then there will be a selection based on what children survive it too.

We need to send people to space FOR EVOLUTION AND SCIENCE!

I disagree with this. Evolution wont happen if we travel through space. If we want to travel long distanced through space we need to create a space shuttle that mimics earth's environment or we'll die within a few months. We will live just like we do on earth and not need to evolve. We're also unlikely to change our mating pattern or let people who aren't fit to survive their first few years die. We will treat diseases that could kill a small child and that child will grow up to be the same. No evolution because there's no new mating pattern based on who survives. The reason we currently aren't evolving (or evolving slowly) is that nature doesn't take its course. When we stop treating diseases we might evolve. If that's what it would take then I think we're better off staying like we are.

I disagree with your disagreement sir.

Because I think that the people that will be selected to go on said journey will be chosen by the space ship owners for having traits that will grant them safer journey through space.

You wouldn't take a weak cripple that might die in a few years over a healthy person that will live for lets say 50 more years.
So your space ship would already have people suited to be there, and these people will breed, and their traits will most likely be passed on.

But in any case evolution never ever happens fast, and it's wrong to say our evolution is going slow I think. But my main point earlier was that modern medicine might screw up our natural evolution.
And my point about space was that the people on the ship would eventually evolve away from the people left on earth. Because their environment will be different.

 

[CianTheMighty]

In response to the social darwinism thing, I think it's pretty well accepted that idiots will always be idiots. It's not so much about societal motivations, but rather personal ones. Spouting "survival of the fittest", as you're stomping on a poor man's face, strikes me as an expression of ego rather than a real intellectual thought.

 

[subtlefuge]

Social Darwinism is a way for people to justify being dicks, as opposed to everyone else who are still dicks, but choose not to justify it with Social Darwinism.

 

[Doclector]

I guess I'm a social darwinist in a way. I sometimes think that we display way more "survival of the fittest" traits than we admit.

Thing is, though, I use that not as an excuse, but as a reason why people are terrible, and honestly, I think I only believe that sometimes because I have trouble facing the fact that some people are bad for no gorram reason.

 

[Wargamer]

Social Darwinism is a fine idea, providing that is what you are actually doing.

There is no way on this earth that the "it's okay to be a twat" version could ever work. Think about it; most of the "fittest" in society are actually useless fucktards who contribute nothing to society beyond their own elite little clique.

Darwinism is about taking the best traits a species has and passing them on to the next generation, whilst abandoning lesser traits. This is the same in Social Darwinism. That means that, despite what they may think, Bankers are not the top of Darwin's dogpile. They probably belong somewhere off to the side, where they can be easily lopped off like the cancerous lumps they are.

This is why I like the idea of Social Darwinism. I despise the fact that virtually all the rulers and big players of the western world believe their purpose in life is to line their own wallets and fuck the rest of us over. The purpose of ALL of us is to improve the lives of EVERYONE in our society, and thus make us collectively a superior society to our peers - THAT is Darwinism.

 

[The_Tron]

for a very different take on social darwinism I'd recommend watching the movie Idiocracy. Seriously it would almost make you believe that SD is not only an essential thing but a good thing. I know that may be a bit over the line in the general train of thought in this thread but they make some good points.

 

[RN7]

Well you see, A long, long time ago in the mythical land of 1900's America and Europe, this priest and this psuedo-sociologist took the accurate ideas of Darwin and evolution, and more specifically the processes by which it occurs, and applied them to the inaccurate state of social disparity. They figured that since there were a few rich people who became rich by starting giant businesses (See Rockefeller and Carnegie) and there were poor people who were poor because they were dicked over by big business in some form or another, and because the government was on big business' side at the time, that rich people were rich because they were "fit", fitness being a term to describe an organism's biological ability to be successful in its environment and pass on its genes, to be rich, and the poor were poor because...well they were poor and "if we don't help the dirty poor people, we get more monies!"

Now an intelligent person would see that this theory is essentially entirely incorrect and based off of anecdotal evidence from almost a century ago that just applies stuff that sounds reasonable to someone who really wants to hold onto all of their riches. They would then say that this concept is dumb and shouldn't be so heavily relied upon.

Sadly not everyone is intelligent enough to see this.

 

[Therumancer]

Social Darwinism, for those who don't know, is the application of Darwin's "survival of the fittest" idea to everyday life. It's not a common label today because its ideas basically spawned countless atrocious and bigoted movements, including Nazism, but I see its principles applied EVERYWHERE, and every time I do, I can only ask "why?"

First off, there's the fact that "survival of the fittest" applies to entire species, NOT individuals. If one species of mouse is more able to hide from owls, that species is more likely to live and thrive than the others. That's it. That's the entire principle.

Yet people use survival of the fittest quite often as an excuse to be an asshole. They use it to justify taking advantage of those less fortunate ("I worked hard to be rich, obviously the poor haven't worked as hard as I did or they'd be rich too! Survival of the fittest!"), to justify doing downright dirty things to "win" ("I could have told Steve they bumped up the due date of the project so he wouldn't get fired, but now I'm getting his office! Survival of the fittest!") or just to be a bully ("Hey, if this nerd spent less time on his computer and more time at the gym, I wouldn't be able to shove him in his locker every day! Survival of the fittest!"). And of course, whenever someone says that, people often find it difficult to come up with a good counterpoint.

These people couldn't be more wrong if their feet grew out of their head! Going back to my species example, if one species of owl is much more adapt at cooperating with each other to catch delicious mice, that species is more likely to live and thrive than the others.

Cooperation. Teamwork. Kindness. Peace. These things will allow a species a much greater chance at surviving than any brutal, dirty, or cowardly method. Don't get me wrong either, humans are actually VERY good at these things, at least inside their own social groups. I just can't stand it when assholes pervert the most basic idea in nature and act like being nice makes you a "freak of nature." The only freaks of nature here are people who don't understand that we'll always achieve more working together than any individual, no matter how "fit," could.

So to those on this site who may find themselves, even only occasionally, thinking that survival of the fittest is an appropriate line of thought when dealing with things in your life, I humbly ask you to take a step back and reevaluate that.

Social Darwinism is a fine principle, the problem is the way how it's applied. The problem is when someone looks at a principle that is supposed to apply to large groups of people, and try and apply it on an individual level. Such as your example of a rich person using it as a justification to exploit a poor or less fortunate person. Especially seeing as the rich person himself is dependant on a social structure that prevents the strong from preying directly on the week to maintain his fortune and things like currency, or else that big dumb lug would just beat him upside the head and take everything, and we've live in a comparitive wasteland. Your smart guys will almost always be dominated by the dumb but strong without society keeping everything together so we can achieve more.

THAT said the bottom line is that some societies and social systems are simply better than others. What's more the arguement that we should preserve something "just because it's people" is also inherntly flawed, especially when it's causing problems for you. Social Darwinism is in part about replacing emotion with logic.

To put into into perspective, a society that has become a static theocracy that is trying to kill or convert everyone else for religious reasons, and contributes very little to the world socially even if it might have done so at one time, is not nessicarly something that people should preserve when it holds back both the people in that society, and represents a detriment to the rest of the world. When people hear me talking about breaking cultures and such, this is ultimatly what it comes down to, rather than any racism, or even hatred in any traditional sense. In the end I believe that in many cases the deaths of billions will benefit everyone, including the surviving people from that region, when viewed in the long term.

To some extent I feel that argueing against social darwinism tends to be MORE racist and bigoted. Cultural preservation oftentimes being an excuse to keep people wallowing in ignorance, "protecting the way of life" of some backwards or primitive people ultimatly means those people will remain backwards and primitive and not grow to join a greater society.

Of course I'm also self reflective in all of this, I myself have mentioned that the next step is a global unity, even if it ultimatly comes down to a "join or die" mentality once the spread of ideas has peaked. This means the dissolution of all nations including the US.

I also believe my own people in the USA are themselves set to be victims of social darwinism because on a lot of levels we're too advanced to exist in the current global climate. They very fact that people will make impassioned arguements against things like social darwinism, or even acting in the direct national interest when it comes to putting our interests ahead of someone else, while turning the other cheek when the same thing is done to us, makes us unworthy to survive and we're already seeing things eroding in the USA as this mentality deadlocks the US and prevents it from taking the actions needed to remain on top.

To a large extent one of the problems with the USA is our own ignorance and decadence. People in the US have become convinced that if they ignore problems, and just let other people do whatever they want, they can themselves be left alone and live their own lives peacefully. A lot of arguements for not intervening, ultimatly coming down to people not wanting to do anything. A war means having to go out and risk your life or those of your loved ones, social liberalism is easy because it's the path of least resistance because dealing with various minority groups ultimatly comes down to everyone having to get up and actually do something, it's easier to let the streets decay and be afraid to let your kids
go outside by actually going after all the wierdos. Very few people who support this kind of idealogy actually do it because they believe it's right, so much as it's easy and claiming it's right allows them to justify inaction. In the USA for example it's generally been argued that the right wing is about doing things, where the left wing is about doing nothing when you get down to it and how it influances the average person.

The point here being that in it's current form the USA is itself a victim of social darwinism, and you see it in our recent decay, and it's hard to say it's undeserved because the USA has rendered itself more or less incapable of saving itself or competing internationally.

I can understand why social darwinism isn't popular from a certain point of view, but in the end societies need to change and evolve like others, and they also have to remain competitive within their enviroment. Simple evlution does not always mean that evolution is a viable one, and there have been species that have rendered themselves extinct by evolving the wrong way (and the same can happen socially).

 

[Saxnot]

what is the definition of social darwinism, anyway?
as i understand it from the original poster, it comes down to a justification of all inequality. this is a silly thing to believe, because it means that if i shoot someone, that is always allowed no matter what. after all, i was able to kill this person, so i am 'more fit'.

aside from that, there seems to be a conceptual gap between a theory describing a natural phenomena and a moral theory. you can't justify anything by saying that's how nature works, because that too leads to silly things. why shouldn't i be allowed to eat babies? it happens in nature too, after all.

i think we need to establish what social darwinism actually believes first.

unless it's just the 'bash this thing' thread of course, in which case: BOO!

 

[Heronblade]

what is the definition of social darwinism, anyway?
as i understand it from the original poster, it comes down to a justification of all inequality. this is a silly thing to believe, because it means that if i shoot someone, that is always allowed no matter what. after all, i was able to kill this person, so i am 'more fit'.

aside from that, there seems to be a conceptual gap between a theory describing a natural phenomena and a moral theory. you can't justify anything by saying that's how nature works, because that too leads to silly things. why shouldn't i be allowed to eat babies? it happens in nature too, after all.

i think we need to establish what social darwinism actually believes first.

unless it's just the 'bash this thing' thread of course, in which case: BOO!

That is definitely not the definition of Social Darwinism. In some ways, that is the exact opposite of its meaning. The concept of "survival of the fittest" applies towards making sure the best traits are passed forward for an entire population, and distinctively negative traits get left behind, not specifically whether or not some random individual lunk can hold his own in a fight.

In point of fact, since our current survival and well being relies primarily on social interaction and intelligence rather than combat ability, the idiots who use the concept as justification for their negative actions are ironically among the LEAST fit, and among the first to get cut off, even according to their own interpretation of the term.

Let me put it another way, society has changed over time in fits and starts, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. A Social Darwinist that actually understand what the term means (they are unfortunately badly in the minority compared to the idiots the OP references), simply attempts to logically figure out what changes to society would benefit all or at least nearly all of mankind the most in the long run, and finds a way to help implement those changes, or alternatively, attempts to make sure that a change that would be negative in the long run does not occur. At its core, Social Darwinism is nothing more than a call for directed and planned self improvement for ALL people, regardless of caste, race, sex, or any other inherent distinctions we might name. That isn't so bad is it?

 

[Luna]

Some people have an incorrect understanding of what 'fit' is.

You could be a CEO, 6 foot 2, swole, tan, with a sweet house and an awesome car, but if your 10/10 wife is getting banged by the pool boy when you're at work, and they have a kid, then he is fitter than you in this instance.

Secondly, people only ever use the argument when it benefits them. People that 'deserve to die' according to what is fit will most likely never admit it. Its obvious really, the attitude, 'Hey caveman 1, you can sleep with all the women. I acknowledge you to have superior genetics to me and I think your genes would help with the advancement of the tribe.' goes against most humans nature, because the people who thought like that wouldn't have any offspring.

 

[Yopaz]

Your right, in evolutional terms, the way were reproducing ourselves right now isn't helping us to evolve. But we have outdone most of these terms at the time weve advance technologie to a certain point, we can now reach nearly every place on earths surface and even reach out into space. Eventually we'll advance even further, where ever that will be, so the only things that can test mankinds survivalskills are global dangers.

We'll "survival of the fittest" might not still be a thing, but I am not sure we stopped evolving.

Space travel will probably affect evolution if humans travel through space for a long time or to other planets.
First it will be a selection of who can actually physically be able to survive prolonged travel in space, and then there will be a selection based on what children survive it too.

We need to send people to space FOR EVOLUTION AND SCIENCE!

I disagree with this. Evolution wont happen if we travel through space. If we want to travel long distanced through space we need to create a space shuttle that mimics earth's environment or we'll die within a few months. We will live just like we do on earth and not need to evolve. We're also unlikely to change our mating pattern or let people who aren't fit to survive their first few years die. We will treat diseases that could kill a small child and that child will grow up to be the same. No evolution because there's no new mating pattern based on who survives. The reason we currently aren't evolving (or evolving slowly) is that nature doesn't take its course. When we stop treating diseases we might evolve. If that's what it would take then I think we're better off staying like we are.

I disagree with your disagreement sir.

Because I think that the people that will be selected to go on said journey will be chosen by the space ship owners for having traits that will grant them safer journey through space.

You wouldn't take a weak cripple that might die in a few years over a healthy person that will live for lets say 50 more years.
So your space ship would already have people suited to be there, and these people will breed, and their traits will most likely be passed on.

But in any case evolution never ever happens fast, and it's wrong to say our evolution is going slow I think. But my main point earlier was that modern medicine might screw up our natural evolution.
And my point about space was that the people on the ship would eventually evolve away from the people left on earth. Because their environment will be different.

Sure, you wouldn't take a weak cripple to make a dangerous journey. However a person who might have died earlier because of lack of medicines might be sent out in space. Also even if you send people with good genes there's no guarantee that they would mate according to gentic compatibility. We're not like the peacock where the one with the most amazing feathers get to mate. We're not like the deer where the one with the biggest antlers get to mate. We're more like the octopus. The octopus mates with both the strongest and the smartest and end up with some smart offspring and some strong offspring. However unlike the octopus we usually stick with one partner.

You said that evolution never happens fast. You also said that the environment in a space shuttle would be unlike the environment on earth. With those two statements you explained why a space journey wont make us evolve. It is expected that we wont be able to survive a journey in s space shuttle more than a couple years at best unlike we emulate the environment on earth. Now we absolutely have to emulate that because unless we can unless all the participants of the journey got a 100% chance of dying. A couple of years is not enough to evolve. When they reach their destination (granted that they survive) they will still be taught the same ethics and the same morals.

Read my post properly. I already covered this. We can't adapt to a space environment fast enough to survive. Thus we will die and NOT evolve. Or we find an environment that we can survive in and we will stay the same because we wont mate with the best for the gene pool in our mind. Also we will most likely suffer from inbreed and die within a few generations.