Social Darwinism: Why?

[dragonswarrior]

aahhhh Simulord..Ive seen him on Cracked

shame he doesnt hang around anymore,anyway I think your talking about Misanthropes rather than social Darwinists

god I fucking hate Misanthropes...no really, their logic never makes any sense "I hate the evil and suffering in thr world, so I will do nothing to stop evil and suffering in the world....I will CAUSE evil and suffereing in the world (end the world scenarios) because I hate evil and suffering the world" misanthropes arnt "realists" theyre jsut weak

Can I just say that I fell in love with your descriptions of misanthropes?

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but your just as bad as the rest of us. Although I have never met you in real life, I have met others like you. Like to think your human because you are typing words on a computer screen. Even I could be wrong and maybe your a robot. So welcome to the human race if you are a robot trying to fit in. Most humans like to think that they are different. "Ah hell no, I don't like that at all." Now what that really means is yes I do act that way, but if I say it out loud then it isn't true.

we'll you'd have to be more specific about what you mean

I'm well aware that people over estimate themselfs, belive that we are different from others, belive that we have more self control or that we have more "free will" and belive they are nicer than they are or that "it happnes to other people" its natual, we are the centres of our own worlds

I'm also aware than people can do amazing and horrible things given the right circumstances

now can't I say for sure how I would act in certain situations...would I keep pressing the button to electrocute the test subject because my supervisor says its ok? would I screw somone over to survive?

I plain don't know,

I've got no illusions as to how moral/amoral I am, but I certainly dont think its any good to assume that we are all scum underneith, living in the world requires elements of both good and bad

and nature doesnt have any concept of right or wrong

Sort of mean it on a smaller scale. Alot of the horrible things we do are not really that bad. Like a stranger asking you to hold their place in line and you don't do it. Even though they are pissed off about it, you don't care because you are not him. Say something mean to you and now you have justification for doing it. Most of the time people are rude when we don't do what they asked of us. Almost refreshing when someone is nice to us and we semi screwed them over. Not saying I am good person because I hold a grudge like a son of a ***** and it has costed me dearly on some things.

Hmmmmm... Yes well. You do not know the human race as you clearly do not have intimate knowledge on the inner workings of me or my friends. Sooooo... You should probably stop making blanket statements that don't apply to us. *grins* *winks*

There are a couple things wrong with your idea. The first (and my personal favorite) is what exactly defines who we are? By your definition, our selfishness and selfishness ALONE defines who we are. And well... Ya know. That just doesn't apply to a lot of people.

That's in addition to the fact that you are taking a very unrealistic view on what humans actually are. Which is understandable. It's very hard to separate media viewpoints from actual observation, which means you are being bombarded with views that are either way to(o?) pessimistic or way to(o?) optimistic. This couple with the fact that for whatever reason humans focus on the negative more than the positive means that you get a lot of people who like to believe that humans are basically scum.

I'm not necessarily saying that they aren't, just saying that you should probably try to think about it some more.

 

[dragonswarrior]

aahhhh Simulord..Ive seen him on Cracked

shame he doesnt hang around anymore,anyway I think your talking about Misanthropes rather than social Darwinists

god I fucking hate Misanthropes...no really, their logic never makes any sense "I hate the evil and suffering in thr world, so I will do nothing to stop evil and suffering in the world....I will CAUSE evil and suffereing in the world (end the world scenarios) because I hate evil and suffering the world" misanthropes arnt "realists" theyre jsut weak

Can I just say that I fell in love with your descriptions of misanthropes?

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but your just as bad as the rest of us. Although I have never met you in real life, I have met others like you. Like to think your human because you are typing words on a computer screen. Even I could be wrong and maybe your a robot. So welcome to the human race if you are a robot trying to fit in. Most humans like to think that they are different. "Ah hell no, I don't like that at all." Now what that really means is yes I do act that way, but if I say it out loud then it isn't true.

we'll you'd have to be more specific about what you mean

I'm well aware that people over estimate themselfs, belive that we are different from others, belive that we have more self control or that we have more "free will" and belive they are nicer than they are or that "it happnes to other people" its natual, we are the centres of our own worlds

I'm also aware than people can do amazing and horrible things given the right circumstances

now can't I say for sure how I would act in certain situations...would I keep pressing the button to electrocute the test subject because my supervisor says its ok? would I screw somone over to survive?

I plain don't know,

I've got no illusions as to how moral/amoral I am, but I certainly dont think its any good to assume that we are all scum underneith, living in the world requires elements of both good and bad

and nature doesnt have any concept of right or wrong

Sort of mean it on a smaller scale. Alot of the horrible things we do are not really that bad. Like a stranger asking you to hold their place in line and you don't do it. Even though they are pissed off about it, you don't care because you are not him. Say something mean to you and now you have justification for doing it. Most of the time people are rude when we don't do what they asked of us. Almost refreshing when someone is nice to us and we semi screwed them over. Not saying I am good person because I hold a grudge like a son of a ***** and it has costed me dearly on some things.

Hmmmmm... Yes well. You do not know the human race as you clearly do not have intimate knowledge on the inner workings of me or my friends. Sooooo... You should probably stop making blanket statements that don't apply to us. *grins* *winks*

There are a couple things wrong with your idea. The first (and my personal favorite) is what exactly defines who we are? By your definition, our selfishness and selfishness ALONE defines who we are. And well... Ya know. That just doesn't apply to a lot of people.

That's in addition to the fact that you are taking a very unrealistic view on what humans actually are. Which is understandable. It's very hard to separate media viewpoints from actual observation, which means you are being bombarded with views that are either way to(o?) pessimistic or way to(o?) optimistic. This couple with the fact that for whatever reason humans focus on the negative more than the positive means that you get a lot of people who like to believe that humans are basically scum.

I'm not necessarily saying that they aren't, just saying that you should probably try to think about it some more.

Sorry man, but don't pull that shit where my opinion was influenced by the media and whats on t.v. Another person putting words in my mouth by saying that our faults are the only thing that defines us. Like to think that maybe you need to read what people wrote and then ask probing questions. Eventually you will see the other persons view point and not just thrust what you think they said back at them. Sorry but I don't need to meet you in real life because you have done shitty things. Alright with you, maybe you think this way because you saw it t.v. once. Now you know how it feels.

*goes back and rereads some of the discussion*

Ahhhh... I see I see. I did make a mistake and you have my apologies for that. However...

My first point (which really is the most important one) is still completely valid. How exactly do you define what traits are a persons real traits and which aren't? You seem to think it is the selfishness that defines what a person really is and I still think that is silly. (If I am rereading it wrong again (which is a definite possibility) please clarify.)

Also, I would like to say on the media subject... Yes. I did force some words in to(o?) your mouth. Again, my apologies. However, you cannot escape the fact that everything I said about the media and it's influence over us is true. And hell yea it applies to me!! Did I ever say it didn't? It is a daily fight that I always try to meet to the best of my ability.

Hmmm... I also smell delicious irony wafting through these posts. It is delicious.

 

[DANEgerous]

Here is the problem you can come to full realization of what i am about to say by waling up to a creationist and saying "Darwin's survival of the fittest and evolution means we should kill one another!" to which they will reply "DERP!" in other words "Yes! The most evolved things are the one best suited to kill other things and tens to be the must deadly!" they say this because they are bloody fucking retards with an IQ around 75.

All you have to do is being up a fact like this.

You realize survival of the fittest applies to all living things right?

Yeah! Se it mean we should kill shit!

You mean like all those plants and herbivores do?

(Now it is time for possible bullshit answer #1) No! They are the least evolved! You fuckn' stupid!

To witch you can only reply the fact there is no most or least evolved animalm which they will promptly deny despite being a fact.

(if you get past that your response is generally.) But they live in groups! safety in numbers! can't kill them all! Predictors do not do that! DERP!

Then you bring up the solitary herbivore remind them that plants never huddle in groups and are included in survival of the fittest and mention packs of wolves and prides of lions only to get.

"Do not distort the facts! You are grasping at straws!" In short these people are intentionally ignorant to the facts. After this they are also likely yo say thing like "the goal of evolution is to..." as if evolution is some sentient being with goals it has set, i have even on more than one occasion got the response "the goal of evolution is to become a human" and in fact that is to this day what my father believes.

 

[Booze Zombie]

Survival of the fit refers to those fit to survive, if you're alive, you're fit to survive.
This effectively means anyone you're not murdering is just as worthy of life as you and if they shoot you in the face, you were in fact "the unworthy one". The rigid speciality of almost everyone you see spouting the phrase is quite hilariously ironic, due to the "fitness" refering not to ability to beat down people but ability to adapt and survive.

A computer programmer may be seen as "adaptable" to technology, where as someone to lifts weights and such might be seen as adaptable in terms of biology.
It's a shame some don't realise this, blinded by their own success and a desire to fuel it with the displeasure of others.

 

[BabySinclair]

I thought Social Darwinism was just something used by European and American imperialists in the 19th century, and is only used nowadays by middle school kids who haven't had a formal course teaching evolution yet, and thus don't have a clue what they're talking about.

To clarify a little, the theory used by Western imperialists was Social Evolution and there is a difference. Social Evolution was the theory touted by early anthropologists (who set us back a century) that cultures (ie societies) followed a linear evolutionary path. Nomadic savages => Barbarism/Chieftains => States => Industrial Nations or in short, "primitive" equals non-industrial chieftains, intermediate equals Rome or China, and fully evolved equals Europe and the US. Thus, "improving" more "primitive" nations was a kind way of speeding up an indigenous population's evolution.

Social Darwinism pretty much boils down to "the economically a/o politically wealthy/powerful are more fit than those with a lesser status." "Fitness" be the ability to breed and reproduce. Of course being born into wealth does not directly equate to being able to maintain wealth or build upon your own and the theory would be more workable if everything one owned (money, capital, holdings...) was not passed on to later generations rather achieved through hard wok/knowledge/dedication, that way people who are actually more adapted and suited for higher ecornomic/political positions could readily achieve them and improve their fitness. But we all know that's not how it works. Making the theory useless. Applies to technology and science too. "We have it so we're just better than you" mentality.

Oh and "survival of the fittest" is being used wrong by a number of people. "Fitness" for those who didn't read through the above is a measurement of sexual reproduction. Anyone who has not produced offspring is less "fit" than those that have. So "survival of the fittest" actually means "the more kids you can pump out the better," not "the fact that you're alive means something." There are a number of species that kill themselves in order to reproduce and they are pretty damn fit/prolific at it. Sorry, anthropological peeve of mine.

Survival of the fit refers to those fit to survive, if you're alive, you're fit to survive. This effectively means anyone you're not murdering is just as worthy of life as you and if they shoot you in the face, you were in fact "the unworthy one". The rigid speciality of almost everyone you see spouting the phrase is quite hilariously ironic, due to the "fitness" refering not to ability to beat down people but ability to adapt and survive.

Please read the paragraph above. The media's spin does not equal the anthropological and scientific definition of that phrase.

 

[Saxnot]

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?

not to be an asshole, but isn't that what pretty much everyone wants? everyone has an idea about what would benefit us most as a species, and wants to direct us towards that goal. but that aplies to born-again christianity just as much as it applies to scientific advancement.

correct me if i'm wrong, but wanting society to change in a way you think beneficial seems like a pretty universal desire to me.

 

[WeaponisedCookie]

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?

not to be an asshole, but isn't that what pretty much everyone wants? everyone has an idea about what would benefit us most as a species, and wants to direct us towards that goal. but that aplies to born-again christianity just as much as it applies to scientific advancement.

correct me if i'm wrong, but wanting society to change in a way you think beneficial seems like a pretty universal desire to me.

Then you wouldn't believe the amount of lazy, incompetent people I had to put up with. They don't even want to advance themselves, let alone humanity.

 

[Heronblade]

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?

not to be an asshole, but isn't that what pretty much everyone wants? everyone has an idea about what would benefit us most as a species, and wants to direct us towards that goal. but that aplies to born-again christianity just as much as it applies to scientific advancement.

correct me if i'm wrong, but wanting society to change in a way you think beneficial seems like a pretty universal desire to me.

Yes and no. The desire to improve one's lot in life is pretty much universal, and the desire to spread ideas that one likes is nearly universal. Those goals are not however necessarily compatible with what is best for the species. Social Darwinism would for example occasionally require working against one's own self interest for the sake of long term progress elsewhere, a requirement that very few are willing to meet.

As a specific example, the world would be better off if the UN was given the resources and authority it was supposed to have when originally conceived, but few of its member nations are willing to allow it, since that would reduce their own power. As it stands, an organization that might have been able to make strides towards improving the lot of people regardless of nationality, is little more than a running joke, and will remain that way for the foreseeable future.

It also requires more adaptability in ideas than most want to deal with. Once an idea is shown to not work, it needs to be adapted to fit the situation or dropped entirely in favor of something new, instead of the more common situation of it getting dragged around by stubborn people that keep trying the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. (For reference, see US Republican and Democratic parties)

 

[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.

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.

Sure we would have to replicate earth conditions, but guess what even on earth humans evolved in different directions. I am not saying humans would evolve into a completely different organism straight away. But I still think that any humans that have lived in earth like environments away from earth would evolve differently.

Also what you talk about with regards to peacocks and feathers is what is called "survival of the sexes" and it is also something that happens to a degree in Humans. There are several traits that men and woman find attractive in others, ie "good looking people". It's just that not every woman/man find the same traits desirable, which means we have a lot of traits that go on.

Funny thing about traits. I read an article about how blue eyed men were more attracted to blue eyed women than other colors. The scientists believe this is because it's the man can then tell if the baby he has with this woman is his or not (since the child should most of the time have blue eyes too). Just a funny fact

 

[Zetatrain]

Nature doesn't really care what we "achieve." It cares what survives to reproduce. To humans, Mother Teresa (sp?) was a wonderful person who took great burdens upon herself to help the needy and unfortunate. A true testament to human willpower and our capability for kindness.

To Evolution she had a fitness of 0. She didn't have any kids, so if her kindness was in any way genetic, it's now gone.

Well that's the thing, ideas such as kindness and altruism aren't exactly genetic. These are traits that must be taught to a child, so I doubt that even if Mother Theresa did have children that they would be like her just simply because they share her genetic material.

 

[Saxnot]

Yes and no. The desire to improve one's lot in life is pretty much universal, and the desire to spread ideas that one likes is nearly universal. Those goals are not however necessarily compatible with what is best for the species. Social Darwinism would for example occasionally require working against one's own self interest for the sake of long term progress elsewhere, a requirement that very few are willing to meet.

As a specific example, the world would be better off if the UN was given the resources and authority it was supposed to have when originally conceived, but few of its member nations are willing to allow it, since that would reduce their own power. As it stands, an organization that might have been able to make strides towards improving the lot of people regardless of nationality, is little more than a running joke, and will remain that way for the foreseeable future.

but doesn't that suggest that social darwinism is nothing but following through on your principles?

if i believe the UN should have more power, but don't want my government to give up sovereignty, then i'm just being inconsistent. following your beliefs even if they are to your own detriment does not seem to imply social darwinism to me. it seems more like being commited to certain opinions.

It also requires more adaptability in ideas than most want to deal with. Once an idea is shown to not work, it needs to be adapted to fit the situation or dropped entirely in favor of something new, instead of the more common situation of it getting dragged around by stubborn people that keep trying the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. (For reference, see US Republican and Democratic parties)

again, this seems more like a practical point than a philosophical one. if i can't convert people to evangelism through sermons and tv - ministry, i might try distributing chick tracts. if my ultimate goal remains the same, changing your methods from time to time is more a practical consideration than a philosophical position.

i don't mean to say that social darwinism is stupid or invalid, but rather the opposite. as i understand it, these principles seem to be an inherent part of being commited to an opinion.

 

[iseko]

Social Darwinism, for those who don't know, is the application of Darwin's "survival of the fittest" idea to everyday life... etc etc snip snip

Short reply: wrong
Long reply: Yes a species can be more adapt to survive. Like the owl and mice thing you propose. But what if there are not enough mice to eat? The best solution would be that half the owl population kills itself so the rest can eat and live. Preferably the oldest and weakest owls first. Yea... That is not going to happen. This is a scenario where the strongest will survive and find food. The weaker ones will die.

What is good for the species is not always the same as what is good for the individual. The individual is always selfish. A truly selfless act is very hard to come by. One of the only examples I could think off:
Someone who has no family, no friends, nobody that he cares for in this world and nobody that cares about him. He can stop the annihilation of the entire human race by killing himself.
If he had friends or family you could say he does it for them. In this way it is completely selfless.

Survival of the fittest is a bad excuse any ways. Modern medicine is screwing that up for humans.

captcha: roast beef

 

[Yopaz]

Sure we would have to replicate earth conditions, but guess what even on earth humans evolved in different directions. I am not saying humans would evolve into a completely different organism straight away. But I still think that any humans that have lived in earth like environments away from earth would evolve differently.

Also what you talk about with regards to peacocks and feathers is what is called "survival of the sexes" and it is also something that happens to a degree in Humans. There are several traits that men and woman find attractive in others, ie "good looking people". It's just that not every woman/man find the same traits desirable, which means we have a lot of traits that go on.

Funny thing about traits. I read an article about how blue eyed men were more attracted to blue eyed women than other colors. The scientists believe this is because it's the man can then tell if the baby he has with this woman is his or not (since the child should most of the time have blue eyes too). Just a funny fact

Really, this discussion is getting really silly. You fail to see the point I was trying to make with the peacock. So let me break this down for you. Men and women mate over attraction (or alcohol), you're correct about that. However what we find attractive isn't like in the case of the peacock where the biggest and most colourful feathers always wins. There's people who likes intelligence, there's people who like certain hair colours, skin colours, eye colours, body types. In short there's a lot of different kinds of looks we are attracted to. Evolution comes from breeding a certain range of traits and not in the seemingly random range of traits we humans go for.

You mentioned human evolution on earth and really? Really? You use that as an example of how we would evolve? We have had a few centuries where we were separated and you know what? The human genome is practically the same worldwide. Centuries of evolution has been pretty uneventful. There are minor differences and that's it.

Now let's go on to break down where you're wrong about evolution. We send a lot of people out on a journey in a spaceship which perfectly emulates life on Earth. Because of that we evolve. To adapt to our new environment. An environment that is basically the Earth? We have to adapt to changes that don't exist? We live like humans in a habitat made for humans and we have to evolve? A habitat most likely made by our current human desires. Given these conditions we have no reason to evolve. Our sexual preferences wont magically change. Our diversity wont change because we need to include enough people to avoid inbreeding and complete extinction within the next 10 generations. Really, take the time to learn the basic principles of evolution before you make brilliant theories like the one you did. Maybe then you'll learn how little sense you are making now.

 

[SciMal]

Nature doesn't really care what we "achieve." It cares what survives to reproduce. To humans, Mother Teresa (sp?) was a wonderful person who took great burdens upon herself to help the needy and unfortunate. A true testament to human willpower and our capability for kindness.

To Evolution she had a fitness of 0. She didn't have any kids, so if her kindness was in any way genetic, it's now gone.

Well that's the thing, ideas such as kindness and altruism aren't exactly genetic. These are traits that must be taught to a child, so I doubt that even if Mother Theresa did have children that they would be like her just simply because they share her genetic material.

There are actually fairly well-studied circumstances when altruism is favored in nature. Humans and primates aren't the only ones who can be altruistic, but the set of circumstances for that type of behavior to be favored is simply small.

Br > C is the equation I can recall related to it, with the (B)enefit to the actor (in genetic terms) and the (r)elatedness of the receiver to the actor outweighing the (C)ost to the actor.

 

[dyre]

I thought Social Darwinism was just something used by European and American imperialists in the 19th century, and is only used nowadays by middle school kids who haven't had a formal course teaching evolution yet, and thus don't have a clue what they're talking about.

To clarify a little, the theory used by Western imperialists was Social Evolution and there is a difference. Social Evolution was the theory touted by early anthropologists (who set us back a century) that cultures (ie societies) followed a linear evolutionary path. Nomadic savages => Barbarism/Chieftains => States => Industrial Nations or in short, "primitive" equals non-industrial chieftains, intermediate equals Rome or China, and fully evolved equals Europe and the US. Thus, "improving" more "primitive" nations was a kind way of speeding up an indigenous population's evolution.

Social Darwinism pretty much boils down to "the economically a/o politically wealthy/powerful are more fit than those with a lesser status." "Fitness" be the ability to breed and reproduce. Of course being born into wealth does not directly equate to being able to maintain wealth or build upon your own and the theory would be more workable if everything one owned (money, capital, holdings...) was not passed on to later generations rather achieved through hard wok/knowledge/dedication, that way people who are actually more adapted and suited for higher ecornomic/political positions could readily achieve them and improve their fitness. But we all know that's not how it works. Making the theory useless. Applies to technology and science too. "We have it so we're just better than you" mentality.

Ah, thanks for that clarification. Funny thing is, I've heard that sort of linear evolutionary path for civilizations crap in the media even during the recent Iraq occupation. At least Social Darwinism isn't used any more these days...it's just "the rich all work hard, and the poor are all lazy" now