Social Darwinism

estebancambias

Sorry if this is the wrong section, but I just want to get people's views on it.

I really have nothing to say rather than I think its just stupid.

My original post is bad, but this is purely to get people on here views on it.

Actually now I have time to write a more clearly. Does Social-Darwinism have any good points in its original form that might have been manipulated by twisted people over time?

Is there anything to be said for Social-Darwinism?

Joe1919

I was taking a quick read over Daniel Dennett book "Breaking the Spell" and he comments on page 203 (paperback) about the "belief in the equality of all people regardless of their race". Its seems that , according to Dennett, there is much research that show that there is, in fact, racial differences when it comes to medicines and drugs but this is suppressed and considered off limits.(i.e. racial differences is a taboo subject).

The idea and belief that we are all created equal (which is not really true) and of equality in general is a belief that has been popular and has served humanity well in general. But some philosophers, especially Nietzsche seriously challenged this belief in his concept of the overman.
It may be that we may still have to get over the holocost and the civil rights era before people can objectively discuss issues about racial difference without insulting each other.
This issue ( as regard to how historians can discuss and interpret recent sensitive issues) was to some extent discussed on the RTE program Hidden History a few weeks ago with respect to northern ireland and the troubles, and the fact that it is only since the peace process that certain truths can be brought to light without re-inflaming the issue.

Brad Wesley

estebancambias wrote: »

Sorry if this is the wrong section, but I just want to get people's views on it.

I really have nothing to say rather than I think its just stupid.

My original post is bad, but this is purely to get people on here views on it.

Actually now I have time to write a more clearly. Does Social-Darwinism have any good points in its original form that might have been manipulated by twisted people over time?

Is there anything to be said for Social-Darwinism?

Most of what he says is misinterpreted, Darwin's own views of this were that the differences between human races were superficial (he discusses them only in terms of skin color and hair style), and much of Descent of Man is devoted to the question of the human races.

Brad Wesley

A quote from that book reads,
"We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man itself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed."

LaVidaLoca

is simply using something that is true about the animal kingdom (and ourselves to the extent that we are animals) to make a blanket statement about human societies.

It's kind of like saying that as we are animals, and are genetically programmed to reproduce as much as we can, that it's OK for me to cheat on my wife.

Using biological ideas as a basis for social ones, usually ends up in places like this.

Are there intellectual differences between races? Well of course it's a loaded question. And one that is not really always open to political manipulation. So for example, if one we're to do a supposedly 'neutral' study of say, black peoples educational acheivement: You would of course find that worldwide, black people have less educational acheivment than white people overall - due to the fact that most black people live in impoverished countries in Africa. You can interpet this if you're politically motivated, to mean that black people are racially less intelligent than whites, which is of course bull****.

Black Swan

Charles Darwin constructed a theory of differential reproduction, where high reproductive rates over time allowed for more variation in a species, with occasional fecund differences that might be better suited to adapt to environmental change. When a rare, viable variation occurred, it was often found to be a hybrid, or a blending of differences, as opposed to a more pure form of an existing species.

Problems with Herbert Spencer's survival of the fittest:

• Things "social" were not central to Darwin's theory, whereas social, as well as economic, were central to Spencer's theory of Social Darwinism, and its salient concept of "survival of the fittest."
  
• Spencer's theory suggested that if something survived as a social or economic construction, it must of survived because it was the fittest; i.e., a tautology or argument in a circle.
  
• Claiming that one race was superior to another was not consistent with Darwin's theory of differential reproduction, where increased variation enhances environmental adaptation. Rather, it does seem to agree with Spencer's survival of the fittest when used to socially and economically justify differences between races, or ethnicities, or religious orientations, or between more developed and lesser developed nations.
  
• Spencer's theory tends to be elitist, to the extent that it has been used to justify the notion that small, ruling elites are more fit to possess most of the power and wealth of a nation than its common citizens (who produce the wealth).

brianthebard

I'm glad Blue lagoon pointed out the spencer issue. The most important thing to note about social darwinism is that it is an interpretation of his biological theories as an economic theory. Darwinism was never meant to be applied to human society imo. Survival of the fittest makes sense in capitalism, but not in human interaction. Still its a really interesting history topic...

C.R.Winslow

One cannot assume humans to be the stepping stone to the devine and therefoe not subject to rules of nature. Natural selection works. We've simply removed ourselves from it by the means of welfare benifits and such. Will this make any sort of difference? That remains to be seen but the factuality of it cannot be doubted. We could end up a shell of a civilisation or not but there are way too many factors, many of which are unquantifiable, which set us aside from the easily observable animal kingdom.

pauldiv

I read that Darwin stopped believing in his theory of evolution before he died.
The are suggestions that he was funded and used by some people with devious motives.
Hitler was used as well and they were just fall guys used to further the interests of powerful groups acting behind the scenes.
IMHO all humans are equal and are naturally peace loving.
Race has always been used to create divisions because the ones pulling the strings do better when people are in conflict.