Social Darwinism: Why it is crap

Evolution is okay, though

from JoeUser Forums
A question was floated on JU not too long ago about why left wing atheists who believe in evolution don't believe in social Darwinism. First, the question is filled with assumptions and generalizations about the people in question (possibly a symptom of a well baited lefty trap). Here I will try to answer the question as best as I can.

Simply put, they are two vastly different concepts. Evolution is the theory (as in scientific theory, not the hunch of evolution, but I digress) where random genetic mutations occur, and in a state of nature, those with positive effects allow the creature to have a better chance of survival, and therefore a better chance of passing these mutations onto its offspring. In the long run, these mutations will become commonplace, and presto, we have evolution.

Social Darwinism, on the other hand, is little more than an attempt to apply Darwin's theories where they don't apply. The basic theory is that those who die in society are the stupid/inferior ones (say, Sudanese, Ethiopians, or simply poor black people), and those who don't die are the ones who are superior and need to live and keep the inferior genes out.

Here's the main problem, though. Social Darwinism ignores socioeconomic factors, and doesn't realize that we are not living in a state of nature. Simply put, you are probably more likely to be disadvantaged because of socioeconomic factors (say, growing up as a poor minority in an area with a lot of crime). Also, by using Social Darwinism to attempt to justify cuts to aid to disaster-stricken areas (such as Sudan or Ethiopia), you are saying that the reason why people are starving in Ethiopia is because they are inferior, ignoring the fact that Ethiopia ain't exactly the most arable land in the world, and the reason people are getting killed in Sudan is because they are genetically inferior, not that the people doing the killing have a hell of a lot more guns. Can someone please explain to me why having a lot of AK-47s makes the militias in Sudan genetically superior to the people they kill?

Sadly, this kind of thought is becoming commonplace (perhaps I should say again. We all remember what happened when this kind of thinking took hold in Germany), and usually leads down the dark path of racism. If you look around, you see a disproportionate number of minorities in the lower class. Then the train of thought follows: black people are slightly genetically different from white people, a lot of black people are poor, therefore white people are genetically superior to black people. Of course, this train of thought ignores the years of oppression, which we are only now beginning to end. Is it not possible that it will take a few generations for things to even out?

Social Darwinism is little more than the not quite fully thought out theory that racists, imperialists and far-righters use to convince morons that they are right and have "science" backing them up. It's time to put this idiocy to rest.
misc
7,876 views 7 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Simply put, they are two vastly different concepts. Evolution is the theory (as in scientific theory, not the hunch of evolution, but I digress) where random genetic mutations occur, and in a state of nature, those with positive effects allow the creature to have a better chance of survival, and therefore a better chance of passing these mutations onto its offspring. In the long run, these mutations will become commonplace, and presto, we have evolution."


Nice to lean that way, but it also means that creatures who don't have said beneficial traits, or who are burdened with traits that are detrimental would also be more apt to NOT thrive or survive.

I don't lend any credence to social darwinism as far as race, at least in the social sense that the wackos do. Granted, I don't think you can deny that racial characteristics one way or another can be favored in mating, and therefore benefit or impede the success of a race. There are a ton of genetic characteristics that may or may not be beneficial, and may or may not be more or less prevalent in a particular race.

The kicker is if the modern era is any indication, we're sophisticated enough to pick out the beneficial aspects of all races, and not coincidentally people of mixed race seem more and more to be considered the most attractive to society as a whole.

So, social darwinism as you define it is silly and bogus, though I devoutly believe that an undercurrent of such bigoted idiocy runs throughout Liberalism and the pro-abortion movement. If this is refering to my blog, I don't wonder why pro-abortionists aren't social darwinists, I openly accuse them of being closet social darwinists.

The mechanics of Darwinism apply to the human race though, both socially and biologically. That doesn't mean you can laud or villify entire races based on such a theory.


"Social Darwinism is little more than the not quite fully thought out theory that racists, imperialists and far-righters use to convince morons..."


If you look at the far left, you also find such evils, and just as often. I think it is telling of your bias that you label "far-righters" as social darwinists. In reality SOME on the far-right believe such, just as some on the far left do.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
If this is refering to my blog...

Reading this, I think that latour was actually thinking of a recent posting by little whip, ("Eat for Darwin today and every day.") but he can correct me if I'm wrong.

One of the (many) problems with Social Darwinism is that it automatically assumes a state of fierce evolutionary competition within the human species. In fact, it is perfectly possible that co-operation and altruism rather than competition may turn out to be a positive 'adaptation' for humans in evolutionary terms.
Siege of Centauri
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
While I'm not much of a fan of Social Darwinism myself, I find it pretty interesting that you start your fingerpointing at "racists" by using a line that has no other purpose than race baiting.

The basic theory is that those who die in society are the stupid/inferior ones (say, Sudanese, Ethiopians, or simply poor black people), and those who don't die are the ones who are superior and need to live and keep the inferior genes out.


In fact, the whole waste of an article was nothing more than a pathetic attempt at race baiting in lieu of actually making a point.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Can someone please explain to me why having a lot of AK-47s makes the militias in Sudan genetically superior to the people they kill?


Because they get to reproduce their genes, and their victims don't?
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

Social Darwinism ignores socioeconomic factors, and doesn't realize that we are not living in a state of nature.

This one sentence has 2 errors alone.  First, humans ARE living in a state of nature.  We are a part of nature, and not extra-nature as you contend.

Second, it does not ignore socioeconomic factors any more than Darwinism does.  Whole species, adapted to live in a specific area, have been wiped out by nature itself (floods, volcanos, etc.).  That is a part of the crap shoot of darwinism.  And as applied to humans, until the advent of religion, it applied to people as well.  Just look at the depiction of cave men.  The weak were left to die as they could not hunt or gather.  Their genes were not passed on.  It was with the advent of religion that man was taught to care for his fellow man, no matter how feeble they were.  Before then, man only cared about survival, and the weak were not part of the equation.

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ah, I thought he may have been talking about my 'social eugenics through abortion' blog.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
If you look at the far left, you also find such evils, and just as often. I think it is telling of your bias that you label "far-righters" as social darwinists. In reality SOME on the far-right believe such, just as some on the far left do.


By far righters, I meant the waaaaaaay far righters, like nazis, fascists, and people who wear pointy hats. True, there are some perople who believe in it on the far left (Jack London, for example), but it isn't really commonplace thought in far left (socailist) circles.

Reading this, I think that latour was actually thinking of a recent posting by little whip, ("Eat for Darwin today and every day.") but he can correct me if I'm wrong.


you are correct

One of the (many) problems with Social Darwinism is that it automatically assumes a state of fierce evolutionary competition within the human species. In fact, it is perfectly possible that co-operation and altruism rather than competition may turn out to be a positive 'adaptation' for humans in evolutionary terms.


I completely agree with you here