On Evolution and Social Darwinism

[Richd506]

Darwin’s theory of evolution posits that all species emerge from the ‘nonrandom survival of randomly varying hereditary instructions’ as Richard Dawkins puts it simply. Social Darwinism, by contrast, is the idea of applying ‘survival of the fittest’ to social policy. I believe however that evolution rejects Social Darwinism and this is my theory as to why I think this.

When two living organisms are competing for survival, only one will win. But when two living organisms coexist, they both win. It’s much easier for life to bank on coexistence than it is for life to bank on competition since there’s a greater guarantee for survival overall.

The rational mind is capable of understanding this concept and evolution itself is responsible for the development of the rational mind. So therein lies the means through which we may reject Social Darwinism even when the theory of evolution is true.

I find it ironic that those who reject the theory of evolution are often those most likely to unknowingly embrace Social Darwinism –namely the right wing. They tout a ‘you get yours, I get mine’ mentality while having little to no understanding as to why they are a dying breed. Yet many things are ironic in nature so it appears.

But I don’t know. I’m not a scientist. I'm not even sure if similar theories already exist. Just a thought I had and figured I’d share it. Love to hear your input on it.

[Winterblues]

1. The "Theory" is pretty much established "Law" at this point

:shrug:

[SemiCharmedQuark]

4. "Theory" is fine.

As long as people apply the proper definition to the word "theory".

[gcomeau]

5. Gah. No it is not!

Laws are not some kind of upgrade in certainty from theories. Changing a Theory to a Law would be like giving it a downgrade.

Laws are just simple descriptions of observed behaviour. They're a dime a dozen.

Theories are the comprehensive, detailed frameworks of knowledge that tell us WHY those laws are what they are. Laws are simple. Theories win Nobels.

[Winterblues]

9. ???

Are you sure???? I think the "Law" of Gravity is a little more resolved than the "Theory" of Gravity but pretty much all Scientific "Law" can be questioned to some degree or another.

[gcomeau]

10. I'm very very sure.

The Law of Gravity is just a descriptive statement. Two objects of mass will exert an attractive force on each other equivalent to F = G(m1*m2/r^2).

Simple. (Not to take anything away from Newton... read that as relatively simple)

The Theory of Gravity explains WHY and HOW they exert that attractive force.

Hard. And requiring a massively better understanding of what is happening than just fomulating the Law.

[gcomeau]

2. That's mostly right...

...a simpler way of demonstrating why evolution and Social Darwinism have nothing to do with each other is that in evolutionary theory "the fittest" is a post-hoc definition. Whoever reproduced most successfully WAS the fittest, because they reproduced most successfully.

When these clueless idiots come along and try applying that to social engineering programs they turn it on its head. They decide what they WANT to be the fittest first, then they start screwing around with the environment to force it to favor their fitness preferences. For a clear demonstration of why that's a stupid thing to do, let's apply it to the theory of gravity instead of the theory of evolution.

The theory of gravity tells us (among other things) that if you go over the edge of a cliff you WILL fall to the ground below.

Dumbass "Social Gravitationalists" come along and decide that the theory of gravity tells us people SHOULD fall off cliffs, and start pushing anyone they see standing near the edge of one while claiming they're just following the laws of nature.

[wtmusic]

3. Agree, to an extent.

The triumph of the individual in nature and Social Darwinism are both neither black nor white; there are many examples of codependence in the animal kingdom, and for a long time physical strength and/or intellect in humans favored the survival of an individual.

Some species seem to have evolved with the capability to relegate different tasks to different individuals in a community, which aids in the community's survival. Individuals of other species remain fiercely independent. Why do bees work together, and not spiders? Possibly "randomly varying hereditary instructions" separates the two, possibly environmental circumstances.

You post is thought-provoking, but this individual better stop speculating and get back to work or I will be a case study in Social Darwinism. :scared:

[KittyWampus]

6. you mention the Rational Mind but totally fail to incorporate the Intuitive Mind.

Or the Reptilian Mind.

Fact is, empirical observation allows some humans to understand how to speak Intuitively to other humans and manipulate them by accessing their Reptilian Mind.

[Ozymanithrax]

7. Social Darwinism assumes that having more money, more wealth is proof of superiority...

Superior humans will always achieve wealth and status over less superior humans. Because there were very few wealthy African Americans or American Indians in 1860 means that the rich white folk were superior beings. Institutions designed to keep white people of British, French, or German descent in power, that kept all others from having access to wealth and power had nothing to do with keeping one group on top.

It was and is bullshit.

[Johonny]

8. there is no truth that nature drives towards mutual coexistence

Species drive other species into extinction all the time.

[comrade snarky]

11. Nature doesn't "drive" in any one direction

Some species form symbiotic relationships, some don't.

Ascribing human motivations to vague natural principals was the mistake of the Social Darwinists. Well, I say mistake though much of it was fear and a need to justify their own comfy place amidst the suffering of the 19th century.

[Johonny]

12. wasn't the mistake of social darwinists

that natural selection doesn't appear to strongly influence social stratification in humans. Human society changes through non-Darwinian evolutionary mechanisms not available to biological lifeforms. Thus applying the same theory was bound to fail.