NationStates Jolt Archive

Does this really exist or was it Hitler's excuse to eradicate the jews.

it seems possible to me

Of course, the biological fact of evolution applies to all species, including humans. The arcane sociological hypothesis of "Social Darwinism" is a gross misunderstanding of the whole concept. However, I believe that Hitler realised this (just as the Japanese hard-liners did) but chose to benefit from the "scientific" flavour that Darwin's name invokes.

"Survival of the fittest" means that any organism that possesses a useful trait for any given moment will dominate above others. By extrapolating from this, we can assume that organisms with the most versatility will dominate: they have the capacity to develop and modify traits to suit changing conditions. This is brought to a point in light of the modern theory of punctuated equilibrium (Stephen Jay Gould and others).

In an idiot's version of "survival of the fittest", strength is defined by some arbitrary concept such as military dominance, physical prowess or the like. If nature actually functioned like this, the best survivors would be muscleboud beasts bristling with tusks and fangs.
But the T-Rex is long gone while the beetle and the lamprey still dominate. Nature 1, Hitler 0.

Darwinism, in this case survival of the fittest, is the rule that evolution tends towards when left to its natural rhythm. To spot this tendancy however takes millions of years and can not be applied to socialogical timescales of 10, 100 or even 1000 years. It is not a philosophy of some kind of inteligent design, nature is does not obey rule set out from the beinging but mealy fell into certain patterns. The fact that it may seem like a fully planned out political principle endorsed by nature makes people feel that it can be justified in a social sense but in fact there is no justification for it. Simply because something is so doesn't mean that it is right, or wrong, it just is. Humankind, which is a part of nature, is capable of morality which nature, as a whole, seems to have no equivilant, therefore to say that something is right because the general natural world seems to follow it is flawwed. The right to survive maybe a central tenant to human nature as in all nature, but when that right is more or less secured, as in a civilaisation, the application of darwinism in society becomes utterly absurd.

I think you're confusing social darwinism with eugenics.

To me, if someone is stupid enough to use a blow-dryer in the shower and electrocutes themselves, they are an example of Darwin's theories in action. The person in question was simply too stupid to survive, and with any luck, wouldn't pass on their genes.

Eugenics is the belief that one "race" is superior to another, or that a group of people should be prevented from reproducing. The US did some forced sterilizations, as did Canada. Hell, Hitler thought their policies concerning what percentage of certain races constituted enough to make them jewish, black, etc, humane. He cited the American "One Drop" laws to this end. You see, some states had a law that stated that if you had one drop of negro blood, that made you a negro, and micegenation laws applied to you. If you had one drop, you were legally unable to marry a white person, to get right to the point.

Of course, I think that medical science has made the human race a bit weaker, because they've managed to allow people with congenital diseases, which would have killed them before they reached an age to reproduce, to reach such an age, and pass it on to their children. I'd hate to have to apply this idea to the people I love, though. Asthma used to kill children off on a regular basis, and my brothers are alive, and I love them. I don't like to think that they might not have lived without treatment.

It can be, but shouldn't be.

Darwinism can no longer be applied to humans because they aren't killed off often enough. What survival traits does Steven Hawking show? Other than he is alive of course. He is kept alive by a machine, and would be even if he was not a genius. The fact he is a genius proves that, while in many situations Darwinism occurs; it is not a good thing.

In a high level society (which I like to think we live in) specialists are highly desirable, but they would not survive were it not for the support of the society.

Now, one could argue that this its self is a form of Darwinism, that these specialists have adapted to fill a niche. While I can see where this view comes from I disagree. Hawking is not the only person with motor-neuron disease, and I am sure many are kept alive despite their lack of contribution to society.

We support individuals for two reasons:
1. We are humane; that's part of what makes us human.
2. They may one day be useful; see Hawking for example.

On a personal level, you must ask, would you allow your family member or friend to die if they could be saved?

Darwinism no longer applies to Humans; we have outgrown it, and are superior to such base laws of nature.

Social Darwinism was only an excuse for rich white males to stay that way.

Social Darwinism was only an excuse for rich white males to stay that way.

One can stop being white? neat! :)

Of course, the biological fact of evolution applies to all species, including humans. The arcane sociological hypothesis of "Social Darwinism" is a gross misunderstanding of the whole concept. However, I believe that Hitler realised this (just as the Japanese hard-liners did) but chose to benefit from the "scientific" flavour that Darwin's name invokes.

"Survival of the fittest" means that any organism that possesses a useful trait for any given moment will dominate above others. By extrapolating from this, we can assume that organisms with the most versatility will dominate: they have the capacity to develop and modify traits to suit changing conditions. This is brought to a point in light of the modern theory of punctuated equilibrium (Stephen Jay Gould and others)..

The term *traits* would be more accurate. As for versatilty, not neccessarally, many organisms are actually quite specialized and have been around for quite some time. This is largely due to the fact that these organisms are well "entrenched" within a specialized ecological "niche".

In an idiot's version of "survival of the fittest", strength is defined by some arbitrary concept such as military dominance, physical prowess or the like. If nature actually functioned like this, the best survivors would be muscleboud beasts bristling with tusks and fangs.
But the T-Rex is long gone while the beetle and the lamprey still dominate. Nature 1, Hitler 0.

A poor example, T.Rex is a specific species, while beetles and lampreys are far more generic terms. However, T.rex was a therapod dinosaur, a group which hung around Earth for some 160 million years. In addition, an increasing number of paleontologists now support the assertion that in fact, they (Therapod dinosaurs) are still around - as birds.

Of course it can.

However, Darwinism is an evolutionary processs. Such processes take a vast time scale to work on, compared to the timescales used to messure human societies.

Bottom line is, nothing we can regard as civilization has been around long enough to have been affected in any messurable way by evolutionary forces.

Plus, with other social animals, the physical asspects of evolution always, at least as far as I know, dominate the social asspects, thus there isn't any good way to messure the development of society over evolutionary time scales.

Skiss, I wasn't planning on making a biological essay, I merely pointed out the reasoning behind the hypothesis of "Social Darwinism": misread science. I think I made my point.

Skiss, I wasn't planning on making a biological essay, I merely pointed out the reasoning behind the hypothesis of "Social Darwinism": misread science. I think I made my point.

Very well, but you must forgive me.... as an evolutionary biologist I have a tendency to get carried away :D

Survival of the fittest doesn't necessarily mean fit in physical condition, but mental condition too. However, there is a "harmony" for humans to live in a fair world (to an extent...) which is why survival of the fittest is not applicable.

Survival of the fittest doesn't necessarily mean fit in physical condition, but mental condition too. However, there is a "harmony" for humans to live in a fair world (to an extent...) which is why survival of the fittest is not applicable.

It basically means having the most desirable trait or traits at any given time. A trait or series of traits at one point in time my not neccessarally be particulary beneficial (or even detrimental) at another given point in time.

Evolution and it's mechanism, natural selection are in essence about change - no more and no less.

Darwinism may not be able to be applied to humans in this age, though they certainly were applied before. There would BE no humans without natural selection.
In most cases, Darwinism (I prefer to call it natural selection) doesn't even ensure the best of a species. It ensures the best middle ground for the time being. I mean, isn't it detrimental to peacocks to be so brightly coloured? But then if they weren't, the peahens wouldn't adore them and they wouldn't be able to reproduce.
I'm not talking about social darwinim here. I'm a biology student.

Does this really exist or was it Hitler's excuse to eradicate the jews.
What Hitler was doing wasn't social Darwinism...
Social Darwinism natural selects the better humans to live on based off their economic and social strengths. Social Darwinism would eradicate economic and social classes of people starting from the bottom...not racial and ethnic groups.

Darwinism may not be able to be applied to humans in this age, though they certainly were applied before. There would BE no humans without natural selection.
In most cases, Darwinism (I prefer to call it natural selection) doesn't even ensure the best of a species. It ensures the best middle ground for the time being. I mean, isn't it detrimental to peacocks to be so brightly coloured? But then if they weren't, the peahens wouldn't adore them and they wouldn't be able to reproduce.
I'm not talking about social darwinim here. I'm a biology student.
First, the absence of Darwinism would prohibit the extinction of old species, while it would not necessarily prohibit the creation of new ones.
Second, Darwinism, I do believe, includes sexual selection in with natural selection, which would explain the peacock business.