NationStates Jolt Archive

Why did I post this thread? Skip this paragraph if you don't care. I was having a discussion a few day ago on a thread named "why does everyone hate communism" or some similar and I agued that because capitalism (in my view, please don't post about communism this is just an explanation of what gave me the idea) is more effective then communism although communism could work in theory it would be out competed for goods, capital and the hearts and minds of the people (aaah..) by capitalism, society would "evolve" just like an organism would. This is the baisis of social Darwinism. I (rather foolishly) gave the example of European settlement of the great plains "out competing" the Native Americans meaning that in America today practically everybody lives like a European and hardly anybody lives like a Native American. I chose this example because both systems worked but one was more efficient then the other (e.g. Cap -vs- Comm). When I came back to the forum someone had given a rather acerbic reply pointing out that Europeans came from a war like society; and the conversation had anyhow moved on. So I decided to set up this thread to discuss my point further.

Before you continue I would like to point out I AM NOT racist. I AM NOT FASCIST. I may refer to society as a organism or a tangable thing that is for effect only and does not meen that I go in for the whole "Society must be bound together like one organism" thing that fascists drift in to from time to time. Now we may begin.

The premise of Social Darwinism is that society changes culturally in a similar way to a speicies does genetically (not exactly the sam obviously but for the same reasons). If someone in society realises (purly as an example) that I ,don't know, using dogs to hunt for gold is a great idea that society will start to flourish soon in order to keep up other societys will take up the idea and soon enough Gold sniffing dogs are everywhere. Of course this is just an example and can be spread to other things. Social Darwinism has had a turbulant history. It was used by the victorians to justify Imperialism and forcing "Superior" European culture to their empires. It has also been used by White Supremacists. Despite the fact it is "out of vogue" at the moment I still think whether we like it or not that it does exist and with the advent of globalisation, assuming we don't get hit by an asteroid or somthing silly, will become more apparant over the next few centuries. I am, of course, merely speculating but here is my case. Do you think it exists and if it does is it a force for good or for ill?

*SNIP*

Yes, the evolution of society does take place. Problems arise, however, when people try to start controlling the path it takes.

Evolutionary progress can only take place when left free to natural systematic forces.

The Case for the defence:

A little metaphor I made up, the tale of the Trumpet Makers... (A bit Gormenghast but who cares)

Trumpet making is a difficult buisness (in this case a metaphor the constant human goal of survival and reproduction is the constant goal of manufacturing trumpets) you can't just take it up of the street. You need need an instruction manuel. (this instruction manuel is a metaphor for society, without society, the instruction manuel, even the smartest man in the world is merely a monkey how can use a pointy stick) in time the trumpet makers add to their knowledge (research and discovery) adding foot notes to the manuel for the next trumpet makers to use. Sometime the book is so ful of foot note that a another edition is published altogether (revolution) But this book is not the only book available. Some trumpet makers use a different book. If this book is better then the trumpet makers will use that book instead, they must unless otherwise they might not make as many trumpets. Enevitably they will add different footnotes and possibly other editions will be published. Until one book becomes universal amoung the trumpet makers.

Yes, the evolution of society does take place. Problems arise, however, when people try to start controlling the path it takes.

Evolutionary progress can only take place when left free to natural systematic forces.

I can see your point of view but I can't remember ever saying snip

Yes, the evolution of society does take place. Problems arise, however, when people try to start controlling the path it takes.

Evolutionary progress can only take place when left free to natural systematic forces.

Not entirely true, evolutionary modification occurs regardless of the type of selective forces applied, whether they be natural or artificial. Evolution doesn't have any mechanism of distinguishing between the two.

The error committed by Social Darwinists is in assuming that because evolution describes what does happen to biological systems they could go and use it to declare what should happen to sociological systems. Social Darwinists did not just state that some societies tended to outcompete others, if it had it would hardly have become so controversial as that simple fact is self-evident. They also stated that this was how it was supposed to be, so if one group just happened to trample all over another group... well, the other group was just less fit and were meant to be outcompeted by the "better" group anyway.

Evolution is simply a descriptive statement of a state of affairs. Social Darwinism made the completely unwarranted leap of taking that statement and declaring that because that was how it was in one scenario, that was how it should be in another.

To think of it another way, what they did was like taking this observation:

Gravity exists, and one of the consequences of the existence of gravity is that people will fall off cliffs and plummet to the ground below if they go over the edge.

And turned it into this ideological position:

Therefore some people should fall to their deaths off cliffs, it's the natural way of things!

Which is sheer stupidity. A complete and total misapplication of evolutionary theory... or in our latter example, the theory of gravity.

EDIT: Oops, the original poster did in fact mention the more unwarranted application of Social Darwinism in his first post. My apologies. Post ammended...

*snip*

Yes, when people try to use evolutionary development to mold society into what they think society should be, they show poor logic that results in the person understanding the process, but not the ideas behind it.

Social darwinism assumes that the best and most efficient ideas will prevail if natural forces are left to control the outcome. By providing an outside force onto society, the factors and results of the evolutionary process will be skewed, and they will have undercut the true evolutionary process.

Yes, when people try to use evolutionary development to mold society into what they think society should be, they show poor logic that results in the person understanding the process, but not the ideas behind it.

Social darwinism assumes that the best and most efficient ideas will prevail if natural forces are left to control the outcome. By providing an outside force onto society, the factors and results of the evolutionary process will be skewed, and they will have undercut the true evolutionary process.

But see, that's the point. There's no such thing as "the true" evolutionary process. Evolution doesn't have a path it's supposed to follow, it's a purely statistical process that reacts to ANY environmental factors that exert an influence, whether those factors be random and undirected "natural" environmental influences or manmade "artificial" influences... there's just no distinction. At all. Whatever path evolution follows, that's the evolutionary process. Not the "true" process... just the only process. And what kind of factors it was that were influencing the outcome of that process doesn't matter the least little bit in that regard.

To argue that the "true" evolutionary process is somehow undercut when meddled with by applying an "outside" force is to fall into the same trap as the Social Darwinists by jumping from the descriptive statement of "this is what happens" to "This is the true way it's supposed to happen." As if evolution was something that was meant to work it's way out in a certain manner rather than just blindly reacting to circumstances as they arise.

Additionally, I don't see how it's possible for any person who is a member of a society to exert an artificial "outside force" on society. They're part of society, how is any attempt they make to influence it any more an outside force than any other member's influence? Society is nothing BUT a bunch of people all getting together and trying to implement their ideas of what things should be like across the group. The error in reasoning occurs when one group who happens to get their ideas to take the upper hand for the time being turns to evolutionary theory and declares that because they have the upper hand there is some kind of natural law that says their ideas are superior and are supposed to have the upper hand. Like the laws of the universe have bestowed upon them some kind of sanction or approval or something.

But see, that's the point. There's no such thing as "the true" evolutionary process. Evolution doesn't have a path it's supposed to follow, it's a purely statistical process that reacts to ANY environmental factors that exert an influence, whether those factors be random and undirected "natural" environmental influences or manmade "artificial" influences... there's just no distinction. At all. Whatever path evolution follows, that's the evolutionary process. Not the "true" process... just the only process. And what kind of factors it was that were influencing the outcome of that process doesn't matter the least little bit in that regard.

To argue that the "true" evolutionary process is somehow undercut when meddled with by applying an "outside" force is to fall into the same trap as the Social Darwinists by jumping from the descriptive statement of "this is what happens" to "This is the true way it's supposed to happen." As if evolution was something that was meant to work it's way out in a certain manner rather than just blindly reacting to circumstances as they arise.

When outside forces occur, the evolutionary results will be skewed so that the most efficient outcome will not occur. Therefore, the evolution will be flawed.

Additionally, I don't see how it's possible for any person who is a member of a society to exert an artificial "outside force" on society. They're part of society, how is any attempt they make to influence it any more an outside force than any other member's influence? Society is nothing BUT a bunch of people all getting together and trying to implement their ideas of what things should be like across the group. The error in reasoning occurs when one group who happens to get their ideas to take the upper hand for the time being turns to evolutionary theory and declares that because they have the upper hand there is some kind of natural law that says their ideas are superior and are supposed to have the upper hand. Like the laws of the universe have bestowed upon them some kind of sanction or approval or something.

Anyone who forcibly silences someone else has just exerted an outside force.

Censorship is the most detrimental force that can be imposed on social evolution.

When outside forces occur, the evolutionary results will be skewed so that the most efficient outcome will not occur. Therefore, the evolution will be flawed.

Evolution can only be caused by outside forces. The point of evolving is to adapt and become ever more effective in your environment. If there are no outside forces occurring on an organism then it will not evolve because there is no way to adapt to 'nothing'. The most efficent outcome of evolution is being at the top of the food chain in your environment.

Even the most simple actions of an organism require some interaction with the outside world. Respiration is an outside force in the sense that you need substances from your surroundings in order for it to occur. If you can't respire then you either evolve to be able to make do with what you have or you die.

you also fall into the trap.
it is not the most viable society that survives in social darwinism.it is the most warlike and aggresive.personally,i dont wanna live with the most warlike and aggresive,do you?

Evolution can only be caused by outside forces. The point of evolving is to adapt and become ever more effective in your environment. If there are no outside forces occurring on an organism then it will not evolve because there is no way to adapt to 'nothing'. The most efficent outcome of evolution is being at the top of the food chain in your environment.

I do not consider the ecosystem to be an outside force. It is one of the natural systematic forces that drives evolution. In nature, outside forces would consist of poaching, pollution, etc.

you also fall into the trap.
it is not the most viable society that survives in social darwinism.it is the most warlike and aggresive.personally,i dont wanna live with the most warlike and aggresive,do you?

Warlike has very little to do with it. Any warlike society that is not economically or socially efficient will fizzle out very quickly.

When outside forces occur, the evolutionary results will be skewed so that the most efficient outcome will not occur.

1. There's no such thing as a force "outside" of the evolutionary model that interacts with the population that is evolving. If it interacts with and influences the development of the population it is within the model. If it doesn't, it is irrelevent.

2. How exactly are you evaluating what the "most effective" outcome is?

Therefore, the evolution will be flawed.

3. Flawed how? Please explain in some detail.

Anyone who forcibly silences someone else has just exerted an outside force.

External to the individual? Yes. External to the society? Not at all.

And gravity, diseases, cosmic radiation, the food supply, etc... are also forces that are outside of the individual. The latter happens to also be for the most part artificial and a result of human "outside" (according to your criteria at least) interference these days. Think: the development of agriculture.

1. There's no such thing as a force "outside" of the evolutionary model that interacts with the population that is evolving. If it interacts with and influences the development of the population it is within the model. If it doesn't, it is irrelevent.

Sudden abrupt changes from outside forces occur all of the time. The introduction of foreign species, for example.

2. How exactly are you evaluating what the "most effective" outcome is?

I said most "efficient."

3. Flawed how? Please explain in some detail.

It is like economics, whenever something is introduced into the market prices and wages will shift to incorporate the changes in the atmosphere. When government or monopolies impose changes that would normally never happen naturally in the economy, prices and wages will be skewed in ways that will not promote the most efficient use of production means.

In society, when the government or other entities enforce changes that would never naturally occur in a free society, such as censorship, political jailings, genocide, it will eliminate viable alternatives for society advancement and will result in either a forced advancement or no advancement at all.

External to the individual? Yes. External to the society? Not at all.

And gravity, diseases, cosmic radiation, the food supply, etc... are also forces that are outside of the individual. The latter happens to also be for the most part artificial and a result of human "outside" (according to your criteria at least) interference these days. Think: the development of agriculture.

The free society should be the system, while the people and resources would be the factors driving it.

When I say free society, I mean a society in which no one has the ability to control the thoughts or actions of another. Complete autonomy. Any factor that is introduced that is in conflict with a free society should be considered an outside force.

ALSO: I am sorry if this is choppy and hard to understand. I am trying to form my own beliefs on this as I go.

Sudden abrupt changes from outside forces occur all of the time.

From forces outside the individual or the species group, yes.

From outside the evolutionary model, no.

I said most "efficient."

So you did. Feel free to substitute "efficient" for "effective" in my question when you get around to providing the answer.

It is like economics, whenever something is introduced into the market prices and wages will shift to incorporate the changes in the atmosphere. When government or monopolies impose changes that would normally never happen naturally in the economy, prices and wages will be skewed in ways that will not promote the most efficient use of production means.

I'm sorry... "naturally" in the economy?

You're aware that the existence of the monetary and trade systems upon which modern economies are built are themselves "artificial" constructions of human societies which did not just occur "naturally"? Nothing happens "naturally" in modern day economies.

In society, when the government or other entities enforce changes that would never naturally occur in a free society,

Those "free societies" you're speaking of are the products of "unnatural" intervention in the affairs of the wider population by the original governments which established such systems of governance in those societies in the first place.

If you want a "natural" societal system free from "unnatural" government interference you are advocating anarchy.

such as censorship, political jailings, genocide, it will eliminate viable alternatives for society advancement and will result in either a forced advancement or no advancement at all.

I'm sure this all appears on it's surface to have some kind of common sense value to you, but it's simply incorrect. For one thing, there is no such thing as "advancement" in an evolutionary framework. There is only adaptation to the prevailing conditions. Saying that this is "advancement" implies that evolution proceeds towards some kind of target point with "advancement" being a step in that target's direction... when no such target point exists.

The free society should be the system, while the people and resources would be the factors driving it.

There's that "should" again. Another unwarranted leap from the simple descriptive statements made by evolution as to what evolution does, to a prescriptive statement on what evolution is somehow supposed to do.

When I say free society, I mean a society in which no one has the ability to control the thoughts or actions of another. Complete autonomy.

Also known as anarchy. The total LACK of a societal structure.

So you did. Feel free to substitute "efficient" for "effective" in my question when you get around to providing the answer.

I cannot define what the most efficient outcome would be. I doubt there is anyone who can reasonable predict what the most efficient societal model would be. Therefore, it must be left up to a completely free society to allow the society to advance towards that most efficient state. That is my entire point, that, since no one can determine what the most efficient state of society would be, society must remain free so the less efficient forms of society would be slowly pushed out by the more efficient forms.

I'm sorry... "naturally" in the economy?

You're aware that the existence of the monetary and trade systems upon which modern economies are built are themselves "artificial" constructions of human societies which did not just occur "naturally"? Nothing happens "naturally" in modern day economies.

Monetary transactions represent capital and material transactions. So money is not the particular problem, it is the regulation of money, and by extension the regulation of capital transactions that is the problem.

As for the nature of the economy, I do not mean factors derived from nature, I mean the factors that are inherent to an economic system.

Those "free societies" you're speaking of are the products of "unnatural" intervention in the affairs of the wider population by the original governments which established such systems of governance in those societies in the first place.

Like economics, even though society is an "unnatural" development, it is still a system with natural or inherent factors. I do not want to advocate a return to nature, but a return to the natural form of society.

If you want a "natural" societal system free from "unnatural" government interference you are advocating anarchy.

Not so much anarchy, but a society where no individual has any power over the society or other individuals.

I'm sure this all appears on it's surface to have some kind of common sense value to you, but it's simply incorrect. For one thing, there is no such thing as "advancement" in an evolutionary framework. There is only adaptation to the prevailing conditions. Saying that this is "advancement" implies that evolution proceeds towards some kind of target point with "advancement" being a step in that target's direction... when no such target point exists.

Species always advance to the more efficient utilization of resources. So when I say advance, I mean grow more efficient.

There's that "should" again. Another unwarranted leap from the simple descriptive statements made by evolution as to what evolution does, to a prescriptive statement on what evolution is somehow supposed to do.

I described what the system should be, not what evolution does or the evolutionary factors should be.

If the system was set up to be a completely free society, the collective population of the society and the resources at their disposal would be (not should be) the driving factors of it.

Also known as anarchy. The total LACK of a societal structure.

Anarchy does not have a total lack of social structure, it has a lack of hierarchy.

I cannot define what the most efficient outcome would be. I doubt there is anyone who can reasonable predict what the most efficient societal model would be.

But on what basis are you concluding that interference by "outside forces" has the effect of making for a less efficient society? You can't make such a claim without some means of evaluating efficiency in the first place. What is it?

Therefore, it must be left up to a completely free society to allow the society to advance towards that most efficient state. That is my entire point, that, since no one can determine what the most efficient state of society would be, society must remain free so the less efficient forms of society would be slowly pushed out by the more efficient forms.

I'm sorry, but this isn't making any sense. How does one "allow" the society they are a part of to advance without participating and thus interfering with it?

Perhaps you should expand some more on what exactly you think a free society is.

Monetary transactions represent capital and material transactions. So money is not the particular problem, it is the regulation of money, and by extension the regulation of capital transactions that is the problem.

And again I must ask, how did you evaluate this situation to determine that it was a problem as opposed to a benefit?

As for the nature of the economy, I do not mean factors derived from nature, I mean the factors that are inherent to an economic system.

WHICH economic system? There are a lot of them, and their "inherent factors" are products of their original formulation... they were artificially imposed. More of those "outside forces".

Like economics, even though society is an "unnatural" development, it is still a system with natural or inherent factors. I do not want to advocate a return to nature, but a return to the natural form of society.

What do you think would be the "natural" form of society anyway? And what makes it any more "natural" than the alternatives?

Not so much anarchy, but a society where no individual has any power over the society or other individuals.

You just practically defined anarchy. Actually, you almost directly quoted definition 'c' straight out of Merriam Webster's:

a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

Utopian ideals rarely work out in practical application.

Species always advance to the more efficient utilization of resources. So when I say advance, I mean grow more efficient.

You might want to consider using the word "adjust", or "adapt". It's less misleading.

I described what the system should be,

But you lack a basis for determining what the system should be.

How are you to say that it wasn't the freely acting adaptations of society over time that eventually CREATED the current systems of law and order and regulation specifically because they ARE more efficient than the "free" society you are speaking of?

If the system was set up to be a completely free society, the collective population of the society and the resources at their disposal would be (not should be) the driving factors of it.

And they're not now?

But on what basis are you concluding that interference by "outside forces" has the effect of making for a less efficient society? You can't make such a claim without some means of evaluating efficiency in the first place. What is it?

When the government regulates society, they are giving their particular view of how society would operate an advantage over other forms of society. Therefore, the value of one aspect of society may be overvalued, while a more efficient aspect may be undervalued and pushed out. In other words, by issueing regulations, the government forms society to fit their own views, instead of allowing society to grow naturally.

I'm sorry, but this isn't making any sense. How does one "allow" the society they are a part of to advance without participating and thus interfering with it?

Perhaps you should expand some more on what exactly you think a free society is.

The citizens of the society are part of the society, therefore, their interaction with the society is the central driving factor of society.

A free society is one that is not subject to manipulation.

And again I must ask, how did you evaluate this situation to determine that it was a problem as opposed to a benefit?

The government regulation of capital is manipulation of the society. It gives government control of the economy and allows them to govern the direction society takes.

WHICH economic system? There are a lot of them, and their "inherent factors" are products of their original formulation... they were artificially imposed. More of those "outside forces".

I personally believe in a capitalistic economic system. But any economic system that recognizes the autonomy of the people would be a system with uncorrupted factors.

As I said this has nothing to do with nature. The economy is a system unto itself. The economy is a part of the social contract, and once one enters into the social contract, nature has very little to do with it.

What do you think would be the "natural" form of society anyway? And what makes it any more "natural" than the alternatives?

The natural form would be the strict definition of the social contract. The people, out of a rational decision, agree to interact peacefully with other people in order to guarantee the protection of their own self interest.

You just practically defined anarchy. Actually, you almost directly quoted definition 'c' straight out of Merriam Webster's:

a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

Utopian ideals rarely work out in practical application.

There would still be government, as there must be both a military and a judicial system. But its role would be extremely limited.

Just because utopian ideals can't be acheived does not mean they can't be strived for and approached.

You might want to consider using the word "adjust", or "adapt". It's less misleading.

OK, I would rather use a word that was not misleading at all, and since advance means "to move forward" I think it is very applicable.

But you lack a basis for determining what the system should be.

A system that provides the most autonomy possible. A free society that isn't subject to manipulation.

How are you to say that it wasn't the freely acting adaptations of society over time that eventually CREATED the current systems of law and order and regulation specifically because they ARE more efficient than the "free" society you are speaking of?

I believe that the current system of law and order is the work of social darwinism. I believe that the rise of democracy and capitalism in the modern era has shown that the more autonomy a people are provided with the more powerful the society can become.

The more autonomy the people are provided, the more rapidly society has advanced.

And they're not now?

They are, but the results are skewed by government regulation.

The big problem with social Darwinism: People invented the idea before they found out that altruism is an evolutionary trait.

The big problem with social Darwinism: People invented the idea before they found out that altruism is an evolutionary trait.

Biological evolution and social evolution are two very different things. They abide by the same process, but they are driven by different factors.

When did they discover that, anyways. Link?

The problem of this discussion (and starting point) I believe, is the assumption that there is a path (even in retrospect) and a direction (in other words, a teleological purpose ) - that, and the problematic concepts of 'best and worst', 'winners and losers'. The great problem with so-called social darwinism (which wasn't condoned by Darwin, mind you!) is that it assumes that the best/strongest will automatically win - and that, for instance, capitalism will be a fair and correct judge of this.
Survival of the most adapted is not a forceful purpose, nor can it be 'faulted' (or skewed, like someone proposed earlier). The most adapted don't always win - if they would, there would be no dynamic alteration, no change. They just have the greatest chance of prevailing. This is also true in nature.
For years, documentary makers have fed us the image of the survival of the fit - and the strong that get the right to mate, either by forceful opression or by sole survival. That first part has been slightly altered the past few decades - we all know the images of weakly hares escaping the jackals, or the deer that escapes the cheetah. But few know that also the last point (about mating) isn't entirely in accordance with reality. There are all kinds of mechanisms which can be 'used' by the subjects in it to escape its 'factual' reality. A simple example: when three male boars reside in a group, the two weak ones might consider themselves not strong enough to compete for the title of alfa-male, and will leave to form their own mating-group - sometimes they even 'work together' (in a rudimentary way) to achieve that goal!
The problem is that we don't come close to understanding the entirety of variables that compose the 'reality' of a system that is in a dynamic flux of adaptation. What some over-arrogant researcher argues as being a decisive factor, is more often than not just a symptom of a far deeper variable.
And the problem is made worse by wielding crude definitions of good and bad, win and lose, purpose and meaning. Social dynamics CANNOT be explained in these terms.
What is called 'social darwinism' is not right or wrong - it's simply untrue to reality, per definition.

I like Mark Steele's observation that the problem with social darwinism is that those who espouse it as a motivating philosophy have the idea that "survival of the fittest" means "survival of the strongest and most vicious" rather than "survival of those that fit best". This leads to all sorts of fascist unpleasantness and is based on a fallacy. If "survival of the fittest" meant "survival of the hardest bastard", dinosaurs and sharks would rule the earth and there'd be no such thing as a butterfly.

I like Mark Steele's observation that the problem with social darwinism is that those who espouse it as a motivating philosophy have the idea that "survival of the fittest" means "survival of the strongest and most vicious" rather than "survival of those that fit best". This leads to all sorts of fascist unpleasantness and is based on a fallacy. If "survival of the fittest" meant "survival of the hardest bastard", dinosaurs and sharks would rule the earth and there'd be no such thing as a butterfly.
I object to sharks and dinosaurs being bastards, but I do see your point. As with many other of these discussions, in the end it often becomes a question about semantics - and misunderstanding of terms. That, and scientific arrogance...

The real problem with Social Darwinism is that "survival of the fittest" is itself an basardization of Darwin's concepts. Darwin never said anything about "survival of the fittest". Darwin's concept was natural selection. That is, that people who have more babies have more of their traits passed on in later generations.
When you look at nature it is evident that evolution has produced some freakishly inefficent creatures.


I think the best refutation of th e"survival of the fittest" social metality was a documentry I saw about a group of monkeys. The society was ruled by a single dominant male who was abusive to the others. All of the other males were meek and subservient to him.
Then, one day, the female monkeys got together and beet the living crap out of him. He was stronger but severly outnumbered and had no choice but to run for his life. He was exiled and the females promoted one of the meek but gentle males to his former position.
In a society, it is better to be liked than it is to be strong.