NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm curious to learn your definition of Social Darwinism, if you think it still applies and how.

I'm curious to learn your definition of Social Darwinism, if you think it still applies and how.
The real idea is like evolution benifical traits are perpetuated in general by the fact that thoes that adopt thoes behaviors live and have the power to spread their idea's

You mean those that die of drug overdoses and STD's? I've never heard of Social Darwinism before.

Its like:

Those who have the skills necessary to survive in a society, survive to reproduce. Like rich, ugly guys getting all the hot chicks, and us regular ugly guys getting a visit to Ms. Palm. Damn rich people.

But it is supposed to work that those with the undesirable traits don't get to pass them on. But that doesn't work, becuase the evil guys get the slags and slappers, and us nice guys are left with Ms. Palm, again.

Dammit.

Its like:

Those who have the skills necessary to survive in a society, survive to reproduce. Like rich, ugly guys getting all the hot chicks, and us regular ugly guys getting a visit to Ms. Palm. Damn rich people.

But it is supposed to work that those with the undesirable traits don't get to pass them on. But that doesn't work, becuase the evil guys get the slags and slappers, and us nice guys are left with Ms. Palm, again.

Dammit.Well, almost everyone passes on their traits. Only a select few don't. Those are usually the most screwed up people. I don't want to generalize though so correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm curious to learn your definition of Social Darwinism, if you think it still applies and how.

It never applied, it was a misapplication of a biological principle to social engineering. It made the classic error of confusing descriptive and prescriptive statements.

--The (proper) descriptive statement of "Darwinism": Organisms with competitive genetic advantages in survival and reproduction have a statistical tendency towards greater representation in subsequent generations of that population.

--The (improper) prescriptive statement of "Social Darwinism": Anyone who currently holds a position of advantage in society is there because they have outcompeted their contemporaries, are therefore superior, and therefore SHOULD BE in a position of advantage. Conversely, anyone dissadvantaged BELONGS in such a position as well.

The former simply accurately describes a state of affairs. It says "This is what is".

The latter fallaciously tries to draw the connection of "This is what is... therefore it's SUPPOSED to be that way". As if the mere virtue of a state of affairs existing in society means it has some kind of natural mandate or something.

When most people use the term "Social Darwinism" they usually mean some kind of "survival of the fittest" idea... that people are entitled to whatever power in society that they can take; or that the strong should rule the weak.

But Darwin never believed in "survival of the fittest"--that idea came from Herbert Spencer, who misunderstood Darwin's ideas.

Here's an article about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_darwinism

EDIT: Darnit, all these new posts pop up while I'm writing one, making mine redundant when I finally post it. I guess I've been outcompeteted... :(

Well, almost everyone passes on their traits. Only a select few don't. Those are usually the most screwed up people. I don't want to generalize though so correct me if I'm wrong.

Well, if it actually worked, society would just reject those with bad traits, until what used to be just minor annoyances become the scum of society, so society gets better. But it doesn't work, because the scum breed like rats, and the rest of us don't.

Well, if it actually worked, society would just reject those with bad traits, until what used to be just minor annoyances become the scum of society, so society gets better. But it doesn't work, because the scum breed like rats, and the rest of us don't.

Don't forget that what's good for individuals, good for society, and good for the survival of the species are all different things. And usually, this has nothing at all to do with what we want or what we think would be better...

"Scum"--I think you mean really competitive, aggressive guys--breed more and have more luck with women because they're outgoing and aggressive... they appear strong; and back in the old days, on the wild savannah, they probably were. Our genes and mating instincts may not have figured out yet that society is different than it was a hundred thousand years ago.

You mean those that die of drug overdoses and STD's? I've never heard of Social Darwinism before.
No, like races of people.

It's flawed in just about every sense of the word.

i might be considered something of a kropotkin-esque social darwinist

The Darwin Awards

No, like races of people.

It's flawed in just about every sense of the word.
Oh, well that's just retarded.

I think that taking it to the extreme is unecessary but things like welfare do mess up evolution. Look at people who for generations have never worked a day in their lives. It skews the fitness equation of nature. It make it benefitial to be a loser, and this will make Eloi and Morlocks a reality. A bimodal fitness equation creates speciation. WE MUST KEEP HUMANS AS ONE RACE.

I think that taking it to the extreme is unecessary but things like welfare do mess up evolution. Look at people who for generations have never worked a day in their lives. It skews the fitness equation of nature. It make it benefitial to be a loser, and this will make Eloi and Morlocks a reality. A bimodal fitness equation creates speciation. WE MUST KEEP HUMANS AS ONE RACE.
Well, for that you'll have to assume that being lazy and such is a genetic trait. If being lazy is not a genetic trait, then your scenario of race-splitting would make little sense.
The problem here being that we don't very well know whether it's influenced by genetics, or totally genetic, or not at all. And it's not easy to measure quantitatively, so it's a tad difficult do a study on to determine which it is.

Well, for that you'll have to assume that being lazy and such is a genetic trait. If being lazy is not a genetic trait, then your scenario of race-splitting would make little sense.
The problem here being that we don't very well know whether it's influenced by genetics, or totally genetic, or not at all. And it's not easy to measure quantitatively, so it's a tad difficult do a study on to determine which it is.
There is also memetic evolution. Welfare will create two classes of people, one who works hard and one who lives on welfare. Then the genetic evolution will come. The difference in living conditions will cause genetic evolution.

Its like:

Those who have the skills necessary to survive in a society, survive to reproduce. Like rich, ugly guys getting all the hot chicks, and us regular ugly guys getting a visit to Ms. Palm. Damn rich people.

But it is supposed to work that those with the undesirable traits don't get to pass them on. But that doesn't work, becuase the evil guys get the slags and slappers, and us nice guys are left with Ms. Palm, again.

Dammit.

What if traits such as being evil, ruthless or cruel are necessery traits for survival?

What if traits such as being evil, ruthless or cruel are necessery traits for survival?

Then those are the traits that survive. It's not supposed to work like that, because it's meant to be the traits that are best for the society as a whole, but Social Darwinism doesn't work.

Then those are the traits that survive. It's not supposed to work like that, because it's meant to be the traits that are best for the society as a whole, but Social Darwinism doesn't work.

Why doesn't Social Darwinism work?

I know it is comforting to think that human nature is essentially benign and that in order to excel as a society we must work together. But what if the only reason we are working together is to eliminate other competing societies until there are only a select few at the top of the food chain?

Why doesn't Social Darwinism work?

I know it is comforting to think that human nature is essentially benign and that in order to excel as a society we must work together. But what if the only reason we are working together is to eliminate other competing societies until there are only a select few at the top of the food chain?

The reason it doesn't work is because you can't put an idea down. Ideas do not die.

In biological Darwinism (or whatever that should be called) the genes that don't work in the conditions die out, because they aren't carried over. In human society, the way we act is based on how we think. And you can't kill off the idea that it's good to be nice, so only evil survives, just as you can't kill off the idea that it's necessary to be evil, so that only good survives.

The reason it doesn't work is because you can't put an idea down. Ideas do not die.

In biological Darwinism (or whatever that should be called) the genes that don't work in the conditions die out, because they aren't carried over. In human society, the way we act is based on how we think. And you can't kill off the idea that it's good to be nice, so only evil survives, just as you can't kill off the idea that it's necessary to be evil, so that only good survives.

I don't want to get into an arguement of semantics and I understand that Darwinism is based on scientific observation whereas Social Darwinism is more speculative theory. But I think that you recognise there are people who use Social Darwinism to justify European colonialism as an act of natural selection. What I'm trying to figure out is if you agree or disagree with this and why.

I'm curious to learn your definition of Social Darwinism, if you think it still applies and how.


Social Darwinism is the latest euphanism that is brought up time and time again throughout history by many names, but recently, science and darwin gave a basis for bigotry. That is "Eugenics".

Used by the Nazi's and supported by many many people who were usually also associated with anti-semeitism (Ford, Prescott Bush...) Eugenics basically says you are as you are from the stock you were raised from.

So getting rid of "bad stock" in Germany, you used gas chambers, in Israel, when formed, you used military power and brutality, in Rome you used crosses and lions, in Soviet Russia the Gulag, in the Dark Ages, you burn them, in the new age of fascism, Abu Graib and Guantanmo and Saturation Bomb everything else...

Formerly known as the Eugenics Society, the Human Genome Project is a, more or less, a Republican funded Eugenics program. A full examination of the exact differences that make me, a white more superior to an Arab. Also, likely uses said information to preform a "clensing". But, thats conjecture. As least, the reasoning, it IS funded by many RichWhiteMen(tm)

So as the 50s moved in the US population basically thought about the wonders of life while the rest of the world was pretty much being divvied up by Moscow and Washington.
Then turns into now, and we are adopting the fascists ideals as the social safety net of the US is violently and unceremoniously ripped away and the Patriot Act enters permancy.
Now, officially, the Social Darwinism enters the public debate, the reason, as planned by other RWM representatives who also advocated the benefits of the torture, the reason for these times are "back up". Cinderella Man comes out and paints a picture of the depression as "Just buck up and you'll get your dreams!"....

Social Darwinism is the latest cop out to give a reason why White people are banding together in the US. The crossed american flags, the Homeland Security... The new Fascist government is in power.

The world knows it. Israel, selling to the Chinese. The Chinese increasing military strength by %300 in the last year. Russia has armed it's missiles and is now prepared to first strike the US and even benign countries like Canada are dropping 15 billion for their military preparing to possibly be attacked by the United States as it continues its Imperial expansion.

Protest Groups for the poor NEED to be marginilzed for this to work. They complain because they need things and their government was "supposed to protect them", But it doesn't, it protects the rich. And they suffer and they struggle.. And when they ask why are all the poor people not white, or why are the poor white people generally dissidents?

"Social Darwinism... We're better than them... They are unsuccessful because of the new "less than human" gene where we have the "Rich White Person" gene. So we are better. The Human Genome Project just said it... It was on the news..." - Elite Self Serving Consumer Whore, to his son, of 9....


And that is the "secret bigotry" in America, and that is exactly how it is conveyed to those "in the know".

Of course, this is all completely sarcastic and overblown, but the general message is clear about what *I* think of the term.

Well, if it actually worked, society would just reject those with bad traits, until what used to be just minor annoyances become the scum of society, so society gets better. But it doesn't work, because the scum breed like rats, and the rest of us don't.


That's an exact perfect expression of Fascist Eugenics as plain as english can make it. You should reexamine you moral stance. You may want to know who get to point the fingers before you decide what should be done about the "rats".

That's an exact perfect expression of Fascist Eugenics as plain as english can make it. You should reexamine you moral stance. You may want to know who get to point the fingers before you decide what should be done about the "rats".

So who does get to point the finger, Krackonis? Because that sure does look like one pointed at me right now. And look who's arm it's on!!

Then those are the traits that survive. It's not supposed to work like that, because it's meant to be the traits that are best for the society as a whole, but Social Darwinism doesn't work.

Well, unfortunately, people for one thing, if people actually ever realized it was put into practise, when they woke up from the shock and horror of basically "neglect and eugenics or racial purification", they would kill you.

I mean, the whole of the Western Hemisphere "This is the exact government objectives of the Nazi's" Nuremburg trial of the world, World War III type of kill you.

Well, kill the people who orcastrated the takeover of the government and launched serious attack against the governments ability protect it's citizens from systematic and institutionalized eugenics.

That's just plain mass murder then.

I don't want to get into an arguement of semantics and I understand that Darwinism is based on scientific observation whereas Social Darwinism is more speculative theory. But I think that you recognise there are people who use Social Darwinism to justify European colonialism as an act of natural selection. What I'm trying to figure out is if you agree or disagree with this and why.

Some people do use Social Darwinism that way. It's more or less what SOcial Darwinism was defined for.

I do agree with that. The big fish eat the little fish, and the lazy little fish die out while the fast ones survive. If nobody can stop us from taking something, why shouldn't we take it?

Well, unfortunately, people for one thing, if people actually ever realized it was put into practise, when they woke up from the shock and horror of basically "neglect and eugenics or racial purification", they would kill you.

I mean, the whole of the Western Hemisphere "This is the exact government objectives of the Nazi's" Nuremburg trial of the world, World War III type of kill you.

Well, kill the people who orcastrated the takeover of the government and launched serious attack against the governments ability protect it's citizens from systematic and institutionalized eugenics.

That's just plain mass murder then.

I think you quoted the wrong post.

And this sounds a lot like the "protect the weak" rubbish that just doesn't work. You mess with the eco-systems like that, by protecting those too weak to protect themsleves, and you're asking for some serious repercussions.

And who says the Nazi's had the wrong idea? I'm not saying all the Jews deserve to die, or all of anyone, but what would be wrong with creating a nation of intelligent people, and eliminating stupidity, irrespective of race and religion?

So who does get to point the finger, Krackonis? Because that sure does look like one pointed at me right now. And look who's arm it's on!!

I meant, if you are to make a declaration that "scum" needs to be removed, You may not have anyone to turn to when they decide that you too are "scum".

It's a paraphrase, kinda, of a short story said after the end of world war two when people asked how could the good germans do such bad things...

"When they started taking the Jews away, we objected, but said nothing. When they took the Gays away, we objected, but said nothing, when they took the Anglicans away, the blacks away, still we said nothing... Now they are taking me away, and there is no one left to say anything..."

I think you quoted the wrong post.

And this sounds a lot like the "protect the weak" rubbish that just doesn't work. You mess with the eco-systems like that, by protecting those too weak to protect themsleves, and you're asking for some serious repercussions.

And who says the Nazi's had the wrong idea? I'm not saying all the Jews deserve to die, or all of anyone, but what would be wrong with creating a nation of intelligent people, and eliminating stupidity, irrespective of race and religion?


Ummm... How about the Condemation of the entire world body politic at the time. Culminating the executions of those who orchastrated the deed. Ending off with a nice document called "The Declaration of Human Rights".

That's who says the Nazi's had the wrong idea.

Ummm... How about the Condemation of the entire world body politic at the time. Culminating the executions of those who orchastrated the deed. Ending off with a nice document called "The Declaration of Human Rights".

That's who says the Nazi's had the wrong idea.

Firstly, I never said that the practice was right. Good idea, wrong implementation. They lost the war, so they are condemned as wrong.

History is the propaganda of the victor.

I meant, if you are to make a declaration that "scum" needs to be removed, You may not have anyone to turn to when they decide that you too are "scum".

But I don't exhibit the traits of scum.

I don't sponge off the taxpayers. I am a taxpayer. I don't threaten people. I don't break the law. I work hard, and do my part for society. I'm intelligent. There would be no reason for them to declare me scum.

But if they did? Well, then, I have to accept that.

Firstly, I never said that the practice was right. Good idea, wrong implementation. They lost the war, so they are condemned as wrong.

History is the propaganda of the victor.



But I don't exhibit the traits of scum.

I don't sponge off the taxpayers. I am a taxpayer. I don't threaten people. I don't break the law. I work hard, and do my part for society. I'm intelligent. There would be no reason for them to declare me scum.

But if they did? Well, then, I have to accept that.

Would you consider someone who loses their job to outsourcing scum?

What if that person remained unemployed because lack of government subsidies to education have made it impossible to upgrade their job skills, would they be scum then?

What if, because there was no welfare the person had to beg for change in order to eat, would they be scum?

What if, because it is against natural selection to be charitable, people did not give that person change and, in order to survive they started to steal. Would that qualify them as scum?

Social Darwinism was invented in the early 20th century so racist imperialists could justify their actions. It said that natural selection applied to races too, and that some races were better than others. These people argued that since white people are more adept to living than others, they should conquer and control other people in the way that better animals kill off the worse ones.

It's a totally bullshit idea with no actual scientific basis, but it was used as an argument for imperialism.

Social Darwinism was a theory, first created by Herbert Spencer, which, on the heels of the acceptance of Darwin's theories concerning natural selection, tried to apply said idea to human society. Spencer argued that human society, like the animal kingdom, was essentially a struggle for survival, and that if we let it take its course, the best people would come out on top - strengthening humanity as a whole. It also held that charity during one's life was wrong, as it messed with the process of natural selection. However, inheritance was worse - so perhaps the most famous Social Darwinist, Andrew Carnegie, gave all his money away to charities after his death.

Social Darwinism as a philosophy had at least one major flaw in its analysis (setting aside questions of moral philosophy) - human society is not the same as the animal kingdom. Why? Because human society is a cooperative venture. At some level, even the smallest governments are a product of humans combining their efforts to help everyone. Animal society is more or less a free-for-all, with occasional groupings for survival purposes, but nothing resembling human levels of societal organization. Because human society is essentially cooperative rather than Darwinian at its roots, Social Darwinism begins at a flawed premise.

I could go into greater depth, but I'd be beating a dead horse. Social Darwinism is more or less a philosophical laughingstock nowadays.

Firstly, I never said that the practice was right. Good idea, wrong implementation. They lost the war, so they are condemned as wrong.

History is the propaganda of the victor.
I could get really mad at you, and yell at you about why condoning genocide is wrong. But I'm not going to. Not because I'm not angry. Just because Social Darwinism is so demonstrably stupid that it's hard to get riled up about it.

Not only that, but this "history is written..." stuff is bullshit. Not because it's not true; it is. But because we can still make moral judgments on our own outside what we're told. Many historians (Howard Zinn is a good example) critically examine the history they've been taught. In our society, that's permitted. I made my own moral conclusion about genocide, thanks. It's wrong.

A lot of Germans didn't agree with many Nazi programs - a view which increased as the Holocaust began to take its toll. The whole Gestapo thing prevented them from doing anything about it, though. The point is, even though they lived under their rule, people still thought the Nazis were morally repugnant. So you can't just chalk it up to the victors and history books adage.

But I don't exhibit the traits of scum.

I don't sponge off the taxpayers. I am a taxpayer. I don't threaten people. I don't break the law. I work hard, and do my part for society. I'm intelligent. There would be no reason for them to declare me scum.

But if they did? Well, then, I have to accept that.
You call your intelligence into question by strict adherence to such an antiquated and long-disproved theory. Social Darwinist policies, largely implemented in late 19th century America, resulted in horrific conditions for most of the country. Most people were in "scum" conditions. I'm not a Communist, not because I don't love the principle, but because it doesn't work historically. We should learn from our past mistakes.

Social Darwinism was invented in the early 20th century so racist imperialists could justify their actions.
Inaccurate, even though I agree with the idea of your post. Herber Spencer's Social Statics, the foundational text of Social Darwinism, was written in 1851.

Need proof?
http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=865

Inaccurate, even though I agree with the idea of your post. Herber Spencer's Social Statics, the foundational text of Social Darwinism, was written in 1851.

Need proof?
http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=865
Alright, I wasn't sure about the date.

I've seen so called "evolutionary charts" from the day which show blacks, whites, Asians etc. as seperate species. The white, of course, is on top.

Social Darwinism as a philosophy had at least one major flaw in its analysis (setting aside questions of moral philosophy) - human society is not the same as the animal kingdom. Why? Because human society is a cooperative venture. At some level, even the smallest governments are a product of humans combining their efforts to help everyone. Animal society is more or less a free-for-all, with occasional groupings for survival purposes, but nothing resembling human levels of societal organization. Because human society is essentially cooperative rather than Darwinian at its roots, Social Darwinism begins at a flawed premise.



There are plenty of examples of different species of animals living symbiotically. Just as there are plenty of examples of human loners.

There are plenty of examples of different species of animals living symbiotically. Just as there are plenty of examples of human loners.
I was waiting for someone to say something like that. That shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the way human and animal societies are functioned. Human societies have hierarchy and organization - they have structures whose essential goal is the promotion of the wellbeing of that group of humans. Human loners are a) an anomaly and b) still part of human society, for the most part; they just don't like other people. Animal groupings don't have the hierarchy and structure that human ones do. More to the point, they are still focused on survival questions and instinct. Human societies have advanced to the point that the daily questions for society are generally not survival issues. Rather, they are issues of preference or desire for the most part - there are, of course, people for whom survival is a pressing concern. Humans struggle for things other than survival.

I was waiting for someone to say something like that. That shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the way human and animal societies are functioned. Human societies have hierarchy and organization - they have structures whose essential goal is the promotion of the wellbeing of that group of humans. Human loners are a) an anomaly and b) still part of human society, for the most part; they just don't like other people. Animal groupings don't have the hierarchy and structure that human ones do. More to the point, they are still focused on survival questions and instinct. Human societies have advanced to the point that the daily questions for society are generally not survival issues. Rather, they are issues of preference or desire for the most part - there are, of course, people for whom survival is a pressing concern. Humans struggle for things other than survival.

So an alpha male from a wolf pack isn't an indication of hierarchy? What about a queen bee? And even today there are people who live as hermits, who don't pay taxes or use legal tender to survive.

So an alpha male from a wolf pack isn't an indication of hierarchy? What about a queen bee? And even today there are people who live as hermits, who don't pay taxes or use legal tender to survive.
Alpha male - hierarchy for survival purposes. Queen bee - not really a hierarchy so much as the only really cognizant member of the hive. Human societies are organized for purposes other than survival. You also don't really address most of the warrants in my last post. Go back and read it again.

Alpha male - hierarchy for survival purposes. Queen bee - not really a hierarchy so much as the only really cognizant member of the hive. Human societies are organized for purposes other than survival. You also don't really address most of the warrants in my last post. Go back and read it again.

Most of your warrants don't need to be addressed because they are so clearly invalid. You can argue that humans don't struggle daily to survive, but we do form communities and organise in order to survive.

Most of your warrants don't need to be addressed because they are so clearly invalid. You can argue that humans don't struggle daily to survive, but we do form communities and organise in order to survive.
Formed. Past tense. Social Darwinists may have been right back in the day before writing and metal tools. Those days have gone.

This is stupid. You are continually ignoring the more complex logic, dumbing it down, and then calling the dumbed-down form "clearly invalid." Probably my last post on this thread.

One more thing: Social Darwinism also twists Darwin's original theory in that it creates a struggle inside one particular species. This, too, is a deceptively complex argument. But I'm likely done - work beckons.

Formed. Past tense. Social Darwinists may have been right back in the day before writing and metal tools. Those days have gone.

That's what this thread is intended to determine. Simply saying something is doesn't make it so.

This is stupid. You are continually ignoring the more complex logic, dumbing it down, and then calling the dumbed-down form "clearly invalid." Probably my last post on this thread.

Not much of a concern since you didn't contribute anything in the first place.

One more thing: Social Darwinism also twists Darwin's original theory in that it creates a struggle inside one particular species. This, too, is a deceptively complex argument. But I'm likely done - work beckons.

Wow, you're pretty talented, I've never seen anyone pat himself on the back while sucking his own cock before.

Would you consider someone who loses their job to outsourcing scum?

No.

What if that person remained unemployed because lack of government subsidies to education have made it impossible to upgrade their job skills, would they be scum then?

Haven't you seen the advert with the little gremlin? Stuff like that exists for other skill areas as well. In other words, your point is invalid.

What if, because there was no welfare the person had to beg for change in order to eat, would they be scum?

Depends. Do they want to work? Are they prepared to do whatever job they can to get the money for food? If yes, then they are not scum.

If not, then :sniper:

What if, because it is against natural selection to be charitable, people did not give that person change and, in order to survive they started to steal. Would that qualify them as scum?

Yes. Game over for that scumbag.

No.



Haven't you seen the advert with the little gremlin? Stuff like that exists for other skill areas as well. In other words, your point is invalid.



Depends. Do they want to work? Are they prepared to do whatever job they can to get the money for food? If yes, then they are not scum.

If not, then :sniper:



Yes. Game over for that scumbag.

I haven't seen the advert with the little gremlin. So you might have to explain why you think my point is invalid.

Yes, the people from the third scenario do want to work. I will give you a real life scenario. In many underdeveloped nations where there is massive unemployment people often wake up in the morning and beg for change. For those who collect a sufficient amount, they go to wholesale stores and buy gum, candies or cigarrettes, then they go to tourist areas and try selling what they have at a slightly inflated price.

One more thing: Social Darwinism also twists Darwin's original theory in that it creates a struggle inside one particular species.

how is that the twisting? darwinian evolution is all about differential reproductive success withn a species.

I haven't seen the advert with the little gremlin. So you might have to explain why you think my point is invalid.

Yes, the people from the third scenario do want to work. I will give you a real life scenario. In many underdeveloped nations where there is massive unemployment people often wake up in the morning and beg for change. For those who collect a sufficient amount, they go to wholesale stores and buy gum, candies or cigarrettes, then they go to tourist areas and try selling what they have at a slightly inflated price.

The poit of the thing with the little gremlin is that the training programs are out there. These people just have to go to them.

And those people who beg for change then sell stuff at a slightly inflated price? If they were any good, they wouldn't have to beg after a few weeks.

The poit of the thing with the little gremlin is that the training programs are out there. These people just have to go to them.

And those people who beg for change then sell stuff at a slightly inflated price? If they were any good, they wouldn't have to beg after a few weeks.

Who funds the training programs?

The ones who are good make enough money to buy a bag of rice for their family. The ones who are bad continue to beg, starve or turn to crime.

Social Darwinism was a theory, first created by Herbert Spencer, which, on the heels of the acceptance of Darwin's theories concerning natural selection, tried to apply said idea to human society. Spencer argued that human society, like the animal kingdom, was essentially a struggle for survival, and that if we let it take its course, the best people would come out on top - strengthening humanity as a whole. It also held that charity during one's life was wrong, as it messed with the process of natural selection. However, inheritance was worse - so perhaps the most famous Social Darwinist, Andrew Carnegie, gave all his money away to charities after his death.

Social Darwinism as a philosophy had at least one major flaw in its analysis (setting aside questions of moral philosophy) - human society is not the same as the animal kingdom. Why? Because human society is a cooperative venture. At some level, even the smallest governments are a product of humans combining their efforts to help everyone. Animal society is more or less a free-for-all, with occasional groupings for survival purposes, but nothing resembling human levels of societal organization. Because human society is essentially cooperative rather than Darwinian at its roots, Social Darwinism begins at a flawed premise.

I could go into greater depth, but I'd be beating a dead horse. Social Darwinism is more or less a philosophical laughingstock nowadays.


I could get really mad at you, and yell at you about why condoning genocide is wrong. But I'm not going to. Not because I'm not angry. Just because Social Darwinism is so demonstrably stupid that it's hard to get riled up about it.

Not only that, but this "history is written..." stuff is bullshit. Not because it's not true; it is. But because we can still make moral judgments on our own outside what we're told. Many historians (Howard Zinn is a good example) critically examine the history they've been taught. In our society, that's permitted. I made my own moral conclusion about genocide, thanks. It's wrong.

A lot of Germans didn't agree with many Nazi programs - a view which increased as the Holocaust began to take its toll. The whole Gestapo thing prevented them from doing anything about it, though. The point is, even though they lived under their rule, people still thought the Nazis were morally repugnant. So you can't just chalk it up to the victors and history books adage.


You call your intelligence into question by strict adherence to such an antiquated and long-disproved theory. Social Darwinist policies, largely implemented in late 19th century America, resulted in horrific conditions for most of the country. Most people were in "scum" conditions. I'm not a Communist, not because I don't love the principle, but because it doesn't work historically. We should learn from our past mistakes.


I'm impressed. I was expecting that it would be a hard sell. I'm happy that there are individuals who do not spout the neo-fascist rhetoric of their ruling party.

However, I'm happy that Bush won the recent election. He has managed to re-write the world and in just a few months the social movement under every country has exploded. Even though a few of them are being reported in an embarrassing way accross the globe (as what you can report and who the bad guys "are" have to be "learned" by the media institutions) yet.

In the end, there is no doubt about the direction America is heading now. It's openly expressed throughout the world now that the US media is called "corporate media" and the media which the US sends to Iraq from Virginia is just called "The American Propoganda Station". None of them are taken seriously anymore.

Big topics in the rest of the world. "Will Wolfwitz ruin the World Bank", Any number of atrocity stories from Iraq or Palastine, with a flare of "Did The US assassinate that reporter and ex primeminister to start a war between Syria and Lebanon so that Israel will have a chance to invade"?

You get Michael Jackson, ignore the WMD's and investigate baseball, and ignore Enron and WorldCom and go after Martha Stewart.

Then for good measure, Paris Hilton will be thrown in.

We are now on the cusp of the next world war the only options you have are where it will break out.

Your options are:

US invades Iran
US invade N Korea
China invades Taiwan
Israel invades Lebanon
US invades Syria
US has second civil war

This is the best guess of course. But I'd say the odds are 2 to 1 for another war in the next year which the Imperialist countries hopefully lose.

There is also memetic evolution. Welfare will create two classes of people, one who works hard and one who lives on welfare. Then the genetic evolution will come. The difference in living conditions will cause genetic evolution.
The memes a person holds can be changed, seeing as they are ideas, rather than deterministic code as in genes. There will certainly not be any splitting of the human race, because it's not a certanity that offspring will inherit the memes, and they could switch the memes they hold at some point if they did inherit them.

The idea of memetic evolution is different than the idea of genetic evolution, because memetic evolution isn't about the people evolving. It is about the ideas evolving.

Who funds the training programs?

The ones who are good make enough money to buy a bag of rice for their family. The ones who are bad continue to beg, starve or turn to crime.

The training programs are government funded, so, ultimately, it's the taxpayers. What are you getting at?

And, ventually, the ones who are bad die out. Social Darwinism. But it doesn't work because their methods are not dead. They come around again, and cause more people to starve.

I could get really mad at you, and yell at you about why condoning genocide is wrong. But I'm not going to. Not because I'm not angry. Just because Social Darwinism is so demonstrably stupid that it's hard to get riled up about it.

Not only that, but this "history is written..." stuff is bullshit. Not because it's not true; it is. But because we can still make moral judgments on our own outside what we're told. Many historians (Howard Zinn is a good example) critically examine the history they've been taught. In our society, that's permitted. I made my own moral conclusion about genocide, thanks. It's wrong.

A lot of Germans didn't agree with many Nazi programs - a view which increased as the Holocaust began to take its toll. The whole Gestapo thing prevented them from doing anything about it, though. The point is, even though they lived under their rule, people still thought the Nazis were morally repugnant. So you can't just chalk it up to the victors and history books adage.

You just can't tell me why it would be wrong to breed a race of super smart people, can you? Because it wouldn't. Smarter is better.

The historians only get the evidence the Allies let them. Anything based on Eastern Europe is absolutely unreliable, because it's Soviet. So much was lost or destroyed.

You call your intelligence into question by strict adherence to such an antiquated and long-disproved theory. Social Darwinist policies, largely implemented in late 19th century America, resulted in horrific conditions for most of the country. Most people were in "scum" conditions. I'm not a Communist, not because I don't love the principle, but because it doesn't work historically. We should learn from our past mistakes.

Again, they did it wrong. Good idea, wrong implementation.

You just can't tell me why it would be wrong to breed a race of super smart people, can you? Because it wouldn't. Smarter is better.
There's nothing wrong with selective breeding. What is wrong is when it is coerced and forced upon others. It is wrong to crush some under your heel so as to benefit the majority.

There's nothing wrong with selective breeding. What is wrong is when it is coerced and forced upon others. It is wrong to crush some under your heel so as to benefit the majority.

I don't see how those idea's mesh. Sorry, could you explain a little more.

I don't see how those idea's mesh. Sorry, could you explain a little more.
What I'm saying is that the ideas of selective breeding aren't wrong, as long as it is voluntary. I believe I read something about a group that practiced voluntary eugenics once, but I cannot seem to remember which, or if that was even really what it was. But assuming that were true, I would be fine with it.

By my morals, it isn't okay to force people to participate in eugenics. That does tend to rule out many of the cases where it could make a big difference, but I think rights trump loyalty to one's race or country or whatever any day.

What I'm saying is that the ideas of selective breeding aren't wrong, as long as it is voluntary. I believe I read something about a group that practiced voluntary eugenics once, but I cannot seem to remember which, or if that was even really what it was. But assuming that were true, I would be fine with it.

By my morals, it isn't okay to force people to participate in eugenics. That does tend to rule out many of the cases where it could make a big difference, but I think rights trump loyalty to one's race or country or whatever any day.

Thanks

The training programs are government funded, so, ultimately, it's the taxpayers. What are you getting at?

And, ventually, the ones who are bad die out. Social Darwinism. But it doesn't work because their methods are not dead. They come around again, and cause more people to starve.

If the training programs are funded by the government with tax payer's money this would be a socialist policy which, according to Social Darwinism, interferes with with natural selection as these people should be left to solve their own problems or die out. But like you said, they don't die out. They only cause problems by resorting to crime or by organizing into political groups and rebelling.

Oye Oye, I've already dumped one thread to the Spam forum largely because of your contributions. That thread contained more than one borderline flame from you, but I didn't warn you because I was too tired. I guess you didn't get the message.
Wow, you're pretty talented, I've never seen anyone pat himself on the back while sucking his own cock before.
Oye Oye, Official Warning, flaming.

Keep it up only if you want an extended or permanent vacation from the forums, and read the linked thread in my signature. I mean it.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

Oye Oye, I've already dumped one thread to the Spam forum largely because of your contributions. That thread contained more than one borderline flame from you, but I didn't warn you because I was too tired. I guess you didn't get the message.
Wow, you're pretty talented, I've never seen anyone pat himself on the back while sucking his own cock before.
Oye Oye, Official Warning, flaming.

Keep it up only if you want an extended or permanent vacation from the forums, and read the linked thread in my signature. I mean it.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

So, you mean that Social Darwinism would prevent me from perpetuating my left-leaning, middle class, wheelchair bound genes? Damn! there go my plans for world domination. :D

Its like:

Those who have the skills necessary to survive in a society, survive to reproduce. Like rich, ugly guys getting all the hot chicks, and us regular ugly guys getting a visit to Ms. Palm. Damn rich people.

But it is supposed to work that those with the undesirable traits don't get to pass them on. But that doesn't work, becuase the evil guys get the slags and slappers, and us nice guys are left with Ms. Palm, again.

Dammit.

So what is it that you are trying to say? That Social Darwinism works or not?
If rich guys get all the hot chicks, what affect does that have on their offspring?

Are they rich because they are intelligent, or just lucky? Generally speaking self-made rich people do posees a certain 'drive', but not all that have this 'drive' use it for the sole purpose of acquiring material wealth.

Are their partners 'hot chicks' because they are intelligent? Any girl who is impressed by mere material possessions is obviously quite simple and not the culmination of some social darwinisitic progression.

Therefore the children of such a pairing will not be the peak of human endevear.

Actually, having analyzed my above post, maybe there is something to Social Darwinism.

A society where people are attracted to each other for shallow characteristics such as being 'hot' or 'rich'(aka the USA) is likely to degenerate in the long run into a society of mindless idiots incapable of independent thought.

Meanwhile, a society where other characteristics such as intelligence, human kindness, tolerance, and skill are also considered attractive qualities (aka Europe) is likely to outperform the formerly mentioned society to such a great extent that the two societies can no longer be considered to be on the same evolutionary stage.

Obviously this would take a very long time to happen......

hmmmm.....the more I think about it, the more it seems that the process has already started.

Actually, having analyzed my above post, maybe there is something to Social Darwinism.

A society where people are attracted to each other for shallow characteristics such as being 'hot' or 'rich'(aka the USA) is likely to degenerate in the long run into a society of mindless idiots incapable of independent thought.

Meanwhile, a society where other characteristics such as intelligence, human kindness, tolerance, and skill are also considered attractive qualities (aka Europe) is likely to outperform the formerly mentioned society to such a great extent that the two societies can no longer be considered to be on the same evolutionary stage.

Obviously this would take a very long time to happen......

hmmmm.....the more I think about it, the more it seems that the process has already started.

Yeah, that's exactly what I was getting at. I just like people to draw the lines between the dots on their own.

Actually, having analyzed my above post, maybe there is something to Social Darwinism.

A society where people are attracted to each other for shallow characteristics such as being 'hot' or 'rich'(aka the USA) is likely to degenerate in the long run into a society of mindless idiots incapable of independent thought.

Meanwhile, a society where other characteristics such as intelligence, human kindness, tolerance, and skill are also considered attractive qualities (aka Europe) is likely to outperform the formerly mentioned society to such a great extent that the two societies can no longer be considered to be on the same evolutionary stage.

Obviously this would take a very long time to happen......

hmmmm.....the more I think about it, the more it seems that the process has already started.

This is a culturally biased observation that doesn't really address the issue. In your previous post you did touch upon the issue with the example of the self-made millionaire who earned his wealth versus the wealthy heir who inherits wealth. ie. Is Paris Hilton an example of the apex of human civilization? How about Prince Charles?

Social Darwinism is a method of rationalizing the suffering and death of other people.

It attempts to make barbaric cruelty and the enjoyment of death acceptable by putting it in the guise of pragmatic improvement of mankind's rather random birthing process.

Its a wonderful blend of hipocrasy, misdirected aggression, ignorance, and delusion. That said, it also has all the pretentions of being a new form of religious belief, with devotee's and adherants spreading the gospel of this twisted form of logic.

I'm impressed. I was expecting that it would be a hard sell. I'm happy that there are individuals who do not spout the neo-fascist rhetoric of their ruling party.

However, I'm happy that Bush won the recent election. He has managed to re-write the world and in just a few months the social movement under every country has exploded. Even though a few of them are being reported in an embarrassing way accross the globe (as what you can report and who the bad guys "are" have to be "learned" by the media institutions) yet.

In the end, there is no doubt about the direction America is heading now. It's openly expressed throughout the world now that the US media is called "corporate media" and the media which the US sends to Iraq from Virginia is just called "The American Propoganda Station". None of them are taken seriously anymore.

Big topics in the rest of the world. "Will Wolfwitz ruin the World Bank", Any number of atrocity stories from Iraq or Palastine, with a flare of "Did The US assassinate that reporter and ex primeminister to start a war between Syria and Lebanon so that Israel will have a chance to invade"?

You get Michael Jackson, ignore the WMD's and investigate baseball, and ignore Enron and WorldCom and go after Martha Stewart.

Then for good measure, Paris Hilton will be thrown in.

We are now on the cusp of the next world war the only options you have are where it will break out.

Your options are:

US invades Iran
US invade N Korea
China invades Taiwan
Israel invades Lebanon
US invades Syria
US has second civil war

This is the best guess of course. But I'd say the odds are 2 to 1 for another war in the next year which the Imperialist countries hopefully lose.

There are some who say that the Cold War was the 3rd World War and that it isn't finished. Personally I think the U.S. is spread too thin to consider invading another nation until they finish sweeping up in Iraq.