Social Darwinism is Natural Selection Misunderstood

[Phil75231]

NOTE: Some may say this is science topic, but I think it's more accurately called philosophical notions drawn from science. In short, Social Darwinism isn't a scientific issue but a philosophical one.

Ever since Darwin, the catch phrase "survival off the fittest" has strongly resonated with popular opinion. It implicitly assumes that the “law of the jungle” is a proper model for human relations. In fact, we often use it to justify contempt for the weak, timid, stupid, slow, eccentric, or otherwise what society considers less than perfect. In extreme cases, it’s a justification to eliminate the “considerably less than perfect” or even passively letting them slide by the wayside (often with conscious knowledge). After all, it’s just the natural order of things, and besides it just makes us stronger, smarter, and just plain better than the non-survivors.

This kind of thinking is a barebones description of “Social Darwinism”. Darwin himself denied that his theory was applicable to the human world, for he saw humans as guided by behaviors going beyond mere survival. Still, he did recognize that altruism, kindness, and generosity, toward others were somehow born of the system of natural selection, yet completely outside of that system. He merely confessed ignorance as to how we came to be altruistic, kind, and generous – which is the scientific thing to do when confronted with mysteries with no answer. Therefore, anyone who seeks to use “survival of the fittest”, “law of the jungle”, “it’s a dog eat dog world”, and other catch phrases as a ready-made, off-the-shelf moral or “real world” justifications for holding onto a “weak vs strong” view of how the world ought to be ordered is not taking either the Theory of Evolution or the mechanism of Natural Selection in its proper context.

The phrase “survival of the fittest” actually came from philosopher Herbert Spencer – five years after Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species. He used it to justify disbelief in any kind of program to help the poor, the invalids, and the otherwise “unfit” (read “unworthy”) on the grounds that nature rolled the dice and decided that they were incapable of competing in the human world. This likewise justified any kind of defense of “the strong” (i.e. society’s elite) against having to show any concern for “the weak” – and hence not have to give any concern about the weak. In short, Spencer found in Darwin’s theory a simple, neat explanation to justify society keeping its least desirable in their place while at the same time keeping the powerful in their place.

Rather than pick apart “dog-eat-dogism” piece by piece, I’ll just list some general objections.

1)Simplistically projects the general animal condition onto the human condition; thereby ignoring the unique details of humans that separate them from all other animals. This is especially true regarding our greater capacities for creativity, anticipating, scenario planning, self-criticism, “thinking outside the box”, and questioning the truth of supposedly “common sense” facts. All this allows us to overrule our DNA and reptilian brain when need be.

1) Encourages in individuals short term resource-grabbing, power-grabbing, and personal domination at the expense of long-term well being of the species.

2) Confuses long term well-being of the species with the short term survival and reproductive success of its “fittest” members (usually meaning “the best at physical survival”, “social politics/skills”, and little else)

3) Ignores that the human world’s needs are vastly different from the animal world’s, even granted its fundamental commonalities (i.e. humans also require food, water, air, shelter, and other basic needs; but the way we acquire those needs is incomprehensively different from the animal point of view).

4) Tends to squash independent thought, self-criticism, and constructive criticism. The powers that be find it simpler to keep doing what’s been done instead of potentially sacrificing some of their power, resources, values, and ideas for the greater good of the species or even merely their society. Squashing new ideas and objections to the current system makes the society and powers that be less adaptable in the long run. This model prizes conformity over independent thought, which makes the society less intelligent in the long run precisely because it damages the society’s ability to self-criticize.

5) In its more modern forms, overestimates the heritability of one’s survival traits and underemphasizes the role culture and environment play in developing (or not) those traits.

6) Ultimately breaks the bonds of trust among society’s members – If dog eat dog is the rule, then its everyone out for their own self-interest and the interests of their genetic kin, plus those who support them, and little else. It’s hard to see how trust among ourselves can possibly be maintained in such a situation. Naturally, this causes society to break down in a multiplicity of ways. In short, “dog eat dog” assumptions poison more complex societies and in the long run hurt most people’s ability to obtain resources or even provide them. Put more simply, Social Darwinism is ultimately bad economics.

7) Dismisses any disconnect between one’s level of strength, intelligence, or bravery (or their opposites) and their ability to make valuable contributions (or not). Ignores that individuals can be tremendously strong, smart, or brave without contributing REAL benefits to society. Also overlooks that one can contribute immensely to society even if weak, stupid, or cowardly.

When all is said and done, Social Darwinist “dog-eat-dog”-ism may have a very common sense kind of appeal on the surface, on closer examiniation, it ignores too many traits of overall human nature to be a realistic, practical guide for running societies, or even everyday living for the individual. While evolution can often explain WHY human nature is the way it is, it should never be used to JUSTIFY human nature as it currently is. Any culture that has this meme deeply embedded in it is in serious risk of long-term ruin.

[Agrippa]

One should always distinguish the Liberal (Individualist, Capitalist) Social Darwinism from the collective (group and long term oriented) concepts, which include general Eugenic and Euphenic programs.

The worst thing of Liberal/Capitalist social Darwinism is, that some of the "fittest" in this concept are and act actually detrimental to the group's and other people's interest, while many valuable people which have good traits as individuals and for the group might be "highly underrated".

It gets worst if being all about money and earning money, without looking at other features a person might have, because then, it is just an excuse for exploitation and control of the rich in some kind of Plutocracy, with some of the most asocial behaviours being cheered about as "successful", while alternative ones being considered "aberrations", even if being more useful for the majority of individuals, group and mankind as a whole.

So social Darwinism has some merits as a theory, but should be put into the context of humans as a social and cultural species and the traits evaluation should be based on what's good for the individual carrier of this traits and the group, not what makes one more successful in a degenerated system like that of Liberalcapitalism alone.

[Breedingvariety]

Social Darwinism refers to group, not individual competition. Groups do not have to consist of nations. Nor do they have to consist of millions. Well organized & cooperating thousand can rule over disorganized and purposeless million.

Darwinism holds life as highest value. Fittest survive and those who survive are fittest. Then it is impossible to live and not be fit. That circularity and the very value of life means Darwinism doesn't point to principles for behavior and is purposeless.

As living beings, no matter how brilliant in whatever ways they might be, if their behavior contradicts to survival of their group, then these groups go extinct. Fundamental acceptance of this theory leads to realization that individual behavior can not be understood as motivated by individual motives. Selfishness should be redefined as sacrifice for ones group.

I talk about groups and not species, because humanity is not just another specie. Survival of humanity is not threatened by other species.

Social groups, whether they be more or less distinct social classes, ethnicities or races, arise within context of circumstantial pressures. They arise as groups, not individuals. There is a reason why some are rich and some are poor. The rich have an edge. Moral edge.

Edge is relative to flaw. Superiority established by edge is not dependent on common values of subjugators with subjugated. That's why I reject notions of usefulness, economic prosperity, progress. Only when you stop obeying rules that exploit your flaws, can you become rich subjugator. Even if all you have is a stick.

Every group has absolute right to change the rules and become rulers.

Principles of conduct must not be based on undetermined premises & possibilities. Not based on maybes.

[Agrippa]

Darwinism holds life as highest value. Fittest survive and those who survive are fittest. Then it is impossible to live and not be fit. That circularity and the very value of life means Darwinism doesn't point to principles for behavior and is purposeless.

That is right, but it must be properly understood and applied, as it seemt to be necessary, to guarantee the best results for the individuals, group and species.

Nature is a system of natural rules, which we cannot override, so we have to adapt to it, at best to very own favour and in an intelligent, planned and humane manner.

Selfishness should be redefined as sacrifice for ones group.

However, the individual behaviours are often the result of processes of genetic and memetic selection either.

So by favouring "selfish" behaviour in a way, which is detrimental to the group and other group members, you just make up a trend, which will lead to such a selfish and inhumane group and society.

If there is higher level individual and group selection, those groups would be eliminated. But if the populations and societies in question are large enough, there can be even a breeding effect for "human parasites" and the worst thing about Liberal Social Darwinism is, that it allows, even defends such parasitical behaviour, as long as it happens in the bourgeious construct they call their society and (Capitalist) system.

I talk about groups and not species, because humanity is not just another specie. Survival of humanity is not threatened by other species.

Indeed, but probably by its own degeneration (biological-genetic and cultural-memetic) incompetence.

Social groups, whether they be more or less distinct social classes, ethnicities or races, arise within context of circumstantial pressures. They arise as groups, not individuals. There is a reason why some are rich and some are poor. The rich have an edge. Moral edge.

That can be true, but must not. If you formulate that in such a dogmatic way, it is just completely false, because probably a rather parasitic element made it to the top, while more favourable elements suffer from it.

That's why I reject notions of usefulness, economic prosperity, progress.

Then you reject higher mankind and adore the animal.

Principles of conduct must not be based on undetermined premises & possibilities. Not based on maybes.

What's an optimal behaviour being determined by the circumstances in concrete situations, though.

[Troll's Puzzle]

Social Darwinism refers to group, not individual competition. Groups do not have to consist of nations. Nor do they have to consist of millions. Well organized & cooperating thousand can rule over disorganized and purposeless million.

Darwinism holds life as highest value. Fittest survive and those who survive are fittest. Then it is impossible to live and not be fit. That circularity and the very value of life means Darwinism doesn't point to principles for behavior and is purposeless.

this is incorrect, for a creature to have 'Darwinistic' success means it survives and reproduces, with the latter being more important in fact.

which changes things a bit

[Agrippa]

this is incorrect, for a creature to have 'Darwinistic' success means it survives and reproduces, with the latter being more important in fact.

which changes things a bit

That's right, otherwise Europeans and Japanese would do great, surviving, on average, longer than most other people.

There is just a minor problem with that: They get few or no children at all, and those which they get, they get too late (slow reproductive circle).

[Curtis24]

Yes, but one could argue that the destruction of many European lineages is a good thing - it is intense evolution, those unwilling to have children being weeded out at unprecedented rates in modern history. The European Europid race could emerge from this era stronger than ever before...

[Agrippa]

Yes, but one could argue that the destruction of many European lineages is a good thing - it is intense evolution, those unwilling to have children being weeded out at unprecedented rates in modern history. The European Europid race could emerge from this era stronger than ever before...

First of all, it is a sociocultural and memetic defect, so those affected are not genetically maladaptive generally speaking and secondly, this kind of cultural imprinting we have, works best at those variants which are higher level and desperately needed both for our own group and mankind as a whole.

Essentially, those to dumb, asocial or unadapted, with primitive or superstitious beliefs and meaningless lifes have on average more children in various areas of the world and meanwhile, dysgenic trends emerge on a worldwide scale.

What was build up, with blood and tears over many generations of positive selection being now destroyed because of the ignorance of the people, which should know better, but don't act, do nothing for stopping this contraselection.

You have always think about which genetic variants and phenotypes you will need for a good group in the future. If those breed well, things are fine, you probably can still make them better, but generally speaking, there is no serious threat around.

If those variants which are needed most breed the least, you have a problem and this kind of DEVOLUTION leads into a dead end of degeneration, on the longer run biologically and culturally.

Because those bloodlines lost now are often positive accumulated both for genetic and memetic traits. Also, for keeping up a higher level society and culture, you need more of those higher level variants, you can live with fewer of them, worse but still, on largely the same level. But once their numbers go below a certain proportion in the general population, things will deteriorate drastically.

Even worse if the genetic deficits of the population being accompanied by a bad societal and economic system, great heterogeneity in a fractionised and individualised group of people.

So, without a population policy and Eugenic measures:

The European Europid race could emerge from this era stronger than ever before...

The Europeans will just degenerate into something meaningless and finally disappear as a unity of importance, probably their rotten system, manipulated by the Plutocracy, will even take mankind as a whole with them...

[Curtis24]

But who says the good bloodlines are the ones being lost? If a woman can't bring herself to have a single child, because she doesn't want the inconvenience of it, or her standards for a mate are so high and unrealistic(as is her overvaluation of herself), is it really a bad thing if she doesn't pass her genes on?

[Agrippa]

But who says the good bloodlines are the ones being lost?

Because those variants were more successful when high quality demands in the higher level individual and group selection determined biological success and are still more often more moral, social, educated, intelligent, hard working, attractive, fertile, physically superiour etc., etc.

If a woman can't bring herself to have a single child, because she doesn't want the inconvenience of it

Most of them being raised with the idea that children are not necessary or that our planet is even so overcrowded, that it would be egoistic to give birth to a child which you can't raise "the best thinkable way."

Also, many of them have actually one, or at best 2 children, but that is not enough, since a RELATIVELY high percentage of them have no children, they get their children late, because of their educational, career and other "life plans", while the lower level subjects get their children earlier and more of it.

Just think about the reproductive rate of one group having about 1 children on average, giving birth around 32 and the other has 4 children, giving birth to the first child around 19.

How many generations do you think you need that the 2nd group becomes the majority, even if starting as a minority?

You just need to manipulate 5 generations into something like we have now, with Capitalism and Cultural Marxism with all its side effect like career orientation, consumerism, false ideals and goals in life, "plural society", "Multiculturalism" with the mass immigration of non-integrable, lower level foreigners etc., to ruin the quality of populations which were build up in thousands of years.

or her standards for a mate are so high and unrealistic(as is her overvaluation of herself), is it really a bad thing if she doesn't pass her genes on?

They were successful in the past and they are still socially successful now and will be desperately needed in the future, whereas the "crap reproduction", to say it blunt, will be always primarily a burden...

Now if you increase the burden and reduce the backbone of the group, sooner or later, it will break!