1
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.
Bookmarks