Social Darwinism

[Teutone]

Yes but i have talked about the complete human history.

Be more specific please, what you mean?

[Blondie]

Be more specific please, what you mean?

I mean the weaker civilizations/countries/peoples were always oppressed by the strongest nations and this "only the strong will survive" is the point of social darwinism. Basically this thing was true for the human history just look amerindians, aboriginal australians, siberian tribes etc.

[vbnetkhio]

Thats nature, I am responsible for my own failures or success, nothing and noone else.

why do you compare modern society to surviving in the wilderness?
wild beasts were exterminated and agriculture was invented thousands of years ago.
there is no reason whatsoever to model modern society by the "law of the jungle" or whatever.

Its not based on luck, if you think success is based on luck, you will not be successful.

If your success and wealth are based on luck, noone owes you anything if you even then arent capable to maintain it.

what are we even talking about here.
in places like America, unexpected health problems and many other economic factors you can't control are the determining factor in life.

in less darwinist countries, that influence is minimized, so true talent and effort can shine.

[Chaos One]

I'm against it but that is how the World works if we see the Clash of Civilizations.

This. It's unfair, but there's no way to avoid. People are selfish overall.

[Arch Hades]

Thats nature, I am responsible for my own failures or success, nothing and noone else.

Its not based on luck, if you think success is based on luck, you will not be successful.

If your success and wealth are based on luck, noone owes you anything if you even then arent capable to maintain it.

So if I come and beat you over the head with a baseball bat and give you brain damage your failure later in life is your fault? OK, cool.

[Thanas Django]

Social Darwinism is Bullshittry loved by the Bourgeoisie because it makes the feel special. Anything of the luxury sort such as hyperexpensive luxury hotels, luxury cars and luxury resorts come up only because of the need of the few wealthy to aggrandize themselves and feel special but have no real use outside that of self-deification and ego boosting.

Thinking that a person with a lot of money is a successful and capable individual is self-confusion. Most of the wealthy are either born into it or fuck their way to it. Real struggle from poverty to riches happens seldom.

Tucker Carlson's ship of fools and even if Kyosaki is a fraudster himself his book rich dad poor dad demystify lots of things about the rich and "successful".

[Celine]

I'm against it.

[Ethel]

I'm not familiarized with Social Darwinism, but I think some of you here are starting from a misconception. Darwin never stated that "only the strong will survive", nor is it the main point of evolutionism. It is those with the most adaptability that will survive and prosper. Darwin does not emphasize any idea of war between species. As you can see, this changes everythings, because the conditions to be adapted to an environment differ absurdly depending on the context, they're not just about being stronger or smarter. We're here only because our ancestors were once mice-like creatures, nimble, hiding and fleeing predators, only in this way could we survive side by side with the powerful dinosaurs: and look who went to extinction. And so did lots of imposing "megafauna" animals.

As a society, we are a complex of complexities. Much more complex than biological beings (as they are contained in the social being), and infinitely more complex than the already very complex inorganic being (we have not yet fully discovered quantum physics to this day). When you transplant specific laws from one of these levels of being to another, these laws lose their legitimacy. I am an organic being, an animal, so I reproduce myself, but I wont climb on top of a pretty female I found in the street to have sex, because this is rape and it has other socially unacceptable implications (and bc I'm gay lol).

If I applied a law from one level to another, and even if the concept that the "strongest survive" was true (IT IS NOT), I would be justifying things like eugenics, colonialism, and fascism. Basically downgrading society into a jungle again. I would also be justifying studies like the bell curve, which says children of Mexican and African American immigrants are mentally inferior. As you can see, I would be putting the blame from what is actually a social problem (lower social integration, lack of education and opportunities) to the organic being and then validating my hate and inferiority speech towards them. It is a weak, lazy and dishonest view that would rather blame problems on something immutable and innate than rethinking the social structure itself.

[Teutone]

So if I come and beat you over the head with a baseball bat and give you brain damage your failure later in life is your fault? OK, cool.

If I was stupid enough to not cover that possiblity by a insurance or law, indirectly yes.

[Teutone]

why do you compare modern society to surviving in the wilderness?
wild beasts were exterminated and agriculture was invented thousands of years ago.
there is no reason whatsoever to model modern society by the "law of the jungle" or whatever.



what are we even talking about here.
in places like America, unexpected health problems and many other economic factors you can't control are the determining factor in life.

in less darwinist countries, that influence is minimized, so true talent and effort can shine.

Nature is not wildlife, successful people are interested in creating environments of law and order in areas they operate.

To your America example: The fittest will adapt by a insurance that is covering for health issues and be prepared for other factors.