Help discredit Social Darwinism

[TagliatelliMonster]

Here should be an easy task for the esteemed members of RF,

Help discredit Social Darwinism.

First some background;

'Social Darwinism has many definitions, and some of them are incompatible with each other. As such, social Darwinism has been criticized for being an inconsistent philosophy, which does not lead to any clear political conclusions. For example, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics states:

Part of the difficulty in establishing sensible and consistent usage is that commitment to the biology of natural selection and to 'survival of the fittest' entailed nothing uniform either for sociological method or for political doctrine. A 'social Darwinist' could just as well be a defender of laissez-faire as a defender of state socialism, just as much an imperialist as a domestic eugenist.[75]'

Source: Social Darwinism - Wikipedia

So here is the definition of Social Darwinism that I am asking you to discredit;

'Social Darwinism, the theory that human groups and races are subject to the same laws of natural selection as Charles Darwin perceived in plants and animals in nature.'

Source: social Darwinism | Definition & Facts

So basically what I am thinking of as an example is suppose humans as a group raise the environmental temperature too high for human survival, then the human race becomes extinguished but bacteria survives. Is this an example of humans being subjected to the laws of natural selection that occur in plants and animals?

Could a selective process of sorts also apply to human groups, for example what has become more dominant, industrial societies or hunter gatherer societies?

Thanks for taking the time to read and comment.

Allow me a slightly alternative and perhaps controversial point of view here...

First of all, evolution applies all the time, to every living organism that reproduces with variation and competes for resources.

It applies to us, too.

Now, evolution is significant in the sense that it acts as a filter. It ensures that the creatures that are born are viable for survival and "optimized" for the habitat they live in. Those who don't qualify for those criteria, will eventually be discarded. So in a very real sense, it keeps the DNA strong and healthy.

We humans are subject to this process like any other species. One could make the argument however, that we have interfered with this process. Although one could off course also argue that our behavior and technology is part of natural selection...

But for the first time in history, creatures survive that otherwise wouldn't have. We keep humans alive with medical science. Life expectancy has tripled. Child mortality is at an all time low. Child mortality has significant impact on the process of evolution. It prevents certain gene configurations to be passed on to off spring. As a result, our genepool becomes "polluted" with genes that otherwise wouldn't have been there.

Fast forward a couple millennia. What does it look like now? Can we still reproduce naturally? Is it still possible to be born and live till 50 without medical technology? I think these are valid questions.

And pondering the moral implications of all of this, is food for a long hard headache.

 

[Heyo]

Allow me a slightly alternative and perhaps controversial point of view here...

First of all, evolution applies all the time, to every living organism that reproduces with variation and competes for resources.

It applies to us, too.

Now, evolution is significant in the sense that it acts as a filter. It ensures that the creatures that are born are viable for survival and "optimized" for the habitat they live in. Those who don't qualify for those criteria, will eventually be discarded. So in a very real sense, it keeps the DNA strong and healthy.

We humans are subject to this process like any other species. One could make the argument however, that we have interfered with this process. Although one could off course also argue that our behavior and technology is part of natural selection...

But for the first time in history, creatures survive that otherwise wouldn't have. We keep humans alive with medical science. Life expectancy has tripled. Child mortality is at an all time low. Child mortality has significant impact on the process of evolution. It prevents certain gene configurations to be passed on to off spring. As a result, our genepool becomes "polluted" with genes that otherwise wouldn't have been there.

Fast forward a couple millennia. What does it look like now? Can we still reproduce naturally? Is it still possible to be born and live till 50 without medical technology? I think these are valid questions.

And pondering the moral implications of all of this, is food for a long hard headache.

Let me ease your pain by reminding you what "fitness" means in evolutionary biology. It is the ability to survive and reproduce in a given environment. When we lost our ability to produce vitamin C, it didn't make us less fit because we lived in an environment with plenty of vitamin C sources. When you live in an environment with plenty of healthcare, a chronic disease or deficiency only impairs your survival marginally.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Let me ease your pain by reminding you what "fitness" means in evolutionary biology. It is the ability to survive and reproduce in a given environment. When we lost our ability to produce vitamin C, it didn't make us less fit because we lived in an environment with plenty of vitamin C sources. When you live in an environment with plenty of healthcare, a chronic disease or deficiency only impairs your survival marginally.

I get that. And that would bring us closer to the argument that our technology is just as much part of our evolutionary development as a diet change for increased intake of vitamin C is.

I think it's the part of being able to say that today "for the first time in history", creatures survive long enough to reproduce, where they wouldn't have without the "artificial" assistance of technology.

I've read several articles back in the day as well about how our genepool indeed is being polluted with deficiencies that wouldn't have occurred in a more "natural" environment, as a direct result of "artificially" helping people to survive.
The idea is that this track is almost inevitably going to take the entire species into a state of being slaves of technology, in the sense of not being able to survive without it. The point of perhaps some day not even being able to reproduce naturally without it.

If today a cataclysm would happen with a nuclear winter or whatever, making modern society collapse completely and killing 90% of humans etc... Most likely humanity would still survive. Propelled back a millenium or two perhaps, but the species would likely survive.
Fast forward a couple thousand years and we no longer would.

The question is, if that is actually a problem...

It's an interesting topic. Not sure on which side of the fence I find myself.

Regardless, I certainly wouldn't ever consider the route of letting people die or forcibly castrating them or whatever though.

 

[Clara Tea]

Bigotry, in all of its forms, is one factor of Social Darwinism.

We don't even recognize bigotry when we see it.

Go to a casino, look at the bus girls (who empty eaten food), and compare them with the beautiful, scantily clad, cocktail waitresses. The pretty cocktail waitresses get huge tips, and the ugly bus girls sometimes don't get tips at all. So, beauty is rewarded by tips and better jobs.

Go to Disneyland, and look at all of the blond kids lined up to go in, and compare it to the Hispanic community around Disneyland. Often rich families can afford to gather at places like Disneyland, while poor kids might be able to go once in their lives, but are largely excluded.....excluded from the experience of going, and excluded in the "private cliques" that form of those with similar experiences.

In high schools, the "in" crowd excludes nerds. The cool cheer leaders date the strong and handsome quarterbacks.

When Black athletes make it to the big time (A-string), they often get blond wives. Magic Johnson used to brag that he had sex with thousands of blonde women (many of whom must have contracted his AIDS).

The result is that the rich is getting prettier and blonder.

Even in mixed race cultures, like northern Mexico, there are strati in social circles involving percentages of Spanish lineage (more Spanish and less Native American is better). So we can't escape bigotry to interbreeding, though they are all pretty much the same (even culturally).

To God, all people are his children. However, I'm miffed that God didn't share the same bible with all cultures of the world.

If Hitler had succeeded in eliminating all Jews, he'd have to choose another minority, until, eventually, the bigoted society would have only one pure member (and that member would likely be inbred and suffering from some genetic inbreeding disease).

According to the bible, God didn't want the races communicating nor interacting, since the various races had been separated at the Tower of Babel.

Modern cell phone and internet technologies are now making the world a much smaller place, and bi-racial marriages are become more commonplace. Perhaps technology is the way to overcome bigotry?

 

[Tambourine]

I'll try. Take a couple i know of, the wife had hereditary ataxia, the husband did not.

The wife died young and did not leave behind many children, the husband married again and had a total of four children between the two wives.

The son of the first wife started displaying signs of hereditary ataxia from a young age bringing to a complete halt his ability to work, and he had no offspring.
Do you deny this is natural selection at work on humans?

How about those with non-existent sex drives who do not reproduce and pass on their genes, do you deny that is natural selection at work on humans?

I never denied that natural selection is at work in humans, I denied that it is at work in human groups and societies, because neither are inheritable genetic trait, and the concept of natural selection only applies to human genetics.

What it does not mean, however, is that this would translate into a meaningful impact on the human genome at any meaningful, since this single family is just one among millions, and any genetic change will be lost in the noise 5-10 generations down the road, because the human species is not just a handful of families, but more than 7 billion individuals inhabiting all corners of the world.

For all we know, that family may well re-inherit the genes for hereditary ataxia six generations into the future, and have to deal with it all again, because they just happened to cross lines with a person who carried that gene. Or they may not.
At the evolutionary level, this story is just a ripple in an ocean.

 

[Tambourine]

Let me ease your pain by reminding you what "fitness" means in evolutionary biology. It is the ability to survive and reproduce in a given environment. When we lost our ability to produce vitamin C, it didn't make us less fit because we lived in an environment with plenty of vitamin C sources. When you live in an environment with plenty of healthcare, a chronic disease or deficiency only impairs your survival marginally.

Even if you don't have healthcare, small human communities generally tend to look out for their weaker members,which is arguably one of our greatest strengths as a species.

We nurture our children so they may become smart and learn things we could never know, and we protect and care for our elderly so they may pass on the wisdom of their years to younger generations. We protect the sick and the weak so that we may be protected in turn once we get sick and weak, strengthening the community as a whole and making it more resilient in times of hardship and want.

 

[syo]

Help discredit Social Darwinism.

Can't discredit stupidity.

 

[metis]

With many species, especially the "social" ones, cooperation is quite necessary and usually is part & parcel with the natural selection process.

 

[danieldemol]

I never denied that natural selection is at work in humans, I denied that it is at work in human groups and societies, because neither are inheritable genetic trait, and the concept of natural selection only applies to human genetics.

Ok, so we are agreed that natural selection is at work in human individuals.

Now what about groups that share common genetics, for example do you agree that historically black people where found in concentrations in the equatorial region due to the resistance of their skin to sunlight absorption preventing skin cancers, and that historically white people were found in concentrations at further lattitudes because the very genetic factors which give black people resistance to the sun prevent them from absorbing enough sunlight far from the equatorial regions, thereby causing black people to suffer from vitamin D related illness closer to the polar regions historically?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The same natural laws apply to all life forms including man.

However Man has another force acting in its own fashion, that other life forms do not appear to have.
And they are his ability to change his environment, and health outcomes, brought about by his own efforts and intellect.
These change his food supply, medical intervention and living and social conditions,
These changes in turn influence all aspects of his long term evolution.
However they in now way stop him being subject to evolution.

 

[Heyo]

However Man has another force acting in its own fashion, that other life forms do not appear to have.
And they are his ability to change his environment, and health outcomes, brought about by his own efforts and intellect.

Man isn't the only organism changing his environment. Think of squirrels planting trees, trees shedding leaves to lower the PH of the ground and beavers felling trees to build dams. It's only a quantitative difference, not a qualitative.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Man isn't the only organism changing his environment. Think of squirrels planting trees, trees shedding leaves to lower the PH of the ground and beavers felling trees to build dams. It's only a quantitative difference, not a qualitative.

Squirrels have no intention of planting trees.
However some of the seed food that they hide do germinate.
However many living beings do reorganise what is available into protective living quarters.
Had they large intellectual capacity they would no doubt do more.
There was remarkably little difference between types of early hominids,
we survive but the others did not.
How we will evolve in the future is yet unknown.
but the next major step might already be emerging amongst us for all we know.

 

[paarsurrey]

Here should be an easy task for the esteemed members of RF,
Help discredit Social Darwinism.
First some background;
'Social Darwinism has many definitions, and some of them are incompatible with each other. As such, social Darwinism has been criticized for being an inconsistent philosophy, which does not lead to any clear political conclusions. For example, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics states:

Part of the difficulty in establishing sensible and consistent usage is that commitment to the biology of natural selection and to 'survival of the fittest' entailed nothing uniform either for sociological method or for political doctrine. A 'social Darwinist' could just as well be a defender of laissez-faire as a defender of state socialism, just as much an imperialist as a domestic eugenist.[75]'

Source: Social Darwinism - Wikipedia

So here is the definition of Social Darwinism that I am asking you to discredit;

'Social Darwinism, the theory that human groups and races are subject to the same laws of natural selection as Charles Darwin perceived in plants and animals in nature.'

Source: social Darwinism | Definition & Facts

So basically what I am thinking of as an example is suppose humans as a group raise the environmental temperature too high for human survival, then the human race becomes extinguished but bacteria survives. Is this an example of humans being subjected to the laws of natural selection that occur in plants and animals?

Could a selective process of sorts also apply to human groups, for example what has become more dominant, industrial societies or hunter gatherer societies?

Thanks for taking the time to read and comment.

It is harmful, I envision, as any other manmade/unrevealed ideology/religion could be and will be for the human beings. Only G-d revealed religions could save the humans for co-existence, as I understand. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Tambourine]

Ok, so we are agreed that natural selection is at work in human individuals.

We never disagreed about that, you simply inferred a belief about me I never held.

Now what about groups that share common genetics, for example do you agree that historically black people where found in concentrations in the equatorial region due to the resistance of their skin to sunlight absorption preventing skin cancers, and that historically white people were found in concentrations at further lattitudes because the very genetic factors which give black people resistance to the sun prevent them from absorbing enough sunlight far from the equatorial regions, thereby causing black people to suffer from vitamin D related illness closer to the polar regions historically?

There is no such thing as "Black people", genetically speaking. "Black people" are at least twelve distinct genetic groupings. And what you describe actually happened in reverse: Europeans are the distant descendants of a group of early humans that mutated to have lighter skin, therefore becoming better at generating vitamin D from smaller amounts of sunlight. Note that I said "mutated to" because evolutionary genetics is not a directed process caused by distinct behavior, but a random process steered by environmental pressures. We can infer from this process that a lot of darker-skinned early Europeans very likely died from vitamin D deficiencies before they could produce offspring.

Note however that, even given those pressures, we humans have bounced back genetically with a wide range of different melanin content in our skin, and can now survive just fine with dark skin in Europe due to a variety of sources for vitamin D in our diets.

Neither of that is Social Darwinism, by the way.

 

[danieldemol]

We never disagreed about that, you simply inferred a belief about me I never held.


There is no such thing as "Black people", genetically speaking. "Black people" are at least twelve distinct genetic groupings. And what you describe actually happened in reverse: Europeans are the distant descendants of a group of early humans that mutated to have lighter skin, therefore becoming better at generating vitamin D from smaller amounts of sunlight. Note that I said "mutated to" because evolutionary genetics is not a directed process caused by distinct behavior, but a random process steered by environmental pressures. We can infer from this process that a lot of darker-skinned early Europeans very likely died from vitamin D deficiencies before they could produce offspring.

Note however that, even given those pressures, we humans have bounced back genetically with a wide range of different melanin content in our skin, and can now survive just fine with dark skin in Europe due to a variety of sources for vitamin D in our diets.

Neither of that is Social Darwinism, by the way.

I agree that it is not the correct definition of social Darwinism, however it is the definition given in the OP, as it is an example of natural selection at work on a group of people with common genetic traits.

 

[danieldemol]

It is harmful, I envision, as any other manmade/unrevealed ideology/religion could be and will be for the human beings. Only G-d revealed religions could save the humans for co-existence, as I understand. Right, please?

Regards

All religions are manmade

 

[Tambourine]

I agree that it is not the correct definition of social Darwinism, however it is the definition given in the OP, as it is an example of natural selection at work on a group of people with common genetic traits.

Is there supposed to be any point to this other than trolling people?

 

[danieldemol]

Is there supposed to be any point to this other than trolling people?

Yes, the point is that Encyclopaedia Brittanica got their intro to social Darwinism wrong.

It is not trolling people, I have no idea why you think it would be

 

[Subduction Zone]

Social Darwinism is not evolution. Evolution takes far too long and is not amenable to forced goals. At best what social Darwinism attempts to justify is artificial selection. And that has little to do with "superiority" in the real world. How long would this guy survive in the wild:

And though we can breed a dog that will fit into a purse, there are also usually negative side effects. We might be able to breed a more intelligent individual using Social Darwinism, but that person may be like a psychotic chihuahua in a person, waiting for just the smallest reason to go into a barking and biting frenzy (wait a second, did I just describe Trump?). And those changes would be quickly lost, just as the genes of the little Yorkie above would disappear if a pack of them were returned to the wild.