Help discredit Social Darwinism

[danieldemol]

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.

 

[Tambourine]

You mean the ideology that was used for decades for racist ends to justify colonialism, eugenics and genocide?

How about it's not only morally reprehensible on every level imaginable, it's also just flat out nonsense with no basis in scientific research?

 

[Tambourine]

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.

Okay, first of all, evolutionary pressures only apply to genetic, inheritable traits of individuals that can therefore be passed down to further generations. Since societies and groups are neither genetic nor inheritable, those are already right out.

Second of all, the process we're talking about is one that takes a long time, far longer than recorded human history.

What you are describing (industrial societies dominating hunter-gatherer cultures and/or wiping them out) has nothing to do with evolution, it's just plain old warfare, waged for the sake of greed, exploitation, or hatred.

 

[danieldemol]

Okay, first of all, evolutionary pressures only apply to genetic, inheritable traits of individuals that can therefore be passed down to further generations. Since societies and groups are neither genetic nor inheritable, those are already right out.

Second of all, the process we're talking about is one that takes a long time, far longer than recorded human history.

What you are describing (industrial societies dominating hunter-gatherer cultures and/or wiping them out) has nothing to do with evolution, it's just plain old warfare, waged for the sake of greed, exploitation, or hatred.

Thanks for responding.
Do you think that human individuals do not have genetically inheritable traits which can be passed down, and which may affect their ability to survive without the intervention of more survivable humans?

Are morals such as empathy and compassion all learned or partially genetic?

What about non genetic things which nontheless seem to be inheritable (I'm thinking of cultural memes here)? For example suppose if a society which largely frowns upon science and technology where to come to be at war with a society which largely favours science and technology?

 

[danieldemol]

This is a bad intro to 'social darwinism'. The laws of natural selection do apply to humans, but social darwinism is a eugenic philosophy which tries to sell us a malthusian worldview from this fact.

Thanks, I agree it is a bad intro to social darwinism, and that the laws of natural selection do apply to humans, alas it is the intro given by encyclopedia brittanica in the article quoted in the OP, and one which I feel people may use to misdiagnose certain beliefs as social darwinism based on an excessively cursory reading of the article

 

[sun rise]

Darwinian 'survival of the fittest' in it's social form ignores the survival and evolutionary value of cooperation. The Evolutionary Benefits of Cooperation and many other sites discuss that.

 

[danieldemol]

Darwinian 'survival of the fittest' in it's social form ignores the survival and evolutionary value of cooperation. The Evolutionary Benefits of Cooperation and many other sites discuss that.

Thanks for your comment, but wouldn't the evolutionary value of co-operation imply that selective pressures act on and favour co-operative species (such as humans), and thus make the Encyclopedia Britannica intro in the OP a bad introduction to Social Darwinism?

 

[The Hammer]

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.

Social Darwinism is what allowed for the rise of the Nazis in Germany. That's a mark against it enough in my book.

 

[danieldemol]

Social Darwinism is what allowed for the rise of the Nazis in Germany. That's a mark against it enough in my book.

If we are going off the excessively narrow definition given in the OP - that social darwinism is the belief that natural selection applies to humans as to plants and animals - I disagree.

I would argue that it is the belief that something occurring naturally makes it good or right that empowered the Nazis. One may believe that natural selection applies to humans without believing that it is necessarily a good or beneficial thing to occur.

 

[The Hammer]

If we are going off the excessively narrow definition given in the OP - that social darwinism is the belief that natural selection applies to humans as to plants and animals - I disagree.

I would argue that it is the belief that something occurring naturally makes it good or right that empowered the Nazis. One may believe that natural selection applies to humans without believing that it is necessarily a good or beneficial thing to occur.

https://www.historyhit.com/social-darwinism-in-nazi-germany/

 

[danieldemol]

https://www.historyhit.com/social-darwinism-in-nazi-germany/

I think you're link re-inforces the point that it was the view that the natural order is morally correct that empowered the Nazis.

Consider the observation that gay people don't naturally reproduce vs the belief it is a morally good thing they don't reproduce. The observation is honest, the belief is used to persecute gay people. But the honest observation does not empower the belief.

Neither does the honest observation that humans are acted on by selective pressures empower the belief that it is morally right that the natural order should be allowed to prevail or even embraced.

You have to use a definition of social Darwinism which encompasses the idea that natural selection should be assisted by humans to argue that it empowered the Nazis. And that the out of context definition given by the Brittanica article did not cover such a definition. Therefore it is imo demonstrably wrong to call the belief that humans are acted upon by selective pressures "Social Darwinism" and claim it empowered the Nazis when such an honest observation did no such thing.

 

[Hellbound Serpiente]

Social Darwinism - RationalWiki

 

[Estro Felino]

I believe the State should help those who are, due to disabilities or other disadvantages, less likely to have a dignifying life.
So I am against the law of the fittest.

 

[Hellbound Serpiente]

A point to be taken in consideration that the theory cannot be falsified, and as such, it's useless. It's pseudoscience. It is the job of those who purpose the theory to prove it right.

 

[danieldemol]

A point to be taken in consideration that the theory cannot be falsified, and as such, it's useless. It's pseudoscience. It is the job of those who purpose the theory to prove it right.

Just to be clear, are you calling the definition of rational wiki pseudo-science or did you read the OP and hopefully realise i am not talking about the proper definition, but rather social Darwinism as alternatively defined as believing that natural selective pressures apply to humans.

Because if humans where to get wiped out by an excessive rise in temperature and bacteria were to survive that is definitely falsifiable, we just wouldn't demonstrate its falsifiability due to moral implications

 

[Heyo]

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.'

The Theory of Evolution decidedly only works on groups of individuals who are capable of reproduction with random mutations. Thus it can never be applied to the group itself (unless you define a mechanism such as calling a splitting group reproduction).

Evolution in a broader sense, like in the evolution of languages, can be applied to groups and the mechanisms of (natural?) selection apply without having a defined reproduction. In that case one has to be very careful with the "group" definition.
E.g. given the group is nation states, then there seems to be a selection pressure favouring democratic government.

 

[Heyo]

You mean the ideology that was used for decades for racist ends to justify colonialism, eugenics and genocide?

How about it's not only morally reprehensible on every level imaginable, it's also just flat out nonsense with no basis in scientific research?

Applying social Darwinism to countries that have dealt in colonialism, eugenics and genocide shows me that they have all gone the way of the Dodo. There is a selection pressure against those countries.

 

[Audie]

Okay, first of all, evolutionary pressures only apply to genetic, inheritable traits of individuals that can therefore be passed down to further generations. Since societies and groups are neither genetic nor inheritable, those are already right out.

Second of all, the process we're talking about is one that takes a long time, far longer than recorded human history.

What you are describing (industrial societies dominating hunter-gatherer cultures and/or wiping them out) has nothing to do with evolution, it's just plain old warfare, waged for the sake of greed, exploitation, or hatred.

Whoever you are, wherever you are, you live on land taken by force from those who had it before.

 

[Tambourine]

Thanks for responding.
Do you think that human individuals do not have genetically inheritable traits which can be passed down, and which may affect their ability to survive without the intervention of more survivable humans?

I have no idea what you are talking about here. Could you unpack that question a bit?

Are morals such as empathy and compassion all learned or partially genetic?

Our genes are little more than a collection of encymes that cause our bodies to grow and change in specific ways.
Unless you want to posit a literal physical component to morality it can't even be genetic to begin with; and as far as I know there has been no evidence of such, either.

What about non genetic things which nontheless seem to be inheritable (I'm thinking of cultural memes here)? For example suppose if a society which largely frowns upon science and technology where to come to be at war with a society which largely favours science and technology?

Human technology is not a genetic trait, and neither are universities or other organized institutions of learning. Further, the conception of science and technology as distinct areas of human socio-economic endeavour is fairly recent and did not exist for most of human history, and certainly not human prehistory. There is also no scientific evidence that "cultural memes" even exist or are anything more than a particularly creative analogy to say "humans learn from one another sometimes".

 

[danieldemol]

I have no idea what you are talking about here. Could you unpack that question a bit?

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?