-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is social Darwinism the ultimate truth?
- Thread starter Chisti
- Start date
Cassiopia
Sugar and Spice
No. Although a lot of my fellow Satanists would disagree with me. I think the philosophy of Social Darwinism is very misplaced and fails to take account of the degree to which the human intellect surpasses some of the mechanisms by which evolution works. And I think Darwin would hate the concept!
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
:yes:
This. Frubals owed. I'm out.
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
Your comparison is flawed.
If you want to draw analogies from nature it would be better to compare human societies with that of a pack of wolves.
Yes, there are leaders, but the individuals depend on each other for survival through cooperation.
But even that analogy is flawed seeing as there is really no community elsewhere in the animal world that compares to the current global human society.
The complexity involved is staggering and as has been pointed out, intellect has become more of a dominant factor than brute strength.
Last edited:
Truth?
Nah...it just happens at times.
Nah...it just happens at times.
Last edited:
Chisti
Active Member
At times? Isn't this a consistent pattern?
Yes. But many interactions between the strong & the weak also don't follow it.
In all populations, including human societies, we see that the most diverse societies are the ones that are best at surviving and thriving when circumstances change... and circumstances always change.
Calling eugenics "social Darwinism" makes no sense. Darwin described natural mechanisms that happen on their own. Even if you're going to apply the idea of "survival of the fittest" to some warped notion of "fit" that you pulled out of your butt, Darwinian evolution says that survival of the fittest happens WITHOUT YOU DOING ANYTHING. If you really are right about who is and isn't fit, then you don't have to do anything at all... and if the people who you think are "unfit" continue to exist, then this is a sign that your ideas of "fitness" are wrong.
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
A society would collapse if social darwinism was left unchecked. Reciprical altruism is a better approach.
Cassiopia
Sugar and Spice
Agreed.
Darwinism or to be more precise Darwin's theory is not based (as Social Darwinism seems to assume) on survival of the fittest in the basest sense, it is based on the idea that survival tends to favor those individuals which are best able to adapt to their environment and therefore pass their genes on to the next generation.
In our society we all share the benefits of the greatest intellects (some of whom would not survive on fitness alone or if their contribution to society was not recognized) and the altruism of others. Failure to understand that concept would be a great leap backwards.
Absolute Zero
fon memories
Whats Reciprical altruism ? I agree though that social Dawrinsim is faulty and has many flaws after all look at how far humans have come as a specieas.
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
And sometimes the strong doesnt bully the weak. Sometimes the strong even helps the weak. So no, I dont think social darwinism is some kind of "ultimate truth". Its just a twisted idea that has no basis in reality.
Last edited:
Social Darwinism is a horrid oversimplification of evolutionary theory. There is no "survival of the fittest." It is more accurate to say it is the "survival of the fit enough given a particular environmental context." What constitutes a strength or weakness depends entirely on the situation; a strength in one instance is a liability in another. This is part of why messing around with genetics can be dangerous. You think you're making something "better" but there is always a tradeoff.
This is, indeed, an "ultimate truth" of sorts in that it is a natural law that humans are bound by whether they wish to be or not.
This is, indeed, an "ultimate truth" of sorts in that it is a natural law that humans are bound by whether they wish to be or not.
Mr. Skittles
Active Member
Well the idea of social darwinism is possibly an ideal, I mean take a look at this guy:
[youtube]Crjx44pVh0M[/youtube]
Polar Bear Swimming Accident - YouTube
s2a
Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator
Nope, not how you suggest it...
The "Lion killing the Zebra" is not an act of "bullying" nor any conscious intimidation, it's what animals do everyday to survive yet another day...they just do what they do.
Human beings are about the only species to hunt other animals for "sport", not survival.
Big difference there.
Now, as to why humans act the way they do in such practices...well, that's another issue
Social Darwinism, like Darwinism, applies to populations, not individuals.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
"Social Darwinism" is a grotesque mockery of evolutionary theory that ignores most of the actual facts of evolution.
Darwin himself warned against "Social Darwinism".
We are a species that survives by being compassionate... to take that away is to remove a key facet of our humanity. IMHO anyone proposing any form of "Social Darwinism" is fundamentally, at heart, inhuman.
wa:do
Darwin himself warned against "Social Darwinism".
We are a species that survives by being compassionate... to take that away is to remove a key facet of our humanity. IMHO anyone proposing any form of "Social Darwinism" is fundamentally, at heart, inhuman.
wa:do