Social Darwinism

[Drolefille]

Any living organism can reproduce. It is just a fact. I would not consider the cow a very successful species seeing how we prolong its death by breeding them for consumption. I would not consider the cat a very successful species, seeing how we use them as pets, etc. That is not to say they are not useful or beneficial to someone else.

Domestivated animals like cows are adapted because we bred them in this way. It is not natural selection, but artificial. That said the cow is successful as long as it survives as a species. Cats are incredibly well adapted to their environments and are barely considered domesticated. A feral cat will act differently than an adopted one only because of our interactions with the cat. However cats are typically fine in the wild as wild animals go.

So livestock is successful or have they just learned to accept the fact they will all be going to a giant slaughter house to be butchered and sold on the market?

They can't possibly have learned that as they don't have the capacity to understand.

Individual adaptation can too determine a species success. If farmer Jain were to teach a group of indigenous people cultivation, then she would have made her imprint on many generations to come.

Which is why humans have social learning as such an important adaptation for our success and survival. You do know that we are all the same species right? And that cultivation is just one adaptation among many. There's nothing lesser evolutionary about a hunter gatherer population as long as they continue to surcice.

The point is, just because a species can reproduce and survive doesn’t mean they are any better off.

Better off doesn't factor into it at all. Evolution cares only for success.

Which is why Social Darwinism takes on socioeconomic aspects of survival and is given a bad rep because it’s based on finical success and superiority of one race over another. Some races are better at surviving than others. I’m not racist, but for instance, some races of humans are capable of civil wars and overcoming their difference for the betterment of society or the community. While others just fall apart. Now that is just one extreme end of the spectrum with Social Darwinism. Let’s say on the other side of the socioeconomic spectrum there is an ideology that is not so extreme. That actually looks out for the general welfare of a population or people within a certain community. Would that be bad? It is still about the survival… only take a less extreme approach for the betterment of society.

This is a pretty racist statement and why social darwinism is just wrong. No "race" has failed to survive except Neanderthals (not counting our direct ancestors, but clearly we out evolved them.) humanity could evolve to empasize strength in the future due to some crazy event that increases our gravity, all of a sudden our large brains may be less useful and we will change to survive oor die out. More accurately we will do both, some will adapt and others will die.

Social Darwinism is a fiction that makes wealthy, typically white and western people, feel good about how much better they are than others while ignoring things like colonization, access to resources and the like.

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

Domestivated animals like cows are adapted because we bred them in this way. It is not natural selection, but artificial. That said the cow is successful as long as it survives as a species. Cats are incredibly well adapted to their environments and are barely considered domesticated. A feral cat will act differently than an adopted one only because of our interactions with the cat. However cats are typically fine in the wild as wild animals go.

Sure they can survive for a short time, but there life expectancy isn’t very long. Thanks to Social Darwinism and social conflict theories people now have longer life expectancies than they once did. The average age has double and the population of the earth has more than doubled over the past 50 or so years.

Which is why humans have social learning as such an important adaptation for our success and survival. You do know that we are all the same species right? And that cultivation is just one adaptation among many. There's nothing lesser evolutionary about a hunter gatherer population as long as they continue to surcice.

Good we agree on the first part. We are all the same species, as in the totality of the entire human race, but there are different groups of people or races in different parts of the world due to the society they live in. You seem to contribute evolution to some very basic elementary principles of life. I’m still not sure what you measure are success on, unless you are just contributing it to a species ability to reproduce. Which falls short of natural selection, seeing how there is more to it than that.

Better off doesn't factor into it at all. Evolution cares only for success.

Yes it doesn’t. Natural selection is also based on learned behaviors. So you can’t rule out social conflict theory and say evolution only cares for success. Since when did evolution have feelings and care for anything?

This is a pretty racist statement and why social darwinism is just wrong. No "race" has failed to survive except Neanderthals (not counting our direct ancestors, but clearly we out evolved them.) humanity could evolve to empasize strength in the future due to some crazy event that increases our gravity, all of a sudden our large brains may be less useful and we will change to survive or die out. More accurately we will do both, some will adapt and others will die.

Social Darwinism is a fiction that makes wealthy, typically white and western people, feel good about how much better they are than others while ignoring things like colonization, access to resources and the like.

It isn’t racist. It is the truth. Countries use to be imperialist, now instead of conquest we have bartering agreements. Social Darwinism isn’t fiction. It is still alive and well today whether you agree with it or not. Social Darwinist use to push for a lot of things, like education, learning, libraries, etc. so people would have a better chance and not be given a free ride. While others opposed oppressive pay and demanded better governmental regulations due to poor labor conditions. Which is why we have 8 hour work days now instead of a grueling 16 hour day, 6 days a week. Why do you think people are still pushing for social justices and equality?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Sure they can survive for a short time, but there life expectancy isn’t very long. Thanks to Social Darwinism and social conflict theories people now have longer life expectancies than they once did. The average age has double and the population of the earth has more than doubled over the past 50 or so years.

Wait a minute, social Darwinism has absolutely nothing to do with life expectancy. The increase in the average lifespan is due to dramatic improvements in medicine and healthcare over the last century. Also, life expectancy has nothing to do with how successful a species is in evolutionary terms - all that matters is that the species continues to successfully reproduce.

Yes it doesn’t. Natural selection is also based on learned behaviors. So you can’t rule out social conflict theory and say evolution only cares for success. Since when did evolution have feelings and care for anything?

Now you're just being deliberately obtuse. They didn't mean it literally.

It isn’t racist. It is the truth. Countries use to be imperialist, now instead of conquest we have bartering agreements. Social Darwinism isn’t fiction. It is still alive and well today whether you agree with it or not. Social Darwinist use to push for a lot of things, like education, learning, libraries, etc. so people would have a better chance and not be given a free ride. While others opposed oppressive pay and demanded better governmental regulations due to poor labor conditions. Which is why we have 8 hour work days now instead of a grueling 16 hour day, 6 days a week. Why do you think people are still pushing for social justices and equality?

And you honestly believe that this is due to social Darwinism rather than, say, general humanitarianism and human rights that have been fought for over the last hundred years by many humanitarian, secular and non-social Darwinistic groups?

Social Darwinism is an anachronistic ideology based on a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution, an inflated sense of self-preservation and, above all, a willing disregard for the existence of historical facts in favour of self-congratulatory garbage.

 

[Drolefille]

Sure they can survive for a short time, but there life expectancy isn’t very long. Thanks to Social Darwinism and social conflict theories people now have longer life expectancies than they once did. The average age has double and the population of the earth has more than doubled over the past 50 or so years.

No, that's medicine. Social Darwinists would hold the theory that anyone who couldn't afford medication or enough good food to eat was unfit. Socializing medicine, improving general nutrition and similar social programs have greatly improved our life expectancies.

Good we agree on the first part. We are all the same species, as in the totality of the entire human race, but there are different groups of people or races in different parts of the world due to the society they live in. You seem to contribute evolution to some very basic elementary principles of life. I’m still not sure what you measure are success on, unless you are just contributing it to a species ability to reproduce. Which falls short of natural selection, seeing how there is more to it than that.

Could you define natural selection for me? I'm thinking you're working on some alternative definition. Natural selection is the method by which most evolution occurs. Artificial selection is what happens when we breed animals or plants for particular traits that aren't based on survival but more hardy grains or fattier cuts of steak.

Yes it doesn’t. Natural selection is also based on learned behaviors. So you can’t rule out social conflict theory and say evolution only cares for success. Since when did evolution have feelings and care for anything?

Only in very few species is learned behavior something that has significant effect on evolution. Chimps learning to use tools does not have to be relearned every generation because they can teach others. The ability to learn itself is a genetic trait.
Social conflict theory is not related to evolution - most species are incapable - and is specifically sociological not biological or evolutionary.
Evolution only cares for success, it doesn't care about progression or how it gets there. I choose to believe you're being deliberately antagonistic, because otherwise your statement about "feelings" was incredibly ignorant.

It isn’t racist. It is the truth. Countries use to be imperialist, now instead of conquest we have bartering agreements. Social Darwinism isn’t fiction. It is still alive and well today whether you agree with it or not. Social Darwinist use to push for a lot of things, like education, learning, libraries, etc. so people would have a better chance and not be given a free ride. While others opposed oppressive pay and demanded better governmental regulations due to poor labor conditions. Which is why we have 8 hour work days now instead of a grueling 16 hour day, 6 days a week. Why do you think people are still pushing for social justices and equality?

Those imperialist countries - which still exist mind you - do you forget where they colonized and conquered? Please define social darwinism as I think you're getting it confused with labor unions and socialism.

Social Darwinists would not care about equality, it's the nature of the belief system. You posts are no longer making sense.

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

Those imperialist countries - which still exist mind you - do you forget where they colonized and conquered? Please define social darwinism as I think you're getting it confused with labor unions and socialism.

Social Darwinists would not care about equality, it's the nature of the belief system. You posts are no longer making sense.

It isn’t hard to follow. “While others” doesn’t mean other Social Darwinist. It means others who oppose it. Maybe I could have been clearer, but I’m clearing it up now so you are not discombobulated by my post.

I will just answer your first question and the person that posted above you here. To save myself the trouble of having to answer two different posts that seem to be asking the say question anyways.

I’m not confusing social Darwinism with labor unions. Social Darwinist owned businesses in such a way they were monopolized in the early part of American history. They had more control over society than a secular American government did. People, the working class, worked for slave wages, in retched conditions, where women were sold as prostitutes, children were force into child labor and people had to rob and steal just to survive. Now saying, “Social Darwinism is fake, doesn’t exist, is a rip off of some original Darwin theory, those who are Social Darwinist don’t understand evolution” blah blah blah, amounts to nothing in this debate. Why? Well it’s simple, because we are talking about historical facts and problems that still exist today. Now, you can always go back in a time machine and try rewriting history, but it isn’t going to happen.

Oppression from these big businesses brought about many groups of people including the progressive movement. This movement enabled the government to provide a fair playing field for the working class in a secular, capitalist society. Is the playing field perfect? No, it has a long ways to go. But it is better than it was 100 years ago before any government intervention or protests. The only reason a big business like McDonald or Chick fil a for example, pays their employees minimum wage is because they have no other choice. It is kind of like saying: “I have to pay you this otherwise I wouldn’t be paying you anything at all”. That is just the reality of capitalism and a secular government.

 

[Drolefille]

It isn’t hard to follow. “While others” doesn’t mean other Social Darwinist. It means others who oppose it. Maybe I could have been clearer, but I’m clearing it up now so you are not discombobulated by my post.

I will just answer your first question and the person that posted above you here. To save myself the trouble of having to answer two different posts that seem to be asking the say question anyways.

I’m not confusing social Darwinism with labor unions. Social Darwinist owned businesses in such a way they were monopolized in the early part of American history. They had more control over society than a secular American government did. People, the working class, worked for slave wages, in retched conditions, where women were sold as prostitutes, children were force into child labor and people had to rob and steal just to survive. Now saying, “Social Darwinism is fake, doesn’t exist, is a rip off of some original Darwin theory, those who are Social Darwinist don’t understand evolution” blah blah blah, amounts to nothing in this debate. Why? Well it’s simple, because we are talking about historical facts and problems that still exist today. Now, you can always go back in a time machine and try rewriting history, but it isn’t going to happen.

Oppression from these big businesses brought about many groups of people including the progressive movement. This movement enabled the government to provide a fair playing field for the working class in a secular, capitalist society. Is the playing field perfect? No, it has a long ways to go. But it is better than it was 100 years ago before any government intervention or protests. The only reason a big business like McDonald or Chick fil a for example, pays their employees minimum wage is because they have no other choice. It is kind of like saying: “I have to pay you this otherwise I wouldn’t be paying you anything at all”. That is just the reality of capitalism and a secular government.

So your argument is that because Social Darwinism was bad, good things happened?
I never claimed that Social Darwinism was fiction, I stated that it was wrong. You have basically danced in so many circles that I don't even know what your point is anymore as it is clearly not the same thing you were saying previously.

None of this is related to evolution or social darwinism. Which, btw is wrong.

ETA:

Social Darwinist use to push for a lot of things, like education, learning, libraries, etc. so people would have a better chance and not be given a free ride.

This is wrong. Social Darwinists would not push for access to education. As I said, define your terms.

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

So your argument is that because Social Darwinism was bad, good things happened?
I never claimed that Social Darwinism was fiction, I stated that it was wrong. You have basically danced in so many circles that I don't even know what your point is anymore as it is clearly not the same thing you were saying previously.

None of this is related to evolution or social darwinism. Which, btw is wrong.

Okay, well we will just keep that at your opinion.
You can say its wrong all you want. It doesn't matter.
Let history be the story teller and embrace the moment. :angel2:

This is wrong. Social Darwinists would not push for access to education. As I said, define your terms.

No, they really did.

Retrieved from: http://www.nd.edu/~rbarger/www7/spenser.html

[FONT=&quot] Herbert Spencer: Social Darwinism in Education[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) was known as one of the leading Social[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Darwinists of the 19th century. An English philosopher, Spencer declined[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]an offer to attend Cambridge University and instead gained much of his[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]higher education through reading. As a Social Darwinist, Spencer helped[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]gain acceptance of the theory of evolution which also became the basis for[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]most of his books and teachings. The principle of evolution believed in[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]the process whereby all things change from the simplest of forms to the[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]most complex. It was Herbert Spencer who actually coined the phrase[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"survival of the fittest" which depicted a constant struggle amongst the[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]species. As a result of this continual struggle, the stronger species[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]survived and multiplied while the weaker species perished. His work[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"Synthetic Philosophy" applied this evolutionary process to all branches[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]of knowledge specifically biology, psychology, sociology and ethics. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Spencer was an agnostic who believed that the only way to gain knowledge[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]was through a scientific approach. He felt that religion was a futile[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]attempt to gain knowledge of the unknown. Spencer wanted to replace the[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]theological systems of the Middle Ages with his philosophical system which[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]stated that all knowledge could be placed within the framework of modern[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]science. Science was the only way to gain "useful" knowledge. It was[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]through this "scientific" knowledge that people learned to live in[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]society. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Spenser perceived society to be a progression of small homogeneous groups[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]evolving into large complex groups over an extended period of time. This[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]theory was proven true through the Industrial Revolution. Industry rose[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]dramatically during this time accompanied by specialized professions. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]People uprooted from their small towns and farmlands and moved to these[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]industrial areas to find work. This migration eventually led to the[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]emergence of large cities. Spencer used his Social Darwinism in all[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]aspects of society - social, political, economic, and education. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Spencer was a noted non-conformist who detested authority and strongly[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]emphasized individualism. In Spencer's work "Social Status", he stated[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]that individual freedom was extremely important and that the government[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]should play a limited role in society especially in the schools. He did[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]not believe in the public school system. His major criticism of the school[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]system was that it did not prepare children to live in society. Instead,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Spencer believed in the private school system which competed for the[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]brightest students. Because of his belief in competition, conflict and[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]struggle, Spencer felt that the most exemplary schools would eventually[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]acquire the best teachers and students. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Spencer, not surprisingly, stressed the importance of the sciences in the[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]schools. Learning should be a sensory experience where a student[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]interacts within his/her environment; a slow, gradual, and inductive[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]process. Children should be encouraged to explore and discover which[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]would allow them to acquire knowledge naturally. Education should also be[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]a pleasant experience for children with the least restrictions possible.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Rote memorization and recitation were strongly opposed. A student should[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]only engage in those activities that would ultimately allow him/her to[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]survive in society. Special emphasis was placed on the physical,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]biological, and social sciences while English grammar and literature were[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]believed to be outdated.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Spencer became one of the major proponents of modern curriculum theory. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]He created quite an uproar in England with his curriculum theory because[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]the major focus of education continued to be the Latin and Greek languages[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]and literature. In his work "What Knowledge is of Most Worth?" Spencer[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]stated that this question needed to be answered before any curriculum was[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]chosen or any instruction commenced. Once this question was answered, it[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]should be made certain that the curriculum aid in advancing survival and[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]progress. To achieve this advancement Spencer believed that there were[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]five activities necessary in curriculum. These activities assisted in[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]self preservation, performance of occupations, child-rearing, social and[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]political participation, and recreation and leisure. Once again, the main[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]goal was to teach subjects that would contribute to successful living. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Spencer's ideas concerning curriculum were widely accepted in the United[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]States where change was not resisted. [/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Education today continues to be influenced by Spencer's Social Darwinist[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]theories. In fact, his curriculum activities based on human needs are[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]still being implemented in one form or another. His influences are still[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]felt as education continues to discuss voucher systems for private[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]schools, the smaller role of government in education, and in the stressing[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]of teaching skills that will assist students in becoming individuals who[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]contribute to the good of society.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Several of Spencer's works are being utilized in today's most prestigious[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]universities. His "Principles of Biology" is a text at Oxford University. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]His "Principles of Psychology" text can be found at Harvard. The "Study[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]of Sociology" is Spencer's work used not only as a textbook at Yale, but[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]was the textbook used for the first course in Sociology in the United[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]States. Sociology became a discipline in the United States because of[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Spencer's impressive work. [/FONT]

 

[Drolefille]

[FONT=&quot]Spencer was a noted non-conformist who detested authority and strongly[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]emphasized individualism. In Spencer's work "Social Status", he stated[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]that individual freedom was extremely important and that the government[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]should play a limited role in society especially in the schools. He did[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]not believe in the public school system. His major criticism of the school[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]system was that it did not prepare children to live in society. Instead,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Spencer believed in the private school system which competed for the[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]brightest students. Because of his belief in competition, conflict and[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]struggle, Spencer felt that the most exemplary schools would eventually[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]acquire the best teachers and students. [/FONT]

You'll notice I said "access to education" which is not what he supported. He supported only the "smartest" getting a good education. Never mind that "smartest" in that time would strongly be "had enough wealth to not have to work all day as a child."

And as you cannot define social darwinism and natural selection and have made seriously racist comment and defended it, I'm comfortable with my opinion. Should you wish to provide evidence, we can talk.

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

Whatever, I'm educated, I know history, I'm white and I have no reason to be ashamed of it.

 

[Drolefille]

Whatever, I'm educated, I know history, I'm white and I have no reason to be ashamed of it.

One should be ashamed for racism, not being white.

And you just responded to my, and everyone else's refutations of your comments with a "whatever." Incredibly mature.

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

One should be ashamed for racism, not being white.

And you just responded to my, and everyone else's refutations of your comments with a "whatever." Incredibly mature.

LOL okay i will just :faint:take that as a joke.

 

[Drolefille]

Define any of your terms if you're interested in continuing the conversation

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

Define any of your terms if you're interested in continuing the conversation

I'm actually expecting a debate from someone who already knows the terms.

 

[Drolefille]

I'm actually expecting a debate from someone who already knows the terms.

I am not the only one who has asked you to define things. If you do so, we can see whether we're on the same page.

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

I am not the only one who has asked you to define things. If you do so, we can see whether we're on the same page.

Give me a legitimate reason to define them and tell me what exactly it is you want me to define.

 

[Drolefille]

Give me a legitimate reason to define them and tell me what exactly it is you want me to define.

If you don't consider the ability to communicate legitimate nor recall what you were already asked to define, I can assume you're not interested in continuing this discussion.

 

[painted wolf]

Essentially "social Darwinism" is anti-Darwinian due to the fact that:

1) Natural selection is removed
2) Alleleic variation is limited
3) Genetics in general is ignored in favor of pseudo-scientific ideas of "traits".
4) The vital role of altuistic and kin selection is ignored.
5) No one can predict what alleles will be beneficial or harmful in the future. Most traits are neither until the right circumstances present themselves.

And let's not forget the fact that Darwin himself was a vocal opponent of "social Darwinism".
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. ---Darwin

People who don't understand genetics and evolution, shouldn't toy with ideas about "Social Darwinism"... those who do understand genetics and evolution almost never give it any credibility.

In fact I can't think of a single geneticist who thinks that it would be a remotely good idea.

wa:do

 

[Drolefille]

^^^^ Great post.

Social Darwinism isn't a necessary outcome of Darwinian evolution, it's more like someone saw the theory of gravity and decided that this is why people are attracted to each other. Romantic Gravity, the newest trend.

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

Essentially "social Darwinism" is anti-Darwinian due to the fact that:

1) Natural selection is removed
2) Alleleic variation is limited
3) Genetics in general is ignored in favor of pseudo-scientific ideas of "traits".
4) The vital role of altuistic and kin selection is ignored.
5) No one can predict what alleles will be beneficial or harmful in the future. Most traits are neither until the right circumstances present themselves.

And let's not forget the fact that Darwin himself was a vocal opponent of "social Darwinism".
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. ---Darwin

People who don't understand genetics and evolution, shouldn't toy with ideas about "Social Darwinism"... those who do understand genetics and evolution almost never give it any credibility.

In fact I can't think of a single geneticist who thinks that it would be a remotely good idea.

wa:do

To be honest, it doesn’t sound like he is opposing anything. He is just voicing his opinion. On top of that he didn’t know anything about genetics. His main contribution to evolution was natural selection which other people were working on at the time as well.
Natural Selection, as I’m sure you already know - organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce offspring while those less adapted to their environment tend to get eliminated. There is no difference between the two, besides one being biology and the other sociology.
Darwin studied finches. Spencer studied people, society, and living conditions. Darwin also lived a very sheltered life which is probably why he stuck with biology and gave such a passive response in the quote you referenced.

 

[painted wolf]

To be honest, it doesn’t sound like he is opposing anything. He is just voicing his opinion. On top of that he didn’t know anything about genetics. His main contribution to evolution was natural selection which other people were working on at the time as well.
Natural Selection, as I’m sure you already know - organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce offspring while those less adapted to their environment tend to get eliminated. There is no difference between the two, besides one being biology and the other sociology.
Darwin studied finches. Spencer studied people, society, and living conditions. Darwin also lived a very sheltered life which is probably why he stuck with biology and gave such a passive response in the quote you referenced.

If you think that is passive then you know very little about Victorian English culture. Not to mention thinking that a man who traveled around the Globe and interacted with cultures on every continent lead a "sheltered life" compared to a man who never left England is laughable.

Actually natural selection is the process by which genes spread through a population. Being well adapted to your environment is only a small portion of how that happens and thus is only one of many aspects of natural selection.

It's also the part of Natural Selection that "social darwinists" tend to focus on and ignore the rest of the processes... and thus the actual big picture view of what Natural Selection is.

The myopic focus on one part of Natural Selection while ignoring the rest of it is why "social darwinism" fails.

wa:do

Also, I'm curious why you focused on the Darwin quote... which is only a minor point really in my post and not the actual meat of the post. Attacking Darwin is useless... especially in light of ignoring the actual discussion on evolution and genetics.