"Social Darwinism" is a strategy for failure

[Norsemaiden]

Social Darwinists apply Darwinism as a metaphor without realising it. Mostly they misunderstand the what the point of Darwin's message is. The subtitle of "On the Origin of the Species" is "The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". Ultimately life is struggle, and the finishing post, the goal, is reproduction. Social Darwinists are individualists and they like to feel that their personal material successes, such as wealth and status, are the goals in life which qualify them as "fittest" and "survivors". This idea can only be metaphorical - since it is not concerned with becoming an ancestor.

Eugenics is not individualist, but truly socialist, in a way that rejects Social Darwinism. This is why the conservatives who embrace Social Darwinism as a justification for their greedy capitalism are against eugenics. Eugenics applies to the welfare of a biological group and involves selecting individuals who are genetically healthy for the purpose of group promotion, which must include helping each other. The Social Darwinist "dog eat dog" philosophy is in fact a losing strategy for a group and dysgenic. When eugenics is described as being Social Darwinism, as Richard Dawkins did in his latest TV series, it is intended to make eugenics seem similar to the most brutal corporate capitalism, as if the kind of people who advocate the one, also advocate the other, when this is really a juxtaposition of a way to win in the struggle as a family/tribe/nation/race and a way to fail and become extinct.

 

[Richard Mongler]

So, yeah, what was the question?

 

[derek]

It's implicit.

Still, though, I'm not sensing where this can go.

 

[Einherjar86]

I suppose my big question is:

What is the source of information that says "conservatives who embrace Social Darwinism... are against eugenics"?

I don't see that eugenics is a particularly big concern for most people in America. I mean, eugenics seems to be almost universally frowned upon in this country. I don't hear many liberals speaking in favor of eugenics as a socialistic improvement.

I don't see that many capitalists would be against eugenics so much as they just wouldn't care about it. It doesn't apply to their economic ideals.

EDIT: I think this is a cool topic, I'm just trying to keep it going.

 

[Fenrisúlfr]

Yes, eugenics as it is defined in the article is socialistic, ergo it is insidious. Such a plan would only work if men were angels, but in practice it would be just another mechanism for totalitarianism.

As for those who would demonise 'greedy capitalism', let them live (or die) without its benefits.

 

[Blowtus]

Ultimately life is struggle, and the finishing post, the goal, is reproduction.

Who told you this?

 

[Norsemaiden]

Who told you this?

Richard Dawkins says this in episode one of his recently telivised series "The Genius of Charles Darwin". If you look at all wildlife you see that this is the case. We are all here because we are descendants of people who did not die before they managed to reproduce. Thus they were all "winners" in this basic sense. It is a chain that goes back to the very origins of life itself.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Yes, eugenics as it is defined in the article is socialistic, ergo it is insidious. Such a plan would only work if men were angels, but in practice it would be just another mechanism for totalitarianism.

As for those who would demonise 'greedy capitalism', let them live (or die) without its benefits.

Capitalism is imposing totalitarianism and the New World Order on us right now.

 

[Norsemaiden]

I suppose my big question is:

What is the source of information that says "conservatives who embrace Social Darwinism... are against eugenics"?

I don't see that eugenics is a particularly big concern for most people in America. I mean, eugenics seems to be almost universally frowned upon in this country. I don't hear many liberals speaking in favor of eugenics as a socialistic improvement.

I don't see that many capitalists would be against eugenics so much as they just wouldn't care about it. It doesn't apply to their economic ideals.

EDIT: I think this is a cool topic, I'm just trying to keep it going.

The conservative capitalist types who used Social Darwinism as an excuse for their psychopathic self-engradisement (ex Brit Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher for example) have always been keenly against eugenics. Eugenics is socialist. Dysgenics suits the capitalist because it is a great way to reduce dissidence, and make people slaves. Lower intelligence and ill health mean dependence upon the system, desire for mindless consumption, and a need for medication - all of which are chains that the intelligent and healthy can be free of.

 

[Blowtus]

Richard Dawkins says this in episode one of his recently telivised series "The Genius of Charles Darwin". If you look at all wildlife you see that this is the case. We are all here because we are descendants of people who did not die before they managed to reproduce. Thus they were all "winners" in this basic sense. It is a chain that goes back to the very origins of life itself.

Could be suggested that I am 'here' equally as much due to those who have not passed on their genes - does that make them 'winners' too?

 

[Fenrisúlfr]

Capitalism is imposing totalitarianism and the New World Order on us right now.

Prove it; capitalism and free markets by its nature a liberating mechanism driven by the creativity and profit-seeking mechanisms of the people, not by some tyrant, so this is non-sequitor.

 

[Einherjar86]

The conservative capitalist types who used Social Darwinism as an excuse for their psychopathic self-engradisement (ex Brit Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher for example) have always been keenly against eugenics. Eugenics is socialist. Dysgenics suits the capitalist because it is a great way to reduce dissidence, and make people slaves. Lower intelligence and ill health mean dependence upon the system, desire for mindless consumption, and a need for medication - all of which are chains that the intelligent and healthy can be free of.

I'm a supporter of capitalism, but this is an interesting idea that you raise. I'm not entirely sure I disagree with you, but I'm wondering: did you hear this in the Dawkins series as well? I only ask because, if most capitalists are against eugenics, I would think that it's more because they simply fear any controversy over the subject and so claim to be against it. Eugenics is often associated with Hitler and the Holocaust, and so I think a large number of people simply fear any discussion of the topic. I also find it odd that, if conservatism does not favor eugenics, why is it that Hitler's regime-the conservative version of Stalin's-utilized it as a method for its political beliefs?

 

[Blowtus]

NM - why the obsession with eugenics? Surely genetic engineering would be a better way of creating whatever you envisage as a 'good' human?

 

[Norsemaiden]

NM - why the obsession with eugenics? Surely genetic engineering would be a better way of creating whatever you envisage as a 'good' human?

What does genetic engineering entail? Scientists poking around with someone's genes at some stage of development, artifically altering them a gene here and a gene there. Wouldn't you feel artificial yourself? And whereas now you have all your DNA code in every cell of your body, would the genetically altered person have a different code (the real them) which did not reflect the person they had been tweaked into being?

A couple of other problems - briefly - genetic engineering is costly in time and expense while being unnecessary when mere good breeding would work. Here I must admit that things could get so bad with our dysgenics that we actually do seek a solution in such engineering.

There is scope for the altered/inserted genes to be copyrighted and sinister sci-fi scenarios of your very genetic makeup being the property of a corporation and you not being allowed to make copies of yourself (reproduce) and so on being a scary threat.

Then there is the fact that many genes have more than one effect in the body - many harmful diseases that are genetic have a flip side of being advantageous to survival under certain circumstances. Eg- sickle cell aneamea protects against malaria and diabetes is linked to surviving famines. So it is not a simple matter of taking out bad genes or inserting better ones.

Eugenics is holistic - the whole person is upgraded safely according to the natural order of what genes interract with other genes . There shouldn't be the same risk of becoming a corporate product.

I am in a hurry to write this - so apologies if I haven't gone into this as much as I could.

 

[razoredge]

genetically altered humans ? Oh how wonderful

 

[No-Mercy]

just as a small quick comment i thought of while reading this thread.

i do understand how one can argue that "survival of the fittest" is reproduction, not wealth, status, etc.
however, from what i understand its about species. we are all humans, so what does wealth and status as well as reproduction have to do with his theory?

humans are competeting against humans to be the most favoured species to survive, we all already are that species. im confused how this theory could be connected between members of the same species.

 

[Achtland]

genetically altered humans ? Oh how wonderful

Let's make all humans Finnish FTW

 

[Fenrisúlfr]

There are many birth defects and illnesses that may be eliminated through manipulation of the genetic code.

 

[Norsemaiden]

just as a small quick comment i thought of while reading this thread.

i do understand how one can argue that "survival of the fittest" is reproduction, not wealth, status, etc.
however, from what i understand its about species. we are all humans, so what does wealth and status as well as reproduction have to do with his theory?

humans are competeting against humans to be the most favoured species to survive, we all already are that species. im confused how this theory could be connected between members of the same species.

Check out the sub-title of Darwin's "Origin of the Species". I'll let you google for it.

Darwin agreed with others at the time that what we refer to as "races" amongst humans are in fact different species. And that makes sense because there is a lack of homogeneity amongst negroes that is far wider than you find amongst Nordics. So there are races within their species. We have had this debate before about whether species can crossbreed. You even get overlap areas where, for eg, one species of crow overlaps another's territory and there is interbreeding at the boundary. There are numerous examples of separate species that can and do crossbreed. So I agree a lot with the genetic diversity argument of those who point out that there is no black or white race as such, these terms are arbitrary and unscientific - but rather than saying "therefore race doesn't exist so we are all the same" the truth is that races haven't been properly classified (and are being blurred also) but that the Negro is a different species to the Nordic or South Asian, etc. We need $8 to be spent on sorting this muddle out.

Here's a Darwin quote:

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes ... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.

http://creationwiki.org/Darwin_himself_was_racist

IMO questions of "superiority" are totally pointless because each species is what it is and is perfect in its own way. It would be beneath any of us to revel in some perceived "superiority" to a horse, snail, cat or whatever. And so it should be regarding other human species. The snail, if it could think, would reasonably consider snails to be the best creature.