Social Darwinism: Why?

[Esotera]

The only solution is to take everyone who seriously believes in social Darwinism as an excuse, put them on a desert island, and watch nature do what it does best. The potential for irony is too great.

 

[Grygor]

Social Darwinism, for those who don't know, is the application of Darwin's "survival of the fittest" idea to everyday life. It's not a common label today because its ideas basically spawned countless atrocious and bigoted movements, including Nazism, but I see its principles applied EVERYWHERE, and every time I do, I can only ask "why?"

First off, there's the fact that "survival of the fittest" applies to entire species, NOT individuals. If one species of mouse is more able to hide from owls, that species is more likely to live and thrive than the others. That's it. That's the entire principle.

Actually no, "survival of the fittest" applies on the individual level.

"Species" as a term is just an abstraction, much like "language" - nature knows nothing of species, only individual genomes with varying reproductive compatibility with one another, and "species" is just a convenient (though often incomplete) label that refers to clusters of genomes that are able to reproduce with one another. (Just like "language" is just a convenient label for a cluster of idiolects - individual speaking patterns - that are mutually intelligible.)

And just like individual speakers are mutually intelligible to varying degrees, individual genomes are reproductively compatible to varying degrees.



"Social Darwarnism", as initially conceived, was the idea, popular among late 19th and early 20th century progressives, that the human species could be improved (primarily in intellect and health) by undertaking a course of selective breeding - much like we do with domesticated animals - that entailed, among other things, the forced sterilization (and, in extreme cases, execution) of people deemed "undesirable".

"Social Darwinism" was based on the belief that evolution operated via group selection - as an ideology, it had no respect whatsoever for the individual, and in fact called upon the individual to subordinate their personal desires to those of the species as a whole. It was discredited by the end of World War 2.

"Social Darwinism" today is just a term of abuse used by modern progressives to disparage ideas that, at the simplest level of analysis, appear to hurt some favored constituency or other, allowing them to dismiss such ideas without having to engage them intellectually. In other words, a strawman.

 

[Aurgelmir]

First off, there's the fact that "survival of the fittest" applies to entire species, NOT individuals. If one species of mouse is more able to hide from owls, that species is more likely to live and thrive than the others. That's it. That's the entire principle.

Actually you are a bit wrong there. "Survival of the fittest" explains how favorable traits become the dominant traits within a species.
Let's take your mouse VS owl example:

The species of mouse can have two colors of fur. Dark or light.
Since this type of mouse lives where there is no snow, the mouse with the lighter fur gets generally eaten by owls MORE than the dark furred ones, because they are easier to see.

This means that over time the dark haired mice live longer, procreate more and their dark fur is passed on more frequent. Where as the white fur will slowly disappear from the area.

In an area where there is a lot of snow, the same species of mouse will probably have lighter colored fur, because the dark fur make them easier to spot in the snow. This is probably why a a lot of animals have a summer and winter fur. Because the animals that would get a lighter fur during winter and darker fur during summer was more likely to survive, and procreate.


Although I agree with your argument, I think you're viewing Darwinism wrong. If the traits you explain are traits that will let you survive longer, and have a higher chance of attracting a mate (Which Darwin explained as "Survival of the sexes") then that is traits we can pass on to the next generation. Where as people without these traits will procreate less.

So yeah that jerks use of "survival of the fittest" is just a jerks argument, and not social Darwinism, unless he use the term when he steals your girlfriend

TLR

OPs definition of Darwinism isn't completely correct, but his arguments are still good.

 

[Daveman]

The most annoying is the confusion that "fittest" refers to physical fitness. It's just means "survival of the most able to survive", once upon a time that may have referred to physical fitness (though bigger, leaner guys tend to eat more and not put that into storage as fat and so are more likely to starve in a food shortage than fat guys and small guys) but now it doesn't. We don't have to fight for our lives much any more, so their attribute is obsolete.

 

[Bertylicious]

I ain't got much in the way of a fancy edumacation on such matters of philosophy or ethics but I seem to recall some dude in Far Cry 2 quoting Nietzsche's bit about "will to power". Might makes right and all that. Now Surely, I can't be totally confident as I ain't a person of thought, but it seems to me that a fundamental part of life is taking oppurtunities & competition. That if you don't do this then what you've got is stagnation. It also seems not unreasonable that these oppurtunities might come at the expense of others.

Now I know there was that big cat fella from Wing Commander 3 who made that whole counterpoint about a life where one fucks over others as being "ugly, brutish, and short" but when applied into the wider social context I reckon the two ideas actually complement each other. Some parts of humanity will seize oppurtunities and drive progress, short term gain, whilst others will seek to care for others and create a viable structure for people to live, long term gain.

So yeah. Not to sure that a future where everyone goes around in flowing white robes talking with cotton wool care is going to be a utopia, unless your idea of utopia is on a par with a silent libary. I totally agree though that people who use terms like "social darwanism" should stop trying to pussy up their sentiment and just say "I fuck people over because I can" as that'd be more honest.

 

[floppylobster]

First off, there's the fact that "survival of the fittest" applies to entire species, NOT individuals. If one species of mouse is more able to hide from owls, that species is more likely to live and thrive than the others. That's it. That's the entire principle.

Firstly, I agree. 'Survival of the fittest' is survival of who 'fits' not 'who has been to the gym and gotten the most fit' as it is often misinterpreted. And, unlike many people, I have actually read The Origin of the Species from cover to cover. However, I would like to point out one thing - Individuals that survive because they act differently, and differently to others in their species, can sometimes survive; and their offspring, who may also act as they did, may eventually, many generations later, be classed as a different species. So while survival of the fittest applies to entire species - it is the individuals, (particularly those who are different from the others of their species), that eventually create new species. So in a round about way, survival of the fittest does actually apply to every living thing (though it is best thought of in general terms of species).

(you can tell I've read Origin of the Species by my long sentences with too many commas).

 

[BENZOOKA]

Couple of real quality posts here.

But I don't see the OP's examples as a demonstration of a "survival of the fittest" -mentality. It's rather an immensely complex mixture of ambition, morale, empathy, (social) survivalism and different social workings.

 

[Agayek]

ok...I think I read somwhere that "survival of the fittest" is kind of a gross simplification of the Evlution thing...

....in other words an excuse for peopel to be dicks

EDIT: doesnt it actually mean "having traits that are most usefel to our environemnt"? because if you think about it "survival of the fittest" applys less thease days, youve got to be smarter than dumb, and able to adapt to things like technology

More or less. It's really complex, but the core concept is that the traits which best enable a species to continue propagating the species are the ones that will continue as the strongest. "Survival of the fittest" is a gross oversimplification of the concept, but it is technically accurate.

Yet people use survival of the fittest quite often as an excuse to be an asshole. They use it to justify taking advantage of those less fortunate ("I worked hard to be rich, obviously the poor haven't worked as hard as I did or they'd be rich too! Survival of the fittest!"), to justify doing downright dirty things to "win" ("I could have told Steve they bumped up the due date of the project so he wouldn't get fired, but now I'm getting his office! Survival of the fittest!") or just to be a bully ("Hey, if this nerd spent less time on his computer and more time at the gym, I wouldn't be able to shove him in his locker every day! Survival of the fittest!"). And of course, whenever someone says that, people often find it difficult to come up with a good counterpoint.

That's not social darwinism. That's a bad attempt at justification for being a dick. Real social darwinism is not "fuck yall, it's mine". It's "I got mine, you get yours". In short, the concept of social darwinism is to let natural selection eliminate those who can't deal with the current society. Typically, this means the poor. The core concept is to do nothing to help, and if they die, then the society as a whole is stronger for it since the "weak" are now dead.

Cooperation. Teamwork. Kindness. Peace. These things will allow a species a much greater chance at surviving than any brutal, dirty, or cowardly method. Don't get me wrong either, humans are actually VERY good at these things, at least inside their own social groups.

Actually, Kindness and Peace very, very, very rarely allow a species a much greater chance at survival. Nature is not a nice place, and it's generally the mean motherfuckers that survive it (read: this is why humanity rules the world). There is no good or evil involved in it.

Cooperation/Teamwork is quite a useful tool for surviving though, at least for humans. The problem is, once people start cooperating, it becomes much easier for one person to survive by taking advantage of the rest who are cooperating. That's why the trait for it is still around.

Morality is a human invention, and the only reason it exists is because we have sufficiently conquered our world that we have the time to contemplate these things.

I just can't stand it when assholes pervert the most basic idea in nature and act like being nice makes you a "freak of nature." The only freaks of nature here are people who don't understand that we'll always achieve more working together than any individual, no matter how "fit," could.

And you, individually, will always achieve more by working with other people and then taking the result for your own afterwards.

Also, it sounds like you got picked on a bunch and were told "survival of the fittest" as the reason and now you're ranting about it, despite the fact that neither you nor whoever said it fully understands the concept.

 

[Aurgelmir]

The only solution is to take everyone who seriously believes in social Darwinism as an excuse, put them on a desert island, and watch nature do what it does best. The potential for irony is too great.

That would have very little to do with social or normal Darwinism though. Since "survival of the fittest" has nothing to do about small groups of people surviving in a place they are not meant to be. And unless the people on this Desert(ed) island were a large enough group they would probably all die.
But Darwinism is about evolution. And if you have a large enoug selection of people, that is allowed to procreate and therefore reproduce you will probably see that the people that have traits that let's them survive on a desert(ed) island live longer, and pass on their traits.

Social Darwinism is about taking what we know from Darwinism and applying it to society. Often though it has been used by elitist people, so it has a stigma to it.
But the idea is to let people with favorable traits procreate, while less favorable traits are not allowed to procreate, which theoretically should mean we will get a stronger gene-pool.
Problem is that historically "favorable traits" have not always been the traits that strengthens survivebility, but rather the traits the elite like. Look at the Nazis and their Atians...

But you could argue that modern medicine is screwing up with the evolution of humans. If a child was born with a terminal decease 100 years ago, that child would probably die young, never able to reproduce, and in turn not pass on the decease. But today we might be able to cure that decease, and let the child live a next to normal life, and the decease lives on.
A Social Darwinist would argue that the child not be allowed to have children, so that we could weed out the decease from the human gene-pool and become stronger.

 

[Esotera]

The only solution is to take everyone who seriously believes in social Darwinism as an excuse, put them on a desert island, and watch nature do what it does best. The potential for irony is too great.

That would have very little to do with social or normal Darwinism though. Since "survival of the fittest" has nothing to do about small groups of people surviving in a place they are not meant to be. And unless the people on this Desert(ed) island were a large enough group they would probably all die.

That was my point...a lot of people in the financial sector use social darwinism as an excuse to screw over others, and I think it'd be amusing to introduce them to actual Darwinism this way. Very few of them would survive, if any, but that's still natural selection at work as it's selecting whoever is best adapted to an environment. There wasn't any serious science behind it or anything, just a daydream.

 

[Aurgelmir]

The only solution is to take everyone who seriously believes in social Darwinism as an excuse, put them on a desert island, and watch nature do what it does best. The potential for irony is too great.

That would have very little to do with social or normal Darwinism though. Since "survival of the fittest" has nothing to do about small groups of people surviving in a place they are not meant to be. And unless the people on this Desert(ed) island were a large enough group they would probably all die.

That was my point...a lot of people in the financial sector use social darwinism as an excuse to screw over others, and I think it'd be amusing to introduce them to actual Darwinism this way. Very few of them would survive, if any, but that's still natural selection at work as it's selecting whoever is best adapted to an environment. There wasn't any serious science behind it or anything, just a daydream.

Hehe of course. Still though those finance douches don't grasp what Darwinism is, so it's probably not right to say that they use social darwinism as an excuse. What they use is a bastardization of the Darwinian terms.
Much like how the TV show "Big Brother" bastardized the term "Big Brother Sees you" not understanding what 1984 is all about.

 

[SciMal]

Social Darwinism, for those who don't know, is the application of Darwin's "survival of the fittest" idea to everyday life. It's not a common label today because its ideas basically spawned countless atrocious and bigoted movements, including Nazism, but I see its principles applied EVERYWHERE, and every time I do, I can only ask "why?"

Because the basic of Evolution by Natural Selection are pretty profuse throughout everyday life, even if it's not explicitly made to imitate it.

First off, there's the fact that "survival of the fittest" applies to entire species, NOT individuals. If one species of mouse is more able to hide from owls, that species is more likely to live and thrive than the others. That's it. That's the entire principle.

Well, no, you got that wrong.

Natural Selection acts on individuals in a population, selecting for traits which allow the better exploitation of resources from the environment and an increase in fecundity. Over time this can result in new species, but Natural Selection only acts on individuals.

Yet people use survival of the fittest quite often as an excuse to be an asshole. They use it to justify taking advantage of those less fortunate ("I worked hard to be rich, obviously the poor haven't worked as hard as I did or they'd be rich too! Survival of the fittest!"), to justify doing downright dirty things to "win" ("I could have told Steve they bumped up the due date of the project so he wouldn't get fired, but now I'm getting his office! Survival of the fittest!") or just to be a bully ("Hey, if this nerd spent less time on his computer and more time at the gym, I wouldn't be able to shove him in his locker every day! Survival of the fittest!"). And of course, whenever someone says that, people often find it difficult to come up with a good counterpoint.

Assholes don't need an excuse to be assholes. That's why they're assholes. If they had a good excuse, you'd be able to understand their actions.

These people couldn't be more wrong if their feet grew out of their head! Going back to my species example, if one species of owl is much more adapt at cooperating with each other to catch delicious mice, that species is more likely to live and thrive than the others.

Unfortunately your example was the product of an incorrect understanding.

Cooperation. Teamwork. Kindness. Peace. These things will allow a species a much greater chance at surviving than any brutal, dirty, or cowardly method.

Not necessarily. If resources can only support 3 of a species, 4 working together still results in the death of one, and may result in the death of the others depending on how they divided the resources.

You're not thinking in Evolutionary terms. The more resources you can horde for yourself, with a few exceptions, the better because it allows you to have more offspring (and pass your successful genes on more so than others).

Unless it increases your Fitness (that is, the number of surviving offspring you produce), it's not going to be favored. Teamwork is great - up until another male impregnates a female you could have, reducing your fitness. Cooperation is fantastic - until there's only enough food for one of you. Peace, as the ceasing of violent behaviors, will simply never happen as long as resources are finite.

Don't get me wrong either, humans are actually VERY good at these things, at least inside their own social groups. I just can't stand it when assholes pervert the most basic idea in nature and act like being nice makes you a "freak of nature." The only freaks of nature here are people who don't understand that we'll always achieve more working together than any individual, no matter how "fit," could.

Nature doesn't really care what we "achieve." It cares what survives to reproduce. To humans, Mother Teresa (sp?) was a wonderful person who took great burdens upon herself to help the needy and unfortunate. A true testament to human willpower and our capability for kindness.

To Evolution she had a fitness of 0. She didn't have any kids, so if her kindness was in any way genetic, it's now gone.

So to those on this site who may find themselves, even only occasionally, thinking that survival of the fittest is an appropriate line of thought when dealing with things in your life, I humbly ask you to take a step back and reevaluate that.

You need to have a much better working knowledge of that, first. Your definition is flawed, and nothing is as simple as you make it seem here.

 

[floppylobster]

Just to simplify one of the general misinterpretations that has happened at various periods of history over the years (including the 80s Wall Street mentality) - there are some people who read 'survival of the fittest' as 'strongest' or 'only the strong survive' (and then used that as a justification to bully, kill, or cause general grief to others). But as any virus, flea, fly, bird, butterfly, or worm will tell to you, or to any lion, bear, shark, or dinosaur, this is not always the case.

 

[Xanadu84]

"Survival of the fittest" you say? Would you kindly explain the existance of the human race.

"In the struggle for survival, the fittest win out at the expense of their rivals because they succeed in adapting themselves best to their environment."

Humans have not only adapted, but they have adapted the totalitarity of the enviornment around them in breathtaking fashion. Fittest does not mean strongest, toughest, or most badass. Its an ability to find a niche and thrive in that niche even in the face of change.

Also, there's the way that humans are sort of on another stage of evolution then animals. No longer are we limited to the horrifically inefficient system of rational self interest only. Evolution through selfish, animal motivation may work as the social darwinists claim, but only over the course of eons with momentous and unnecessary waste and suffering. Nowadays, we leave a legacy as powerful as genetic determinism, capable of adapting and growing infinitely faster, to say nothing of direct genetic alteration.

 

[ShadowsofHope]

The only solution is to take everyone who seriously believes in social Darwinism as an excuse, put them on a desert island, and watch nature do what it does best. The potential for irony is too great.

That would have very little to do with social or normal Darwinism though. Since "survival of the fittest" has nothing to do about small groups of people surviving in a place they are not meant to be. And unless the people on this Desert(ed) island were a large enough group they would probably all die.
But Darwinism is about evolution. And if you have a large enoug selection of people, that is allowed to procreate and therefore reproduce you will probably see that the people that have traits that let's them survive on a desert(ed) island live longer, and pass on their traits.

Social Darwinism is about taking what we know from Darwinism and applying it to society. Often though it has been used by elitist people, so it has a stigma to it.
But the idea is to let people with favorable traits procreate, while less favorable traits are not allowed to procreate, which theoretically should mean we will get a stronger gene-pool.
Problem is that historically "favorable traits" have not always been the traits that strengthens survivebility, but rather the traits the elite like. Look at the Nazis and their Atians...

But you could argue that modern medicine is screwing up with the evolution of humans. If a child was born with a terminal decease 100 years ago, that child would probably die young, never able to reproduce, and in turn not pass on the decease. But today we might be able to cure that decease, and let the child live a next to normal life, and the decease lives on.
A Social Darwinist would argue that the child not be allowed to have children, so that we could weed out the decease from the human gene-pool and become stronger.

However, a strong advocator of the process of adaptation in terms of Evolutionary theory would argue that attempting to control breeding in order to try and ensure that no one with any "negative" genetic traits/diseases survives past the womb or even initial fertilization could also make the human gene-pool weaker in the long term due to denying the body the opportunity to grow, interact and attempt to resist the deficiency in which the individual is born with, so that in the future we would be more naturally resistant to the deficiency when it occurs.

If we simply eliminate the disease wherever we see it, and never allow humanity to adapt to it's environment instead of completely forcing the environment to adapt to our comforts, that deficiency could most definitely become more potent as it evolves in the future and be an even greater threat for us, at a peak where our bodies have not had a chance to become familiar with the trait and develop resistances against it.

Not to say that eliminating diseases is not a noble venture to pursue, or even to attain in our lifetimes at some point, but sometimes it is better to actually deal with both of our positive and negative traits to the best of both worlds, rather than trying to ignore one or the other and placing too much comfort in the remaining trait. Not to mention that these diseases/deficiencies may act/react differently in non-Earth environments..

 

[Happy_Mutant]

Cooperation. Teamwork. Kindness. Peace. These things will allow a species a much greater chance at surviving than any brutal, dirty, or cowardly method.

In today's culture, anyone who tries to apply these ideals to society is called a communist. It's entirely inaccurate, of course, but powerful people have an interest in marginalizing everyone who questions radical capitalism. I know you're not talking politics, but that's where this cultural trend started. As people grew to accept the economic arguments for social darwinism, it just leaked out into all aspects of life. I don't see it changing anytime soon either.

 

[Kordie]

First off, there's the fact that "survival of the fittest" applies to entire species, NOT individuals. If one species of mouse is more able to hide from owls, that species is more likely to live and thrive than the others. That's it. That's the entire principle.

Firstly, I agree. 'Survival of the fittest' is survival of who 'fits' not 'who has been to the gym and gotten the most fit' as it is often misinterpreted. And, unlike many people, I have actually read The Origin of the Species from cover to cover. However, I would like to point out one thing - Individuals that survive because they act differently, and differently to others in their species, can sometimes survive; and their offspring, who may also act as they did, may eventually, many generations later, be classed as a different species. So while survival of the fittest applies to entire species - it is the individuals, (particularly those who are different from the others of their species), that eventually create new species. So in a round about way, survival of the fittest does actually apply to every living thing (though it is best thought of in general terms of species).

(you can tell I've read Origin of the Species by my long sentences with too many commas).

I could reinforce this point with your mouse and owl example again. You illustrate how an outside predator can make a trait less fitting for a species (i.e. fur colour standing out from the surroundings). The other side is developing traits that are more suitable to the surroundings. If through random chance a single mouse had the ability to see an owl coming from further away, it would give the mouse the ability to run before being eaten. This would make the fur colour moot as the mouse has a new survival method (evading instead of camoflauge). The individual mouse has a favourable trait that can be passed on and possibly create a new species of mice who favour evading their prey over blending in. This would continue up to the point that a new factor is introduced, in the same way that owls being introduced to the environment made camoflauge a favorable trait.

TL;DR Basically two aspects at work, evolving new traits which begins at an individual level, and selection of traits which affects a species.

 

[EclipseoftheDarkSun]

I dont buy the "real you" crap

what makes up all of a person is all kinds of different things, not just when they are at their nicest or meanest

although we all have good/bad tendencies you can;t presume to tell others how they really are, Only I know me

The irony is that our conscious mind may know us best, but still doesn't really know us completely, given that most of what we do is semi/subconscious at best.

 

[Yearlongjester]

I think it's more about making sure your genes are carried on. As Humans we are social creatures, and if we are more socially acceptable then we'll be able to "Pass on" our genetic code.

Doesn't excuse asshats, but there is some logic to the idea. That's ultimately what evolution is, mutating and adapting to different circumstances, so you have the greatest chance of survival. If this adaptation is optimal it will, over the course of a few generations, become a part of the entire species. Think Polar Bears.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Social Darwinists tend to forget that human beings are social creatures. I have also yet to see one produce anything of value without significant help from the rest of society.