[_ Old Earth _] social darwinism

[jasoncran]

is this still being done today, even in western cultures?

 

[Pard]

First, just to clarify, are we talking about social Darwinism as it pertains to eugenics and man-driven natural selection?

 

[jasoncran]

First, just to clarify, are we talking about social Darwinism as it pertains to eugenics and man-driven natural selection?

all forms as that book mentions it, but i didnt get to that part, and i know that men want to make a perfect man. think the eugenics wars on star trek. and Khan.

 

[Pard]

First, just to clarify, are we talking about social Darwinism as it pertains to eugenics and man-driven natural selection?

all forms as that book mentions it, but i didnt get to that part, and i know that men want to make a perfect man. think the eugenics wars on star trek. and Khan.

I just wonder because the social Dawrinism, as theorized by Herbet Spencer, applied to so many aspects of society it would be nearly impossible to discussed this with any hint of organization! He wrote about four or five books on the matter. We took an entire semester just to discuss the major features of Spencer's theory.

 

[jasoncran]

the book i am refering to is what darwin got wrong, and maybe they mentioned as something that was foolish endeavor. the book is at work and i will look through it to see.

 

[Evointrinsic]

Social Darwinism is very loosely based on Darwin's theory of natural selection. Herbert Spencer promoted with the idea of Social Darwinism, however, states that of those with economic, technological or physical power will flourish and those without are destined for extinction. Darwin's idea of Natural selection is quite a bit different. It states that those that are most suited to their environment will outlive the organisms that are less suited.

Darwin also didn't relate his theories to an economic level, nor are there any credible biologists that would accept Social Darwinism.

I cannot say for sure if there are people who still follow Social Darwinism, i'm sure there are a few (as there is with everything really). But it really doesn't have a relation to Natural Selection that Darwin theorized.

EDIT: In case you dont see my other post, I am curious to know if you (Jason... well Pard too I suppose) have read Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species"?

 

[jasoncran]

i have not, and i'm not implying that darwin approve of that type, but i will see what the book i'm reading says on it and why.

i think there's a neoeugenics movement.

 

[Barbarian]

The idea of social Darwinism is the flawed misunderstanding that evolution is a good thing for humans. As humans are social animals, unrestricted Darwinian competition would be harmful to our society and our survival as a species. This is why such societies, where they have existed, have not lasted very long.

And Darwinians like Darwin, Punnett and Morgan pointed out that the very premise of social Darwinism is flawed; it's not only an "overwhelming evil" (Darwin's words); it's also destined to fail.

 

[Evointrinsic]

i have not, and i'm not implying that darwin approve of that type, but i will see what the book i'm reading says on it and why.

i think there's a neoeugenics movement.

I know you weren't, I was just giving some added information not everyone knows the Social Darwinism is

I find it a little worrisome, however, that you decided to read a book that's supposed to refute another book(/theory) without reading the original book beforehand. That's how mixed messages come about because most people will base what is correct as what they read in the first source of information, and then read the original and say "no, that's not how it goes, this other source says so". Let's take the bible for example, If I wanted a unbiased view of it, i'm not going to read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins, before reading the bible. Perhaps after I might, but it seems rather silly to do the opposite.

 

[Bronzesnake]

Darwinian evolution legitimises things like abortion and euthanasia.
Survival of the fittest, and if there’s no God then as long as the laws of man based on evolutionary concepts say it’s ok, then go ahead and kill babies in the womb.
Especially if they’re not “right†you know mentally and physically not up to par.

Hey, let’s kill old people to, especially the ones who are confined to beds and can’t even get up to the toilet.They don’t contribute anything meaningful to society right?
Let's kill all the Terry Schiavos also. She couldn't speak and so it was very easy to convince people that she wanted to die.

Hey let’s kill babies who actually have been annoying enough to have been born with serious troubling medical conditions.
Ya, they don’t really have a say, but we know what we’re doing after all there’s no God and Darwin would approve!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7322520.stm
Euthanasia of new-borns and late abortions is illegal in the Netherlands, but a commission was set up to examine whether or not to regulate the practice of ending the lives of new-born babies classed as "seriously suffering".
[url="http://content.nejm.org/cgi/.../content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/352/10/959[/url]
Of the 200,000 children born in the Netherlands every year, about 1000 die during the first year of life. For approximately 600 of these infants, death is preceded by a medical decision regarding the end of life. Discussions about the initiation and continuation of treatment in newborns with serious medical conditions are one of the most difficult aspects of paediatric practice. Although technological developments have provided tools for dealing with many consequences of congenital anomalies and premature birth, decisions regarding when to start and when to withhold treatment in individual cases remain very difficult to make. Even more difficult are the decisions regarding newborns who have serious disorders or deformities associated with suffering that cannot be alleviated and for whom there is no hope of improvement.

This is all a direct result of social Darwinism whether you like it or not.
When we ascribe to a theory, or more like an idea, that there is no God and no moral boundaries besides those of whoever happens to be wearing the crown at the moment, then improvable ideas such as Darwin’s evolution become the guide post of “civilizationâ€.

Hey, we’re just animals right? They shoot horses right? Hey, we put our dog down last year and we love our children almost as much as we loved that dog, so it’s only logical that we should afford our children the same love and respect and kill them when they’re sick or deformed or not mentally right.

Bronzesnake

 

[Evointrinsic]

Darwinian evolution legitimises things like abortion and euthanasia.

heh.. ahha... AHHAHHAHAHAHA!!!! wow... yes, just like the bible legitimizes child murder, mass genocide and slavery. *sarcasm*

You have a very mess up view of The theory of evolution.

If you haven't noticed, Abortions can be had by anyone for any reason, it sure isn't to "weed out the weak". This is a ridiculous statement.

Survival of the fittest, and if there’s no God then as long as the laws of man based on evolutionary concepts say it’s ok, then go ahead and kill babies in the womb.
Especially if they’re not “right†you know mentally and physically not up to par.

See, now this would be the view of social darwinism, which is completely different from The Theory Of Evolution. perhaps it's time you read the book that coined the idea before you attempt to refute it?

This is all a direct result of social Darwinism whether you like it or not.
When we ascribe to a theory, or more like an idea, that there is no God and no moral boundaries besides those of whoever happens to be wearing the crown at the moment, then improvable ideas such as Darwin’s evolution become the guide post of “civilizationâ€.

Yes, SOCIAL DARWINISM, not Darwins theory of evolution...

 

[Bronzesnake]

Hello Evo

If you haven't noticed, Abortions can be had by anyone for any reason, it sure isn't to "weed out the weak". This is a ridiculous statement.

I am not refuting anyone can have an abortion.
But do you actually believe anybody for any reason can have an abortion?
Also, you misinterpreted my post.
I never said abortion and euthanasia were to "weed out the weak"
Maybe if you tried comprehending instead of maniacal laughter you may not make as many blunders. :yes

See, now this would be the view of social darwinism, which is completely different from The Theory Of Evolution. perhaps it's time you read the book that coined the idea before you attempt to refute it?

First of all were you under the incorrect impression that I was refuting Darwinian evolution in this post?
Don’t you realise that social Darwinism comes from Darwinian evolution?
Didn’t you get a clue when the name “Darwin†was ascribed to both?

John

 

[Pard]

Have I read any of Darwin's books? To a minor extent, I have flipped through them, nothing more.

And yes, I know what social darwinism is, and that it isn't in any direct relations to the man known as Darwin, though I sometimes wonder how he would react to the idea (Spencer and Darwin lived at the same period, but I don't think Darwin ever commented on Spencer's work, as they were in two different fields of study).

I'd have to agree with Bronze, though. It seems to me that toe helps make such actions like eugenics seem more tolerable. (Not saying evolutionary scientists want this, just stating an apparent connection)

If you can chalk up everything to evolution, survival of the fittest, natural selection, (as evolution does) than one could make the argument that man has stopped nature from taking its course, and thus we should help it continue along its natural course by eliminating the weaker among us.

Again, just saying evolution helps make such ideas of social darwinism and eugenics more tolerable by people (though who would be able to tolerate eugenics? besides Hitler, Stalin, Thatcher, and a few others...)

 

[Evointrinsic]

If you haven't noticed, Abortions can be had by anyone for any reason, it sure isn't to "weed out the weak". This is a ridiculous statement.

I am not refuting anyone can have an abortion.
But do you actually believe anybody for any reason can have an abortion?
Also, you misinterpreted my post.
I never said abortion and euthanasia were to "weed out the weak"
Maybe if you tried comprehending instead of maniacal laughter you may not make as many blunders.

I am not saying those people are making the correct choice am I? I am saying that anyone can have an abortion, regardless of their reason for having one. Because this isn't "weeding out the weak" this has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution.

See, now this would be the view of social darwinism, which is completely different from The Theory Of Evolution. perhaps it's time you read the book that coined the idea before you attempt to refute it?

First of all were you under the incorrect impression that I was refuting Darwinian evolution in this post?

Hmm, let's see what the very first words are that you said

"Darwinian evolution legitimises things like abortion and euthanasia."

The only time in your post that you ever brought up "this is Social Darwinism" is the very last sentence. Otherwise you make it seem as if Darwin's theory of evolution legitimizes (insert ridiculous claims here).

Don’t you realise that social Darwinism comes from Darwinian evolution?

Yes, Just as Satanism derives from your religion. But guess what! Do they mean the same thing? no! do they even represent roughly the same views? absolutely not! Same goes for Social Darwinism and Darwin's Theory Of Evolution.

Your logic is outstandingly fallacious.



Pard: Just curious

I can assure you that eugenics plays no role in The Theory Of Evolution. Social darwinism, yes, but Evolution is just a description. It doesn't focus on humanity or social/economic structure.

If you can chalk up everything to evolution, survival of the fittest, natural selection, (as evolution does) than one could make the argument that man has stopped nature from taking its course, and thus we should help it continue along its natural course by eliminating the weaker among us.

I'd like you to make that argument in another topic actually, it would be an interesting thing to debate about. I won't go further into it here, though although i do have an counter argument for you ;)

Again, just saying evolution helps make such ideas of social darwinism and eugenics more tolerable by people (though who would be able to tolerate eugenics? besides Hitler, Stalin, Thatcher, and a few others...)

If someone took read into the bible and concluded that God is a narcissistic, racist, egotistical and irresponsible child, you'd say they are dead wrong (i would assume). That is how social Darwinism represents Darwin's Theory of Evolution. It simply is a terrible misconceived version of what the original actually is.

 

[Pard]

Evo. I know that. I just said that the toe makes eugenics and such more palatable, because someone could just say "Killing humans? No, we are doing what nature wants us to do. Have not you heard of the theory of evolution?" I know this happens... its in Thatcher's book (read it)

 

[jasoncran]

this argument almost sounds like the anti-gun crowd. there would a lot less violence if guns werent around.

 

[Pard]

this argument almost sounds like the anti-gun crowd. there would a lot less violence if guns werent around.

Don't see were you are going, sorry.

 

[jasoncran]

this argument almost sounds like the anti-gun crowd. there would a lot less violence if guns werent around.

Don't see were you are going, sorry.

i see your point, but your thinking is like this, if evolution wasnt around we wouldnt have the eugenics, and abortions and so on.

i do agree that the toe makes it easier to justify that stuff, as the founder of pp did want to wipe out the blacks and hispanics and viola they get the most abortions in america.

evolution is tool or rather justification for some to do evil. see nature does it and we believe in natural selection! is their cry.

but even if the toe wasnt around men would still do these things.

 

[Pard]

this argument almost sounds like the anti-gun crowd. there would a lot less violence if guns werent around.

Don't see were you are going, sorry.

i see your point, but your thinking is like this, if evolution wasnt around we wouldnt have the eugenics, and abortions and so on.

i do agree that the toe makes it easier to justify that stuff, as the founder of pp did want to wipe out the blacks and hispanics and viola they get the most abortions in america.

evolution is tool or rather justification for some to do evil. see nature does it and we believe in natural selection! is their cry.

but even if the toe wasnt around men would still do these things.

Reading me wrong, Jason. I am not saying it like that at all. I simply mean that evolution makes eugenics more palatable, which you agreed to. Spencer wrote his book on eugenics and such BEFORE Darwin wrote his book on evolution... It would be moot of me to even try to argue that point!

 

[jasoncran]

ah so your postulating that darwin was part of the system.

hmm interesting.