Do you believe in Social Darwinism? (with poll)

[Infohawk]

I'm curious how many P&Ners subscribe to Social Darwinism. An exact definition is problematic but let's say generally that Social Darwinism says that people who do well economically are more fit and deserving of survival and that it makes no sense to help those who are poor and therefore less fit. If you support it but have a different definition, let's hear it.

Edit: And if you believe in Social Darwinism, support your position because the standard view is that it is a discredited position.

 

[Craig234]

'Doesn't make sense' is not a good phrase for the opposing view.

'Are you for abortion rights, or they don't make sense?'

 

[UberNeuman]

um... smells of Ayn Rand.... and in the bitter end... she drew off of guv'ment benefits....

 

[Infohawk]

'Doesn't make sense' is not a good phrase for the opposing view.

'Are you for abortion rights, or they don't make sense?'

Don't overthink it. Do you believe in social darwinism or not?

 

[Craig234]

um... smells of Ayn Rand.... and in the bitter end... she drew off of guv'ment benefits....

Hypocrisy is the least of her wrongs.

If she had not, it wouldn't change about anything.

 

[cybrsage]

The people, not the government, should take care of each other. Social Darwinism (if defined as the OP said), makes us worse than many of the animals out in the wild.

The best acts of charity are those done to people who can probably never repay you. The highest act of charity is that which is done for the dead...for they can never repay you.

 

[UberNeuman]

Hypocrisy is the least of her wrongs.

If she had not, it wouldn't change about anything.

Well, she is the mother of "trickle down". The hypocrisy is just icing on the cake..

 

[woolfe9999]

Social Darwinism is pseudo-science. Darwin himself disclaimed it, or what passed for it at the time (Spencer).

 

[hal2kilo]

There's amble evidence of animals cooperating for the common survival of their species. It's really not all Dog eat Dog.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Social Darwinism doesn't really happen because humans intervene in the process to prevent it.

 

[hal2kilo]

Social Darwinism doesn't really happen because humans intervene in the process to prevent it.

Yea, that damn thing called love keeps getting in the way.

 

[Infohawk]

Social Darwinism doesn't really happen because humans intervene in the process to prevent it.

Would you prefer they didn't intervene?

My problem with social darwinism is that it acts like rich people are winning all on their own or that they can do it without others. I'm not so sure Bill Gates would have been as successful as he was if we were all living off the land or without a government. He'd probably be an average nerd potentially being hassled by bigger douchebags if we were in a "state of nature." Without government there'd be no stability to allow him to develop a business empire.

So to directly answer your post I don't think you can really say what would happen if humans didn't "intervene."

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Would you prefer they didn't intervene?

My problem with social darwinism is that it acts like rich people are winning all on their own or that they can do it without others. I'm not so sure Bill Gates would have been as successful as he was if we were all living off the land or without a government. He'd probably be an average nerd potentially being hassled by bigger douchebags if we were in a "state of nature." Without government there'd be no stability to allow him to develop a business empire.

So to directly answer your post I don't think you can really say what would happen if humans didn't "intervene."

My statement was clinical and based on what is, not what ifs. If the situation were different then of course different rules would apply.

As far as humans intervening, I'm somewhat torn. There are success stories everywhere in the world whether it involves places that intervene highly or places that intervene little or not at all. Are those who succeed with no help more fit than those who succeed with a little or a lot of help?

 

[Infohawk]

Are those who succeed with no help more fit than those who succeed with a little or a lot of help?

How do you measure success? Making a lot of money?

In any case, not always. You could have the fittest lion be inured by a meteor. You could have the fittest people be taken injured by an earthquake. Life has a lot of uncertainty in it. In order to think that the outcomes reflect the genes you have to account for all the factors the universe throws at people, which we aren't really good at doing yet.

 

[hal2kilo]

How do you measure success? Making a lot of money?

In any case, not always. You could have the fittest lion be inured by a meteor. You could have the fittest people be taken injured by an earthquake. Life has a lot of uncertainty in it. In order to think that the outcomes reflect the genes you have to account for all the factors the universe throws at people, which we aren't really good at doing yet.

For righties how much money you have in the bank = inteligence or how loudly you wear your religion on your sleve.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

How do you measure success? Making a lot of money?

Success is for whenever people feel they are living well and happy. That may involve money for many. For others, not so much.

In any case, not always. You could have the fittest lion be inured by a meteor. You could have the fittest people be taken injured by an earthquake. Life has a lot of uncertainty in it. In order to think that the outcomes reflect the genes you have to account for all the factors the universe throws at people, which we aren't really good at doing yet.

If a massive impact happens then this entire discussion is moot in the first place since everyone is pretty much fucked. Again though, you're bringing in what ifs, not what is.

 

[Infohawk]

Success is for whenever people feel they are living well and happy.

So it's subjective? In that case Social Darwinism doesn't have much purpose. You could have a poor welfare queen be the pinnacle of fitness according to that definition.

If a massive impact happens then this entire discussion is moot in the first place since everyone is pretty much fucked. Again though, you're bringing in what ifs, not what is.

I meant a small celestial object. These things do happen. Completely random and unpredictable for a given person.

It seems like you're the kind of person that looks at the top mutual fund managers in a given year and says "those are the fittest" when in reality there's huge amount of luck involved. I'm not talking about what-ifs. I'm talking about the uncertainties and complexities that actually exist in our world.

Again, the problem with Social Darwinism is that it ignores randomness and luck and tries to oversimplify the world in order to pick winners and losers.

 

[JSt0rm]

Well 2 people have voted that they believe it's best but haven't come out to show why so they fail.

 

[monovillage]

I'm not a social Darwinist, like so many sociological theories it has a kernel of accuracy that's been stretched and distorted to support a political agenda.

or from wikipedia :
"The term "social darwinism" has rarely been used by advocates of the supposed ideologies or ideas; instead it has almost always been used (pejoratively) by its opponents."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

 

[DaveSimmons]

Since I buy toys for kids I'll never meet I probably don't believe in it

> Social Darwinism says that people who do well economically are more fit and deserving of survival

I somewhat agree with this if you add a mountain of caveats. In a given class, working from roughly the same starting point, if someone is more successful by some measure then in that limited sense they are more fit than their peers.

But someone who started out with less opportunities might have had greater potential, and might expend more effort to attain a lower level of success. They might be more "worthy" even at that lower level.

> ... and that it makes no sense to help those who are poor and therefore less fit.

I do believe in "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," and taking from the successful (myself included) to help give the less fortunate a hand with things like subsidized college education.

For generation living on welfare who have given up and settled into comfortable failure I can see ending that and making them do something for their keep. Give them a choice of getting a job or being sent to work camps to pick apples or make iPods.

 

[sandorski]

I'm not a social Darwinist, like so many sociological theories it has a kernel of accuracy that's been stretched and distorted to support a political agenda.

or from wikipedia :
"The term "social darwinism" has rarely been used by advocates of the supposed ideologies or ideas; instead it has almost always been used (pejoratively) by its opponents."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

That makes a difference? Does a Mass Murderer call itself a "Murderer" and does it matter?

 

[monovillage]

That makes a difference? Does a Mass Murderer call itself a "Murderer" and does it matter?

No, but there have been quite a few studies that show that people who fit a particular societies version of "good looking" or "attractive" get hired to better jobs and get paid more then "ugly" people. People are also more likely to be hired and/or successful if they are thin or fit rather then fat or out of shape, even if the job has nothing to do with physical fitness. Tall people in our society are more likely to be successful. Seeing a #9 woman with a #5 man, most people would assume the man is wealthy or has some other "hidden" advantage. We see examples of natural selection every day in society.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

So it's subjective? In that case Social Darwinism doesn't have much purpose. You could have a poor welfare queen be the pinnacle of fitness according to that definition.

Are you claiming that success is an objective thing? If so, please define what this success that applies to everyone entails.

I meant a small celestial object. These things do happen. Completely random and unpredictable for a given person.

It seems like you're the kind of person that looks at the top mutual fund managers in a given year and says "those are the fittest" when in reality there's huge amount of luck involved. I'm not talking about what-ifs. I'm talking about the uncertainties and complexities that actually exist in our world.

If you want to bring uncetainties in the situation then ultimately nobody can be sucessful. Yet people are successful in society. Success is always fleeting in the long run. Noboody is rich for eternity. That's no secret. So what are you getting at?

Again, the problem with Social Darwinism is that it ignores randomness and luck and tries to oversimplify the world in order to pick winners and losers.

Much like evolution, Social Darwinism picks winners and losers based on the current environment.

 

[Infohawk]

Seeing a #9 woman with a #5 man, most people would assume the man is wealthy or has some other "hidden" advantage. We see examples of natural selection every day in society.

Actually that's not natural selection at all. It's only natural selection if the #1s aren't reproducing. In fact, they are. You might be talking about assortive mating but that doesn't have to do with natural selection. In fact, it appears to be the opposite in our society. Wealthy and educated people tend to have fewer children.

Your post is a great example of why it's dangerous to try to apply Darwinian principles to human populations.

 

[monovillage]

Actually that's not natural selection at all. It's only natural selection if the #1s aren't reproducing. In fact, they are. You might be talking about assortive mating but that doesn't have to do with natural selection. In fact, it appears to be the opposite in our society. Wealthy and educated people tend to have fewer children.

Your post is a great example of why it's dangerous to try to apply Darwinian principles to human populations.

Wealthy people often have fewer children because they can expand more resources to raising them and making them more successful in their environment. Why did you cut out other parts of what I said that were more on your point?