If humans are animals, and if Darwinian evolutionary theory correctly explains the diversity and modification of species over time, then does it not follow that opposition to Social Darwinism, which is the application of Darwinian biological evolution to the particular case of our own species, either at the positive or normative level, implies opposition to biological Darwinian theory itself?
Or is it that the normative vs. positive distinction is the key point; i.e. that although Darwinism in its biological sense correctly explains life, including our own human society, that it shouldn’t be the basis on which to construct social structures.
Also, do you think it is accurate to describe unregulated capitalism as “economic Darwinism,” or do you think that this label is misleading or unhelpful; i.e. makes a false analogy?
Finally, do you think that in general, society becomes more “humane” by moving away from or toward the concepts of Darwinism, biologically speaking. In other words, can the more or less direct application of biological Darwinism in the social sphere of things ever be “humane,” or will such an attempt, in your opinion, no matter how well-intentioned, lead to atrocities/negative social outcomes?
Well, “Social Darwinism” as the term is typically used, isn’t really based in a serious understanding of evolution. Real progressive evolution can reward the mutualist and nurturing; “Social Darwinism” is often taken to mean a brutal indifference to one’s fellow man in the interest of “competition.”
But yes, there is a lot about economics and futurism we can learn from biology and evolutionary theory. Not just Darwin, but Stephen Jay Gould, and others.
Understand, though, it’s not a closed book. Our understanding can be flawed, and will evolve, in the way science does. On the Origin of Species shouldn’t be used the way a Christian fundamentalist uses the Bible.
And just because something is an explanation of how we got here, doesn’t mean it’s a good model for daily life. The matter in our bodies came from supernovae - so we should blow up the sun - right?
No. First, as said that’s not what Social Darwinism is; Social Darwinism is a political attempt to cash in on the prestige of Darwinism, and to distort them for profit. And second evolution is a description of how things work, not how they should work; you don’t have to deny how things are to want them to be better.
It’s not very accurate, because corporations are controlled by humans, who are self-interested intelligent creatures capable of foresight, planning and cooperation. They can and will game the system to make a profit, or simply to preserve their jobs; they aren’t going to just let some “unfit” corporation they are working for collapse out of some abstract dedication to Darwinian fitness.
It depends on what you apply it to. Treating ideas or organizations as expendable things to be judged and kept or discarded on how well they do is ones thing; treating human beings that way is another. Consider a subset of society, science; scientists put theories through a selection process to determine their “fitness” (aka test them to see if they fit the facts) and discard the ones that fail, something roughly analogous to natural selection; they don’t shoot scientists whose theories fail the tests, however.
Human society is, if anything, Lamarckian rather than Darwinian (i.e., we can pass “learned”/“acquired” traits to our offspring.)
That’s why is appears to (or actually does) change so fast!
Natural selection is a constant force. You can’t stop it; it’s always happening. You cannot move away from it or towards it. It is an inherent feature of life.
There is no such thing as unregulated capitalism. A modern functioning economy cannot exist without the rule of law, regulation, and government intervention.
Sure you can. You can apply artifical selection, and you can intervene to change the outcome of (what would be) natural selection - by captive breeding, use of medicine, feeding regimes, etc.
Only if you define humans to be outside of nature. The biggest reasons that humans have been so successful as a species are our intelligence and social groupings. Why does that suddenly become outside of “natural selection” at some point?
One of the traits we have evolved due to Darwinian evolution is the ability to survive in groups since a group working together as a unit has a survival advantage over an individual, no matter the fitness of the individual. Evolution is amoral, it invented both terror and love and there are a lot of good traits evolution invented. I don’t think non-social animals feel empathy the way social animals do. And humans are social animals. We are evolved to work together as groups.
The concept of a darwinian society as it is commonly known is at odds with this. However, it does happen all the time (a handful of people rise to the top and use bribes, fear and media control to stay there). But at the end of the day the people eventually grow restless and demand justice (at least nowadays they do).
All in all, a truly darwinian society will be at a disadvantage over a more egalitarian society according to the democratic peace theory. Plus you can argue that an egalitarian society full of people working together is more darwinian than a plutocratic aristocracy. People in egalitarian societies seem healthier and more productive than those who live in autocracies.
This makes no sense. How we choose to organize and execute our society has absolutely nothing to do with biological modification. Our genetic code exhibits mutations with no input or control from the organism. A person cannot “oppose” Darwinian theory any more than they oppose gravity or the speed of light… it happens whether you agree with it or not.
Darwinian evolution is a biological process. It effects individuals and species.
Social Darwinism is a pseudo-science that tried to apply some of the nomenclature from real Darwinism to social processes that are not equivalent. Nations and societies do not have a genetic basis that would make Darwinian evolution applicable to them.
The Nazis, for example, claimed that “Social Darwinism” gave them a scientific basis for their desire to conquer Eastern Europe. This was ridiculous. They might as well have claimed that there was something called “Social Gravity” and it was drawing their armies to the east.
Social Darwinism is not a scientific explanation, but a self-serving justification of the status quo. Societal wealth or position are not heritable traits, as the Social Darwinists thought. Any objective scientist would reject SD as pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo.
Hell no. Fuck that shit. Scientific theories are descriptions of the natural world, not prescriptions on how we should act. “Social Darwinism” is just an excuse selfish, short-shorted, racist assholes use to justify their egotism, myopia, and bigotry.
Society already is and always has been Darwinian. The strong, handsome captain of the football team is more liable to be sexually selected by the most desirable girls, and the business that is run better and smarter is more apt to succeed. But co-operation within social species is also Darwinian in that that’s the way they’ve successfully evolved. Wolves hunt more successfully in a pack than individually, so it’s advantageous to have a place in the pack for wolves who are weaker than the alpha male. It’s a delicate balance between individual fitness and group co-operation.
Proponents of “social Darwinism” want individual fitness to play a larger role than group co-operation, most likely to the detriment of society as a whole which depends on a balance of both. The same goes for the reverse, like communism. Those who deny the role of either group co-operation or individual fitness are denying Darwinism.
False equivocation is more like it. Unregulated capitalism is not a model of Darwinism, but more like an adaptation. It’s like saying longer necks are superior–for giraffes, that was true; for most other species, not true. In the same way, unregulated capitalism will either succeed or fail depending on the socio-economic dynamics of our society. The fact that we don’t have it, and never have, is a good indication that it wouldn’t work. Even less regulated capitalism has failed repeatedly, most recently in 2008.
