You’re already mixing science and pseudo-science. A captain of a football team with presumably good genes for athleticism improves his chances of finding a mate and passing those genes on. But a well-run business? It has no genes to pass on - it doesn’t even have any descendants to pass genetic traits on to. Trying to apply Darwinism to economics is wrong.
That’s not the way Social Darwinism is usually defined. Social Darwinism isn’t directed at the individual as you claim. It’s based on the idea that an entire ethnic group functions like an individual organism and is competing against other ethnic groups like one organism competes against another.
This idea is used as a justification for one ethnic group to conquer another - ie Europeans are more “fit” than Africans or White Americans are more “fit” than Native Americans or Germans are more “fit” than Slavs, so the “fit” group should supplant the “unfit” group.
But like businesses, ethnic groups do not have genes or descendants. Darwinism has nothing to do with how an ethnic group rises or falls in political power. Social Darwinism is essentially “might makes right” dressed up as a scientific claim.
Ostsiedlung. Later upgraded to Drang nach Osten. The theory that a land populated by an inferior culture or race would naturally absorb a superior race of masters, like a dry sponge absorbs water. And what is the criteria for superiority? Well, our moms make dumplings with white flour, not that grainy brown shit that you can hardly swallow. So it’s obvious.
The Nazis never met a piece of self-serving claptrap they didn’t like.
Of course it isn’t biological, but isn’t it equivalent, or at least comparable, to natural selection in nature? When a business strategy like Henry Ford’s assembly line succeeded, it spread and became established as a defining feature of manufacturing success, like longer necks did for giraffes, and fine craftsmen died out, so to speak, like shorter-necked giraffes.
My impression is that “social Darwinism” can be used by any group (not just ethnic). Don’t some wealthy capitalists use it to justify the acquisition of wealth as a measure of superiority?
No. To assume so is an example of the naturalistic fallacy; i.e. “The way it is is the way it ought to be.” Society has some Darwinian aspects. That does not mean that it is ethically or morally right to support those Darwinian aspects.
How is human behaviour unnatural? We’re animals, and we developed intelligence that allows us to create medicine and feed ourselves in certain ways. That’s just a part of what we are as a species, and what has made us the world’s dominant large animal. It also might destroy us; perhaps we’re inevitably headed for nuclear war. That’s just the way natural selection works.
I’ve found that an interest in “Social Darwinism” is a strong indicator of low self esteem issues. For anything else, it’s worthless.
I’m not trying to pick on you, but this is funny. People should stop being so obsessed with their high school experiences. You realize that most of these football captain types end up working at gas stations in a few years?
In the End it will come down to Survival of the Fittest. Just as it does with any life form.
“Fittest” is a very multifaceted and variable term. The fitness of a given aspect of life is determined by the success in life of those who have this trait. The quality, fittest or not fittest of any given trait is not fixed. That quality will shift from one state to the other as the sum total of the life form it is a part of changes over time.
Even directed societal changes are an aspect of Fitness. The Means, and their Ends, will either benefit or not benefit society. Those Means and Ends will rise, fall, or modify as their influence integrates into the sum total.
Conclusion, mine anyway, is there is no way you can avoid Darwinian progression in life.
Life, thus Lifes Society, will be Darwinian whether we want it to be, or not.
‘Artificial’ also implies deliberate, planned activity toward a predefined goal (especially in the context of selection) - which, I think, sets it sufficiently apart from natural selection.
Or in other words, artificial selection is not natural selection merely because humans are themselves products of nature. Chihuahuas and cauliflowers are not a product of natural selection.
Darwinism is an attempt at explaining the origin of life, but I don’t think it comes anywhere near explaining the purpose of it. I don’t think science is capable of providing that answer. That’s what philosophy is for. As far as encouraging or inhibiting natural selection: I think society should go as far as trying to make sure the stupid don’t take any one else with them while killing themselves in stupid ways (things like drunk driving laws, and the like), but beyond that, we don’t need to be constantly trying to protect the stupid from themselves (seat belt laws, for example–smart people don’t need a law to tell them to buckle up).
A free market is a lack of barriers to entry, not necessarily a lack of rules. Certainly an unregulated marketplace would enable the craftiest among us to take advantage, with little recourse for consumers. Caveat emptor.
As I said above, I don’t think society has any specific duty to either encourage or inhibit natural selection. It just needs to try to limit the collateral damage.
You appear to be narrowing the scope of natural selection to The Darwin Awards. It’s broader than that - for example, the question of whether we should vaccinate, or just let disease kill off the weak, is about either trying to prevent/circumvent natural selection, or allow it.
Vaccinating is a good example, I think, of what I was talking about in terms of limiting collateral damage. We don’t necessarily force people to get vaccinated; the choice is ultimately up to the individual. But I had to show proof that my shots were up to date before I could go back to college. There was an option to refuse based on religious grounds, but the school also reserved the right to exclude you in the event of an outbreak of some sort.
I’m saying the distinction you made is moot. “Deliberate, planned activity” is exclusively a form of human behavior, and no more or less natural than other human behavior.
I disagree. The question boils down to: Should we take our hands off the wheel and let nature take its course, or should we intervene to control it.
The fact that we can torture the definition of ‘our intervention’ as a subcategory of ‘nature taking its course’ Just avoids the question. The question still exists. The outcomes will be different, so it’s not moot at all.
I’m not trying to pick on you, but this is funny. People should stop being so obsessed with their high school experiences. You realize that most of these football captain types end up working at gas stations in a few years?
