why is it that Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” seam to be more present in religious nations like USA than more secular nations like those in Europe?
“Survival of the fittest” also seams to be more present among the religious right than those who are more liberal. The irony is that those who deny Darwin seams to be much closer to Darwin teachings than those who believe that Darwin’s are right
Any thought about this ?
What in the blue blazes are you talking about? I don’t understand the OP at all. Can you explain how Darwin affects certain groups more than others?
Can you give us some examples? I’m not sure I understand.
In regards to what?
Americans have always had a very individualistic idiology. We have generally believed in the “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” mythology and that one’s success or failure was primerily due to one’s own inherent attributes. In other words, the fittest succeed and the weak or lazy fail.
Contrast this with Europe with it’s tradition of monarchy and aristocracy. Success was more often determined by birth than by anything else.
What you seem to be talking about is Social Darwinism, which is a questionable application of Darwin’s ideas of “survival of the fittest” applied to social situations. Social Darwinism, or at least some elements of it, actually predates Darwin’s theory of evolution- Malthus had some ideas in that direction.
IANASociologistorHistorian, but I suspect it is more popular in the US than in Europe because it fits in with the “rugged individualism” that many Americans like to think of as a feature of our culture.
USA, and especially the religious right, embraces a idiology/politic that is closer to Darwins teachings about survival of the fittest than European nations that is far more secular that USA
Rewording the OP doesn’t really help.
How 'bout a few concrete examples?
Maybe you are talking about market forces and competitions?
Either way, I think this thread is too weak to survuve on it’s own it the wild.
“pull yourself up by your bootstraps” = survival of the fittest
I think what he’s trying to say is that he sees European nations as more socialist, and thus less socially-Darwinian, than the more right-wing capitalism of the United States.
That’s nothing to do with what Darwin was talking about. 
Oh! Well, that’s probably because Darwin authored the U.S. Constitution.
See, part of the problem, Mr. OP, is that the folks around here tend to find the term “Darwin’s survival of the fittest” in itself, to be misleading, inaccurate, overly simplistic, and generally less than useful in setting out the premise for a Great Debate. That’s been my observation.
As to the substance of your question, there have been several conversations here through the years on the subjects of Social Darwinism, American exceptionalism, the myth of the self-made man, and the pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps paradigm. America’s historical beginnings with Puritanism, and other Calvinist-related influences are probably strong factors.
and those in USA that can’t stand Darwins is in fact closer to his teachings
Ah, in other words, it’s ironic that the very people (religious fundamentalists) who dispute Darwin the most vigorously are often the ones who stand fully behind Social Darwinism.
The reason why this is actually not ironic, though, is that Darwin did not have anything to do with Social Darwinism; his evolutionary observations were co-opted by some to make some point about social interactions between people. It’s not like evolutionary Darwinism and Social Darwinism have anything to do with each other, or that one must accept both or neither.
Speaking of Darwin’s “teachings”, as though he were in an ideologue, and his output was opinion, rather than observation-based conclusions, is kind of grating, too.
The OP makes sense and is a valid question IMO. Are you guys pretending not to understand it for political or philosophical reasons or is this a genuine failure of comprehension?
And further, rugged individualism (“pull yourself up by your own bootstraps”) does not imply that people who don’t do that should die and not pass on their genes. That’s Social Darwinism.
Rugged individualism is just the idea that you should be responsible for yourself, and not be able to force others to work to support you. I don’t see anything either Darwinian or Social Darwinian about that.
I didn’t understand what the hell he was talking about until post #9.
Besides, I’m not aware of the religious people in the US thinking that less successful people should die off so as to have fewer children. Some people may think that, but I don’t see any evidence being given that it is what’s usually termed the Religious Right in this country that is regularly making such an argument.
Exactly. The idea is that by making people more responsible for their individual actions, they will actually prosper in the long run-- not that they will die.