Libertarianism and Social Darwinism

[Al B. Sure!]

this whole social darwinism= racism thing i'm not buying. As in that Spencer quote, heterogenity was, to the social darwinists, a sign of progress. the multiplicity of races was a positive.

to say that the social darwinists were racist is unfounded. classist, perhaps, as Spencer himself didn't find any charity or funding to the poor to be worth the negative evolutionary consequences. later social darwinists, Carnegie, for example, did stress the importance of limited funding such as public education to allow the best and brightest of the poor to have a fighting chance.

no social darwinist with intellectual worth that i know of ever advocated any form of genocide. at worst, alongside the earliest libertarians, they argued that the gov't should leave the people alone and let them struggle in the industrial jungle.

that social darwinists were practically libertarians, that cant really be denied as their limited role of the gov't is identical. social darwinism, however, is not a negative theory... it is, however, the DIRECT application of Darwin's biological theories to humans, with the end of survival changed to the end of wealth. if Darwin had problems with social darwinism, it must have been with the social darwinist/libertarian view of gov't as the basic ideas of social darwinism are just an outcrop of darwinism.

[Kidlicious]

Social Darwinists don't have any intellectual worth. They have no understanding of the difference between social science and science.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
it is, however, the DIRECT application of Darwin's biological theories to humans, with the end of survival changed to the end of wealth.

No, it is not. Social Darwinism suffers from the Naturalistic Fallacy. This is addressed in the pages I linked to:

is the inference from what may be the case to the conclusion that it is therefore right. However, while it is certainly true that, for example, some families are prone to suffer diabetes, as mine is, there is no licence to conclude that they should not be treated, any more than the fact that a child has a broken arm from a bicycle accident implies that the child should have a broken arm. David Hume long ago showed that "is" does not imply "ought".

Or, for short, you can't logically infer that a natural process in a biological system can "naturally" be extended into a sociological one.

Spencer's work was based on Hobbes and Malthus, not Darwin. He was a Lamarckian evolutionist, not a Darwinian! How could Darwin therefore be responsible for his theories?

[Al B. Sure!]

the naturalistic fallacy isn't a good point against Social Darwinists because evolutionary theory postulates that the organisms better suited to an environment will be the ones who will survive and will pass their genes on, allowing all organisms of the species to survive in that environment. it is therefore better for those organisms who are not suited to the environment to not pass on their genes. therefore, extending this to humans, it could be said it would also be equally better for certain people with certain unsurvivable traits to not pass on their genes (which in a natural context wouldnt happen but with artificial civilization things change a bit).

the question is if artificially keeping the weak organism alive is a good idea. social darwinists, looking at the entire human gene pool, say no, it would be pointless to allow those who can not compete to retain their genes in the gene pool and bring the entire genetic quality of humanity down.

of course, Spencer himself was a classical liberal and a non-conformist individualist which makes his ideas contadictory. we are dealing with lives, not genetic carriers... if artificial (civilization) means can sustain lives, then isn't this positive?

that is the fallacy in social darwinism and the contradiction in most social darwinist thought, which is both individualistic and evolutionary. the is doesn't imply ought thing is weak as it is within reason to say the procreation of those with a certain trait (broadly speaking) is beneficial to the species while the procreation of those with another trait (let's say something that would no doubt lead to death in a few years) is detrimental.

[Boris Godunov]

The Naturalistic Fallacy very much does work against Social Darwinism! I'll repeat: The existence of a natural process in no way, shape or form "naturally" extendsto a sociological one.

The notion of "better" or "worse" in Darwinism is completely devoid of moral context. There is only what is "better" or "worse" for enabling an organism to survive. Social Darwinism delves very much into moral questions that are not a part of Darwinism. Darwinism only explains the "how," that's it. There are no moral statements in it.

Being a dwarf may make a primitive caveman unfit for his environment, but in our environment that dwarf can still become the most brilliant physicist of his day and age, or a leading politician, and still go on to produce heirs and pass on traits. So, clearly, dwarvism is not selected against in our environment, in this example.

In a nutshell, a society can consciously determine that what would ordinarily be an undesirable trait is no longer so (or at least, not a detrimental one). So the extension of Natural Selection into the social realm doesn't apply, because it ain't "Natural Selection" anymore.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
the question is if artificially keeping the weak organism alive is a good idea. social darwinists, looking at the entire human gene pool, say no, it would be pointless to allow those who can not compete to retain their genes in the gene pool and bring the entire genetic quality of humanity down.

It doesn't matter if it's a good idea or not, because it's impossible. Humans are social and intelligent. They understand power relationships at a whole nother level than animals. At the same time humans are incapable of recognizing themselves or others with their own traits as less fit for survival, or as those who make the human species less fit for survival.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


No, it's false in the sense that you claimed Darwin's most significant effect was on these sociological issues. That's categorically not true--his most significant effect was on science, plain and simple. He completely revolutionized biology, and in the course of doing that made modern medicine possible. I suspect you need to read more about the history of biolgy to fully understand the huge impact of Darwin's work.

This is far more significant than anything else that came out of his work. The fact is that people had been trying to justify their racism scientifically well before Darwin, and his theory just provided more fodder for such people. But such notions would have existed with or without Darwinian theory--they were already around.

As for Barzun, I find his work uncompelling and very biased. He wasn't a scientist, and his critique of Darwin is laughably ignorant. He rejects Natural Selection in favor of a vague vitalism and doesn't present any evidence for it. Never mind that now NS is the overwhelmingly accepted theory for biological evolution. Barzun's work has been latched onto by Creationists in their assault on evolution, never mind that biologists have categorically rejected Barzun's unfounded conclusions.

Barzun's insults of Darwin have been answered many times, most recently by:

"Peter J. Bowler (of Queen's University, Belfast) in his recent book, Darwinism (Twayne, 1993), discusses the uses of the concept "Social Darwinism" and shows how such uses are often illogical extensions of the theory of evolution and natural selection."

You can also find some pat answers on talkorigins:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA002_1.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/social.html

Finally, Barzun's implied slander that Darwin somehow was just "copying" the work of others and hadn't made a unique contribution is also laughably wrong. I'd suggest starting with Ernst Mayr's brilliant book, What Evolution Is to gain a real understanding of where Darwin came from and just how significant his work was to science. Of course he worked with information that was gathered before him--what scientist doesn't? By Barzun's standard, we must consider Einstein a thieving hack because he relied on the theories of others to help formulate his own...

hmm . . . . .

thanks for posting this info

[GePap]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
the naturalistic fallacy isn't a good point against Social Darwinists because evolutionary theory postulates that the organisms better suited to an environment will be the ones who will survive and will pass their genes on, allowing all organisms of the species to survive in that environment. it is therefore better for those organisms who are not suited to the environment to not pass on their genes. therefore, extending this to humans, it could be said it would also be equally better for certain people with certain unsurvivable traits to not pass on their genes (which in a natural context wouldnt happen but with artificial civilization things change a bit).

The problem being human beings live in an artifical environment, and hence there is no way of knowing in "advanced societies" which traits asre best in terms of species survival, as opposed to social system survival. Actual natural selection with humans happens only in the most primitive tribes.

the question is if artificially keeping the weak organism alive is a good idea. social darwinists, looking at the entire human gene pool, say no, it would be pointless to allow those who can not compete to retain their genes in the gene pool and bring the entire genetic quality of humanity down.

Compete in what? A socially determined game? If a poor person wins the lottery and becomes rich, are their genes equal to those of someone who became rich through theft (work), or by a socially accepted method (work)? Many 'geniuses' are wholely incapable of surviving in society- some rather bumb people are sociable and succeed.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
the naturalistic fallacy isn't a good point against Social Darwinists because evolutionary theory postulates that the organisms better suited to an environment will be the ones who will survive and will pass their genes on, allowing all organisms of the species to survive in that environment.

Speer, your interpretation is entirely false. Evolution is applicable only on the species level, not on an individual level. Natural selection never guarantees the survival of any one single individual because that simply is impossible. The presence of predators, parasites, and diseases mean that no matter how good an individual is, there is a chance that it will die before passing its genes to the next generation.

Originally posted by Albert Speer
it is therefore better for those organisms who are not suited to the environment to not pass on their genes.

Again, this is a false interpretation. If you look at the allele distribution of any one gene in a population, you will see that it is always in a bell curve. This individual differences always exist in any single population. Environmental pressure shifts the curve in one direction or the other.

Originally posted by Albert Speer
therefore, extending this to humans, it could be said it would also be equally better for certain people with certain unsurvivable traits to not pass on their genes (which in a natural context wouldnt happen but with artificial civilization things change a bit).

What might these unsurvivable traits might be?

Originally posted by Albert Speer
the question is if artificially keeping the weak organism alive is a good idea. social darwinists, looking at the entire human gene pool, say no, it would be pointless to allow those who can not compete to retain their genes in the gene pool and bring the entire genetic quality of humanity down.

This is completely stupid. Humans have been successful because humans have been generalists. Specialists die out in the long run and generalists adapt to new environs.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
In a nutshell, a society can consciously determine that what would ordinarily be an undesirable trait is no longer so (or at least, not a detrimental one). So the extension of Natural Selection into the social realm doesn't apply, because it ain't "Natural Selection" anymore.

Actually, it is natural selection, it's just natural selection by means of selective mating

EDIT: or the lack thereof, as the case may be

[Urban Ranger]

It's unnatural, because the selection is not based on any natural characteristics.

[Kuciwalker]

Of course it is.

[Kidlicious]

It would be more interesting if we mated naturally.

edit: errr selected our mates naturally I mean.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Of course it is.

Wealth is a natural characteristic?
Social position is a natural characteristic?

[Kuciwalker]

Wealth is a natural characteristic?

Why not?

Social position is a natural characteristic?

Come on! Herds of animals have social positions!