Can someone please: 1-explain Social Darwinism to me and 2- rebut it...

[steve2470]

effectively ? It seems the core of the conservatives' arguments is SD. Thanks in advance for your time.

[Son of California]

1. Well, doesn't the name say it all?

It's survival of the fittest worked into social policy. It's basically everyone for themselves, no limitations or protections.

This is based on the idea that without any limitations or protections, the best will naturally rise to the top.

[evermind]

2. Found via google:

Some simplified the idea [of Darwinism] to "survival of the fittest." Others believed that an identical process took place among human beings. They believed that white Protestant Europeans had evolved much further and faster than other "races." And some, especially the followers of Herbert Spencer, took it one step further. Human society is always in a kind of evolutionary process in which the fittest- which happened to be those who can make lots of money--were chosen to dominate. There were armies of unfit, the poor, who simply could not compete. And just as nature weeds out the unfit, an enlightened society ought to weed out its unfit and permit them to die off so as not to weaken the racial stock.

This idea eventually led to a variety of practices and beliefs, e.g., Nordic Racism, used by German anthropologists and later Nazi theoreticians. It also led to eugenics in which, it was believed, the unfit transmit their undesirable characteristics. A breeding program for human beings would see to it that the unfit did not transmit their undesirable characteristics.

Another application of a biological concept to human behavior was the notion that any attempt to provide welfare for the poor was a tragically misguided mistake. Feeding or housing the poor simply permitted them to survive and to transmit their unfitness to their children, who in turn would pass it on to their children. A spurious piece of sociology about two families known as the Jukes and the Kallikaks purported to trace a race of criminals and prostitutes to two persons in the Revolutionary War. This study was used for many years to demonstrate that "inferiority" was inherited.

Many in our culture did not bother to read Spencer, Darwin nor did they realize the oversimplification of eugenics. But that is not the point. The point is that a piece of ideology got into American life and assumed considerable importance. What is also significant is that some, e.g., wealthy industrialists, believed that what they were doing was supported by science. Yes, they said, the caucasian, European-derived male industrialist was at the apex of evolution. And yes, they said, it is undesirable to provide, as public policy, governmental support for any plan that would perpetuate racial weakness.

Full article at http://www.ioa.com/~shermis/socjus/socdar.html

Basically, the idea as it is now seems to be that the rich and "successful" have thereby earned the right to trample on and abuse the poor.

The best rebuttal, imho, is to note that it is a view singular in its arrogance and lack of compassion - but those qualities may be seen as advantages by its proponents!

[brainshrub]

3. Social Darwinism = "I'm winning"

Social Darwinism ceases to exist once your competitors start to win.

[kodi]

4. 1. eat or be eaten. 2. we are not cannibals

.

[mzteris]

5. Social Darwinism -

in a word - EUGENICS.

Think Aryan nation.

It says that personal and social problems are inherited. That one is born into poverty, etc. - and all your troubles are a a result of your "genes. Ergo those who engaged in eugenics were those who would free the world of all of it's social ills, poverty and any mental/physical deficits. free of poverty, and physical and mental illness.

Rebuttal? Can you say Holocaust?

Or in our own country forced sterilization, locking up those with "disabilities" and not allowing them to marry or have offspring. So how far do we go with that? Dyxlexia? Needing glasses? How about overweight people?

[steve2470]

6. ok I guess I was a tad confused about the meaning

What I am really referring to, is the RW meme of "it's their fault, they need to pull themselves up, help themselves, if they can't do that, tough shit". What is that called, besides being an asshole ? LOL

:-)

[bananas]

11. Darn, I wanted to answer your original question!

Here's what I was going to write:

Use reductio ad absurdium.
Agree with them, then make fun of them!

1. German culture is superior to all others - that's why we speak German! Then start singing "Springtime for Hitler".

2. The Hindus say the most advanced creature is the cow! If only we could all be like cows! Mooooo!

3. Use the tv show "Survivor" as an example: everyone looks to see who the biggest threat is, and votes them off the island. The natural conclusion of Social Darwinism is that the strong get kicked by the mediocre.

[steve2470]

12. lol Thanks for the humor !

You did well, padawan learner :-)

[Coloradan4Truth]

7. Some thoughts...

When you say the core of conservatives' arguments are SD I take it you mean their lack of aiding the poor and disenfranchised groups in America... right? It's interesting, because I heard an argument against teaching evolution that claimed that by teaching evolution you were basically supporting the notion of social darwinism... which coming from the same conservative camp seems typically hypocritical to both decry SD, but actually support it in practice.

Anyway, from a historical standpoint, I don't think that social darwinism holds up... look at revolutions (like the Bolshevik revolution), where the masses by their might have overthrown those in power. The powerful who have become lazy, and by their lazyiness brought about their own demise.

From a biological standpoint, there are many examples of stronger animals helping the weaker, cooperation, and coevolution. Now here's a question: since we are supposed to be the "smartest" species on the planet, how come we can't get it together enough to value, help, and protect those humans and species "less" fortunate than ourselves.

[bullimiami]

8. social darwinism is just a theory. the truth is...

god created bush and his friends to be on top, to own everything and lord over us all and tell us what to do. the rest of us he made to obey.
it has always been that way and always will be.
they are going to start teaching this in social studies.

[scarletlib]

9. One of the more interesting ironies in the whole social darwinism

thing is that many christian fundamentalist who so ardently do not believe in evolution are actually social darwinists based ont the philosphy/beliefs they have about people/social class, etc.

[wli]

10. my commentary on eugenics

The fundamental premise of eugenics is that natural selection should be augmented with artificial selection. This is a normative judgment, and it furthermore carries the claim to improve humanity by "breeding out weakness."

Humans are, in fact, evolving, and in counterintuitive ways. For instance, pinky toes are evolving away, and immunities to diseases are also being evolved (basically Native Americans are dying out or getting heavily hybridized due to vulnerability to whooping cough, smallpox, and others).

The eugenicists claim that rather superficial characteristics are "signs of strength" that need to be enforced by breeding and so on. This is incredibly naive, and furthermore the characteristics aren't even properly classified. For instance, the blonde hair, blue eye characteristics (favored by Nazi eugenicists) are detrimental in environments with elevated levels of ultraviolet radiation. In fact, there are no particular detriments to darker skin; it in fact acts as protection against ultraviolet radiation, and has no downside. But this sort of reasoning is beyond the eugenicists, and you're rather unlikely to find "black supremacists" arguing for pro-black eugenics on the basis of the protection afforded by darker skin against ultraviolet radiation.

Similarly, those who have various ailments are targeted by eugenicists. These are likewise incredibly naive. Many ailments, for instance, juvenile diabetes, while they have some hereditary component, are potentially triggered by viral infection. Similarly, various congenital defects may be caused by the mother's exposure to harmful substances while pregnant (e.g. intersex conditions' relation to exposure to hormones). Furthermore, myopia, dental irregularities, and mental illness all have the potential to be caused by external influences.

So what it comes down to is that the eugenicists are incredibly naive about "genetic engineering" and the like, and the eugenics process is literally counterproductive as judged by their own stated purpose. The best results come from leaving the breeding process alone and maintaining the best environmental conditions possible, which is the exact opposite of their quackery.

[PurityOfEssence]

13. candy ass losers die, and pro-active winners triumph

What's the confusion?

The rebuttal is that the playing field isn't anywhere near even.

It's brutal, primitive justification to destroy the weak.

[Kenneth ken]

14. 1. the rich and powerful

deserve to be rich and powerful because they strive more, are smarter, etc.

2. George W Bush. Got help due to his father's influence in every venture of his life, and is currently 'president' of the US. On pure merit, he would have a hard time holding the 'lowest' menial job you can think of.

[Raiden]

15. I first heard about it it in a sociology class

A guy named Herbert Spencer IIRC came up with it. Basically, it is a philosophy which tries to morally justify selfishness. If you can't make it in the real world, through no fault of your own, to hell with you.


A disgusting philosophy if you ask me

[manic expression]

16. Let me have a go

1.) The philosophy that those who can exploit others should do so.

2.) Using nature as a model, predators do not exploit their prey, they merely take what they need and nothing more. Also, predators are also vulnerable to other parts of nature (snakes get eaten by birds, for example). Do you think Gazelles are "oppressed"? They really aren't.

Species evolve when they have a need to. Other species are not exterminated, they are merely phased out. Most "extinctions" occur due to human intervention; without this unnatural influence, species adapt to new roles if it is needed.

It is like saying German Shepards are the best kind of "dog", even though there are many dogs that are capable and equal, just different.

Other than that, it's just plain wrong.

That's another perspective on it.