what's YOUR say on social dawinism

[dark fairy]

what do YOU think about socila darwinism??? and would you ever inforce it in your life??? :)

[Pete]

Social Darwinism is the flawed transposition of Darwin's ideas of evolution on to society. The term 'survival of the fittest' was used here, although it seems Darwin never said that.

This theory is based on linear cultural evolution and was supported by many anthropologists well into the 20th Century. Basically all societies are set on a course forward, and under this theory the highest mode of existance it Victorian Britian. Delightful.

This theory has been used to repress people of 'savage' 'uncivilized' and 'barbarian' cultures. All references using this words are clearly racist, even if those using it do not know. They date back to before Social Darwinism, but where legitmatized by it.

Eugenics, Racial Purity, Genocide, among other things, all had their justifications in this theory. Blacks where slaves because they were inferior. The lower classes could starve because they were inferior and nature was working her course. Does that remind anyone of Malthus? He wrote before this, but his writings influenced Social Darwinism.

Basically it is a load of shit, as many anthropologists have discredited the linear social evolution theory, and now use a more postmodernist (though not to the point of being useless knobs) approach known as cultural relativism. This 'taste' is credited to Geertz, though Hallowell wrote in the style over a decade before. The problem is that Hallowell's book was never published (he had articles published no books) as the train company lost his manuscript and he later died.

This theory affects me not at all, though at times Marxism does have this feel to it. One reason why I no longer call my self a Marxist.

-Pete

[KickMcCann]

The only way I've ever applied it is when looking at teens and college students who drive around in suped-up sports cars. They're the ones who get as obsessed with "the fast and the furious" as sci-fi buffs do about star wars and star trek. These suburban kids get their rich parents to buy them a fancy racer capable of 150 mph for their 16th birthday. The walk around schools, malls, and campuses acting like the coolest thing since dry ice. But when the go speeding out of parking lots or racing down the road, they usually end up wrapped around a telephone pole or another car, dead as a door nail. So social darwinism for me means that rich kids who speed around in mustangs and shop at abercrombie and finch are socially inferior to everyone else and usually wipe themselves out from the gene pool. I'd rather take a bus or train or bike, and wear non-sweat shop produced clothing. Not to say I'm better or superior than anyone, I just have the instincts to live a longer as well as independent life.

[RedCeltic]

as an anthropologist, I can assure you that there is no one in the field today that gives any credit to the theories of social darwinism. It is the first theory as to why there are different human cultures, but we have since learned that the theory is ethnocentric and racist, even though the first to apply this theory wouldn't have been considered racist or ethnocentric in the Victorian age they lived.

Social Darwinism, says.... at the very bottom of the culture evolution chain are "savages"... low,middle, high... than "barbarians" again... low, middle, high.... than "civilization".... and finally.. "Englishmen" (or Germans depending on who's using the theory.)

Different groups that are condisdered to fit in different parts of this chain are considered to be living fossels. ... If you want to know what your barbarian ancestors looked like, you may want to take a look at the Senica, or Navaho. If you want to take a look at what you savage ancestors looked like, take a look at the Inuit.

We know today however that different cultures change according to their need. If a group like the !kung is able to sustain it's existance as a hunter/gatherer group than there is no need for it to develop horticulture, or agriculture. Hunting and gathering societies require less work, have less complication and problems in their society etc... than more "advanced" societies, so who's to say that hunter and gatherers are at the bottom and not the top?

It's not really a liniar chain, but rather a reaction to different external pressures that cause societies to change. Human culture is that which humans have that makes it adaptable to any enviroment. A culture will change depending on the need of the culture.

[ComradeRed]

It is a bunch of cappie crap giving excuses to be rascist, rich, and repressive. It tells you that because white people can be imperialistic while natives of africa and asia cannot that makes white people "supperior" to the natives. It was the most "fit" to become rich, which gives them the "right" to be oppressive, to have "their" workers live and work in hell holes. :angry: Only idiot cappies use social darwinism.

[Hegemonicretribution]

There is no place for it in the "developed" world. However I do see possibilities in a "state of nature existence." Although different to the world in which it was concieved, I doubt this is a bad thing, it has some meaning there.

[Rasta Sapian]

social darwinism, survival of the fittest, this is all sheit man!

Especially when mankind has molded Impirialist empires to the point where survival is no longer a threat, in fact it depends primarily on what class you were born into! :o

Just like in the ocean, some are born sharks and others are born tuna! :blink:

my point is that survival is no longer the axis for human evolution, it is $$

peace yall

[allixpeeke]

<<what do YOU think about socila darwinism???>>

I loathe social-Darwinism. It seems to me to be the most negative force threatening the success of Capitalism.

Social-Darwinism is the economic philosophy that those who are rich are rich because they’re more “fit”, and those who are poor are poor because they’re “unfit”. It’s used to justify laissez faire Capitalism. The problem there is that, unlike regular Capitalism, laissez faire Capitalism is bound to fail. Thus, social-Darwinism is a legitimist threat to Capitalism.

<<and would you ever inforce it in your life???>>

I don’t know the meaning of the term “inforce”, having never heard that used before. But, I wouldn’t integrate social-Darwinism into my life.

<<social darwinism, survival of the fittest, this is all sheit man&#33;>>

Although I agree that social-Darwinism IS bullshit, I view the idea of survival of the fittest as legitimately existing. It’s the only thing I can find in nature that makes sense of natural selection. For example, moths that blend in with their background are more likely to survive than moths that are very visible against their background.

[pandora]

If there was a phrase more contemptible to me than Social Darwinism it would only be those that have depended on it for their existence: genocide, Nazism, ethnic cleansing, and euthanasia all have some roots here.
Darwin himself strongly disagreed with it and worked against it near his death. It was the forum that allowed the wealthy Victorians to kick aside the Irish and Cockney chimney sweeps.
Associating strongly with those who have incredible disabilities, I see daily how talented, strong and gifted people facing such adversity can be. Such people have no place in such a system. Also I agree with the Native view that especially people with strong Downs and the like have presence from the beyond and are spiritual beings who can see through the masks we wear and are fooled by much easier as they don&#39;t get caught up in all the crap of career and reputation as much.
Many people with disabilities have taught me to laugh at myself and do so for others as well. They bring much more to the society than most&#33; "normal" functioning people. This is an important point. What is one&#39;s worth in society. I have found people with extreme mental and physical disabilities often build society and caring around them in such a way that they do much more for the society than those without disabilities by teaching people how to love and what true bravery is.
Perhaps if there were social darwinism such people should be on the top of the social order as they create much a much more sustainable society around them based on their need and keep us from being so ignorant.

[Monty Cantsin]

Herbert Spencer what a wanker, that’s all I have to say.

[dark fairy]

im really happy that im not the only one that thinks that social darwinism is crap may have it&#39;s points but it is not equal and yeah it&#39;s just crap and now that i&#39;ve been here longer i see that this wasn&#39;t such a good idea but since it is a very tolerant place i yeah you know :)

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 07:56 AM
The only way I&#39;ve ever applied it is when looking at teens and college students who drive around in suped-up sports cars. They&#39;re the ones who get as obsessed with "the fast and the furious" as sci-fi buffs do about star wars and star trek. These suburban kids get their rich parents to buy them a fancy racer capable of 150 mph for their 16th birthday. The walk around schools, malls, and campuses acting like the coolest thing since dry ice. But when the go speeding out of parking lots or racing down the road, they usually end up wrapped around a telephone pole or another car, dead as a door nail. So social darwinism for me means that rich kids who speed around in mustangs and shop at abercrombie and finch are socially inferior to everyone else and usually wipe themselves out from the gene pool.
HAHAHAHAHA&#33;&#33;&#33; :lol: :lol:
You are right&#33; This is one of the best posts ever&#33;

Yeah, "survival of the fittest" is flawed because:
1 - it doesn&#39;t apply to all situations
2 - it&#39;s "survival of the richest" in capitalism
3 - systems which use this "motto" do not take into account that the "fittest" doesn&#39;t really mean the "one who will reproduce more and spread his genes", which after all is a very important part of life.
4 - it attemps to justify things like racism, slavery, exploitation, fascism, wars, imperialism, capitalism, sexism, supremacism
5 - it&#39;s based on the assumption that there are not enough resources available for everyone.
6 - it sounds better in sports than in "natural laws"