Re: Social Darwinism; was: So Long Judge Moore, We'll Miss You

ambrose searle wrote:
>>>Where does Darwin state that we "shouldn't" do anything?
>>
>>Where is Darwin saying we should do something?
> 
> 
> Darwin to Heinrich Fick (1872), said that it would be "a great evil
> for the future progress of mankind" if we try to prevent evolution
> from weeding out poorly constituted men via natural selection (he
> specifically cited the egalitarian practices of Labor Unions as
> harmful to social Darwinism).

First, this letter is not the 2 paragraphs that we discussed here, so 
you're not really answering the question. But let's take a look at it.

"I wish you would sometime discuss... The rule insisted on by all our 
Trades-Unions, that all workmen -- the good and the bad, the strong and 
the weak -- should all work for the same number of hours and receive the 
same wages. The unions are also opposed to piece-work -- in short to all 
competition... This seems to me a great evil for the future progress of 
mankind. Nevertheless, under any system, temperate and frugal workmen 
will have an advantage and leave more offspring than the drunken and 
reckless."

As Tracy Hamilton said to you: "Thanks for the reference, which proves 
you are full of shit."

ISTM Darwin argued against the *most extreme form* of egalitarianism, 
rewarding *every worker equally* no matter how dedicated or talented. Is 
everyone who is opposed to communism a "Social Darwinist" in the 
parallel universe you live in? I also can't find his advocacy for 
"weeding out poorly constituted men", e.g. by letting them starve or die 
of disease. Maybe you can clear things up for me? All he asked for is 
that the "temperate and frugal" men "leave more offspring than the 
drunken and reckless". It is *NOT NECESSARY* to kill them, let them die 
of hunger or illness! You also conveniently left out his qualification 
"This seems to me" in front of "a great evil", but it's the least of 
your lies here, and can thus be neglected.

>>I will make an argument though.  Feel free to do the
>>same.  A victorian gentleman would hardly advocate 
>>doing something which would deteriorate their noble nature (morality
>>- that which made them superior to "savages").
> 
> 
> Right on. So you do admit that Darwin believed that the WASP was, by
> virtue of natural selection, superior to the various races of savages?

In regard to *this aspect*, that was his view. The paragraph you quoted 
shows his high respect for the "vigorous state of health" of those 
"savages".

>>Right after (had you bothered to read the chapter) is:
>>"The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation,
>>for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if
>>we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could
>>only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil."
>>
>>Crystal clear - it is EVIL to neglect the weak and helpless. 
> 
> 
> Believe me, I have read the chapter, as well as the whole book, very
> thoroughly.

Next time try to do it with open eyes.

> You don't seem to have a grasp at all on Darwin's view of the mutation
> of sympathy.
> 
> Indeed if a surgeon neglected a suffering patient it would be "an
> overwhelming PRESENT evil," namely, it would result in likely severe
> punishment to the surgeon!!

Reference? So we can expose your claims one another time as the bullshit 
they are?

>>Too bad for you Darwin was not saying sympathy was undesirable:
>>
>>"When two tribes of primeval man, living in the same country, came
>>into
>>competition, if (other circumstances being equal) the one tribe
>>included a great number of courageous, sympathetic and faithful
>>members, who were always ready to warn each other of danger, to aid
>>and defend each other, this tribe would succeed better and conquer the
>>other."
>>
>>Yea, it sounds like he thinks sympathy is detrimental!  Along with
>>those other bad qualities, courage and faithfulness!
> 
> 
> Where "sympathy" means an inclination to cooperate, as it does in the
> passage you cite, he certainly felt it was a beneficial mutation; but
> where it resulted in "building hospitals, etc." he explicitly said
> that it was injurious to the progress of the species, although we have
> to live with it, because to eradicate it would be to eradicate all of
> the positive and beneficial mutations that are connected to it.

Sympathy is surely not owed to one single mutation, but never mind. He 
does not argue against hospitals in general. Read the paragraph you 
quoted again.

>>>But, like Nietzsche and Hitler, Darwin considered it an UNFORTUNATE
>>>and DEGENERATING instinct:
>>>
>>>"We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the
>>>process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed,
>>>and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their
>>>utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment... It is
>>>surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to
>>>the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man
>>>himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals
>>>to breed."
>>
>>Merely a description of side effects. 
> 
> 
> Charity and philanthropy are the side effects that "lead to the
> degeneration of a domestic race."

No they *have* side effects of that kind, as far as Darwin goes. If you 
have a reference that (allegedly) shows your point, feel free to offer it.

> In the lower animals, Darwin observed that species like Cats abandon
> their "handicapped" offspring... and they do it for good evolutionary
> purposes. But with human evolution, said Darwin, in becoming more
> symbiotic with each other to survive the attack of other races, the
> side effect evolved that we stopped engaging in the abandonment of our
> handicapped.
> 
> Darwin felt that the side effect was a mistake of evolution, but one
> which could not be avoided as the mutation of cooperation was being
> produced through natural selection.

Sympathy was stronger selected for than "abandonment of our 
handicapped". But if you read the paragraph closely again, Darwin did 
not say that letting the "weak" live was in itself harmful, but letting 
them have *offspring*.

To put it in a modern context: Do you think it is morally acceptable for 
parents to have children when they know their children will very likely 
suffer from severe genetic defects (and just so you don't misread my 
position like Darwin's: I do not count hair color, eye color, IQ below 
80, body size, gender etc. as a genetic defect -- more something like 
Tay-Sachs, muscular dystrophy, progeria etc.)? It's a difficult ethical 
question, but I don't see why the answer should be necessarily "yes".

>>The closest Darwin came to advocating a solution in that chapter is
>>here:
>>
>>"With highly civilised nations continued progress depends in a
>>subordinate degree on natural selection; for such nations do not
>>supplant and exterminate one another as do savage tribes. Nevertheless
>>the more intelligent members within the same community will succeed
>>better in the long run than the inferior, and leave a more numerous
>>progeny, and this is a form of natural selection. The more efficient
>>causes of progress seem to consist of a good education during youth
>>whilst the brain is impressible, and of a high standard of excellence,
>>inculcated by the ablest and best men, embodied in the laws, customs
>>and traditions of the nation, and enforced by public opinion. It
>>should, however, be borne in mind, that the enforcement of public
>>opinion depends on our appreciation of the approbation and
>>disapprobation of others; and this appreciation is founded on our
>>sympathy, which it can hardly be doubted was originally developed
>>through natural selection as one of the most important elements of the
>>social instincts.*
>>
>>Advocacy of education and morality - is that what Social Darwinism
>>means to you?
> 
> 
> Indeed. And Darwin believed that those who do well in education do so
> because of their intelligence, and their doing well will allow them to
> have more offspring and out-compete their less intelligent neighbors.
> Thus, as time goes on, superior races of men will grow nobler and
> nobler and nobler:

Yes, but so would the "savages" under comparable circumstances.

> "Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number
> of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher
> ["caucasian"] civilized races throughout the world." (Darwin to
> Hooker, 1860)

Darwin to William Graham in 1881, that is. Interestingly, yet another 
variant I saw is that it was a letter to Wallace.

One quote from a site that presents this citation: "Followers of 
secularism have learned their lessons. They are not afraid to kill their 
families, their own children, even themselves. Drugs, sex, gangs, and 
alcohol bring escape from a meaningless, atheistic world."

What a paragon of tolerance.

The complete letter can be found here:
http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/texts/letters/letters1_08.html

<quote>
Lastly, I could show fight on [sic] natural selection having done and 
doing more or the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to 
admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many 
centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such 
an idea now is! The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten 
the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world 
at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will 
have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.
</quote>

The part that you left out is his reference to the Turk wars and how 
Europe almost might have been overrun by the Turks, far from being 
victims *they* started this conflict (of course many wars were started 
by members of the "European race" but it is doubtful whether many 
balanced historical views on this issue were available then). Since 
natural selection *included* selection by bloodshed, and he was 
convinced that the "higher civilized races" were at advantage in wars 
(due to solidarity, better technology etc.) and would thus prevail over 
the "savages". "Elimination" clearly refers to *natural selection* (as a 
byproduct of history), genocide, OTOH, is *artificial* selection. It 
would rather be the consequence of better living conditions (and thus -- 
supposedly -- more progeny by the "higher civilized races") and of 
differential loss rates in (inevitable) armed conflicts. Also, the 
conqueror would place his own weal over the conquered, leading to 
another difference in reproductive success that would eventually 
"eliminate" the conquered people genetically, possibly without one 
murder. He thought the process of natural selection is *inevitable* (and 
I agree emphatically!), and he thought that it would eventually lead to 
  ever "higher civilized" races (I disagree with this focus on races).

Population genetics and the realization that evolution does not imply a 
purpose, or an ascent on a "ladder" of improvements on any *absolute* 
scale (as opposed to a scale determined by local environmental 
conditions), one of the first to realize this was Thomas H. Huxley, have 
largely done away with these notions in evolution science.

In summary: Yes, Darwin was a racist by the standards of our time (which 
we didn't dispute, did we?). And, no, he did not promote genocide. He 
thought that the extinction of human races, just like the extinction of 
species, was an inevitable consequence of evolution, and that it would 
be brought about by the "higher civilized races" outcompeting the 
"lower" ones in all relevant fields.

> Searle