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

Arne Vogel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> ambrose searle wrote:
> >
> > He promoted the idea that one race has been made superior to another
> > via natural selection.
> 
> "With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those 
> that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health."
> 
> He said the "savages" were of superior health. How does that resonate 
> with this claim of yours? 

My, I just can't believe you are truly that incapable of reading. Read
it again. Darwin didn't say that all savages are of superior health.
He said those savages that are stronger in body and mind would
supplant the savages that are weaker, and, as a natural result,
natural selection would make a race of healthy people. Darwin used the
word "civilized" for these kinds of people once they evolved to a
higher level.

This is a no-brainer.

Of course, when Jimmy the Greek made a similar claim, he was summarily
fired from CBS, because this kind of thinking is unconscionable:

http://www.goodbyemag.com/apr/snyder.htm

> The point is, he wasn't more racist than the average English gentleman 
> of his time.

The difference is that Darwin's racism wasn't just a matter of
imbibing the opinions of his culture. Darwin's racism was a product of
his scientific theory. The average English gentleman was racist as a
result of religious, political, or social reasons. Darwin was a racist
because he felt that natural selection made one race superior to the
other.

> > Call that Social Darwinism, Racism, The Bell Curve, or the Kitchen
> > Sink, it is what he promoted.
> 
> Social Darwinism is a whole another issue, and you failed miserably in 
> your attempt to attribute it to Darwin,

Really?

AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY:
social Darwinism
n. The application of Darwinism to the study of human society,
specifically a theory in sociology that individuals or groups achieve
advantage over others as the result of genetic or biological
superiority.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=social%20darwinism

If I haven't attributed the above definition to Darwin's own views as
stated in the 5th chapter of Descent of Man (1871), then 2 + 2 does
not equal 4.

Darwin applied the theory of natural selection to human society as
plain as day, especially the theory that individuals or groups achieve
an advantage over others as the resut of genetic superiority:

Darwin forcefully promoted this idea:
---
FROM The Descent of Man BY Charles Darwin
---
THE SLIGHT CORPOREAL STRENGTH OF MAN, his little speed, his want of
natural weapons, &c., are more than counterbalanced, firstly by his
intellectual powers, through which he has, whilst still remaining in a
barbarous state, formed for himself weapons, tools, &c., and secondly
by his social qualities which lead him to give aid to his fellow-men
and to receive it in return. No country in the world abounds in a
greater degree with dangerous beasts than Southern Africa; no country
presents more fearful physical hardships than the Arctic regions; yet
one of the puniest races, namely, the Bushmen, maintain themselves in
Southern Africa, as do the dwarfed Esquimaux in the Arctic regions.
The early progenitors of man were, no doubt, inferior in intellect,
and probably in social disposition, to the lowest existing savages;
but it is quite conceivable that they might have existed, or even
flourished, if, whilst they gradually lost their brutelike powers,
such as climbing trees, &c., they at the same time advanced in
intellect. But granting that the progenitors of man were far more
helpless and defenceless than any existing savages, if they had
inhabited some warm continent or large island, such as Australia or
New Guinea, or Borneo (the latter island being now tenanted by the
orang), they would not have been exposed to any special danger. In an
area as large as one of these islands, the competition between tribe
and tribe would have been sufficient, under favourable conditions, to
have raised man, through the survival of the fittest, combined with
the inherited effects of habit, lo his present high position in the
organic scale.

* * *

Turning now to the social and moral faculties. In order that primeval
men, or the ape-like progenitors of man, should have become social,
they must have acquired the same instinctive feelings which impel
other animals to live in a body; and they no doubt exhibited the same
general disposition. They would have felt uneasy when separated from
their comrades, for whom they would have felt some degree of love;
they would have warned each other of danger, and have given mutual aid
in attack or defence. All this implies some degree of sympathy,
fidelity, and courage. Such social qualities, the paramount importance
of which to the lower animals is disputed by no one, were no doubt
acquired by the progenitors of man in a similar manner, namely,
through natural selection, aided by inherited habit. When two tribes
of primeval man, living in the same country, came into competition, if
the one tribe included (other circumstances being equal) a greater
number of courageous, sympathetic, and faithful members, who were
always ready to warn each other of danger, to aid and defend each
other, this trihe would without doubt succeed best and conquer the
other. Let it be borne in mind how all-important, in the never-ceasing
wars of savages, fidelity and courage must be. The advantage which
disciplined soldiers have over undisciplined hordes follows chiefly
from the confidence which each man feels in his comrades. Obedience,
as Mr. Bagehot has well shewn, is of the highest value, for any form
of government is better than none. Selfish and contentious people will
not cohere, and without coherence nothing can be effected. A tribe
possessing the above qualities in a high degree would spread and be
victorious over other tribes; but in the course of time it would,
judging from all past history, be in its turn overcome by some other
and still more highly endowed tribe. Thus the social and moral
qualities would tend slowly to advance and be diffused throughout the
world.

* * *

NATURAL SELECTION AS AFFECTING CIVILISED NATIONS

In the last and present chapters I have considered the advancement of
man from a former semi-human condition to his present state as a
barbarian. But some remarks on the agency of natural selection on
civilised nations may be here worth adding. This subject has been ably
discussed by Mr. W. R. Greg, and previously by Mr. Wallace and Mr.
Galton. Most of my remarks are taken from these three authors. With
savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that
survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. 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. There is reason to
believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak
constitution would formerly have succumbed to smallpox. Thus the weak
members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has
attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must
be highly injurious to the race of man. 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.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an
incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally
acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered,
in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely
diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason,
without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. 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 a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear
without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving
and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check
in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society
not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be
indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than
expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.

* * *

With civilised nations, as far as an advanced standard of morality,
and an increased number of fairly well-endowed men are concerned,
natural selection apparently effects but little; though the
fundamental social instincts were originally thus gained. But I have
already said enough, whilst treating of the lower races, on the causes
which lead to the advance of morality, namely, the approbation of our
fellow-men—the strengthening of our sympathies by habit— example and
imitation—reason experience and even self-interest—instruction during
youth, and religious feelings.

A most important obstacle in civilised countries to an increase in the
number of men of a superior class has been strongly urged by Mr. Greg
and Mr. Galton, namely, the fact that the very poor and reckless, who
are often degraded by vice, almost invariablymarry early, whilst the
careful and frugal, who are generally otherwise virtuous, marry late
in life, so that they may be able to support themselves and their
children in comfort. Those who marry early produce within a given
period not only a greater number of generations, but, as shown by Dr.
Duncan, they produce many more children. The children, moreover, that
are born by mothers during the prime of life are heavier and larger,
and therefore probably more vigorous, than those born at other
periods. Thus the reckless, degraded, and often vicious members of
society, tend to increase at a quicker rate than the provident and
generally virtuous members. Or as Mr. Greg puts the case: "The
careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies like rabbits: the
frugal, foreseeing, self-respecting, ambitious Scot, stern in his
morality, spiritual in his faith, sagacious and disciplined in his
intelligence, passes his best years in struggle and in celibacy,
marries late, and leaves few behind him. Given a land originally
peopled by a thousand Saxons and a thousand Celts— and in a dozen
generations five-sixths of the population would be Celts, but
five-sixths of the property, of the power, of the intellect, would
belong to the one-sixth of Saxons that remained. In the eternal
'struggle for existence,' it would be the inferior and less favoured
race that had prevailed—and prevailed by virtue not of its good
qualities but of its faults."

There are, however, some checks to this downward tendency. We have
seen that the intemperate suffer from a high rate of mortality, and
the extremely profligate leave few offspring. The poorest classes
crowd into towns, and it has been proved by Dr. Stark from the
statistics of ten years in Scotland, that at all ages the death-rate
is higher in towns than in rural districts, "and during the first five
years of life the town death-rate is almost exactly double that of the
rural districts." As these returns include both the rich and the poor,
no doubt more than double the number of births would be requisite to
keep up the number of the very poor inhabitants in the towns,
relatively to those in the country. With women, marriage at too early
an age is highly injurious; for it has been found in France that,
"twice as many wives under twenty die in the year, as died out of the
same number of the unmarried." The mortality, also, of husbands under
twenty is "excessively high," but what the cause of this may be seems
doubtful. Lastly, if the men who prudently delay marrying until they
can bring up their families in comfort, were to select, as they often
do, women in the prime of life, the rate of increase in the better
class would be only slightly lessened.

Natural selection follows from the struggle for existence; and this
from a rapid rate of increase. It is impossible not bitterly to
regret, but whether wisely is another question, the rate at which man
tends to increase; for this leads in barbarous tribes to infanticide
and many other evils, and in civilised nations to abject poverty,
celibacy, and to the late marriages of the prudent. But as man suffers
from the same physical evils with the lower animals, he has no right
to expect an immunity from the evils consequent on the struggle for
existence. Had he not been subjected to natural selection, assuredly
he would never have attained to the rank of manhood. When we see in
many parts of the world enormous areas of the most fertile land
peopled by a few wandering savages, but which are capable of
supporting numerous happy homes, it might be argued that the struggle
for existence had not been sufficiently severe to force man upwards to
his highest standard. Judging from all that we know of man and the
lower animals, there has always been sufficient variability in the
intellectual and moral faculties, for their steady advancement through
natural selection. No doubt such advancement demands many favourable
concurrent circumstances; but it may well be doubted whether the most
favourable would have sufficed, had not the rate of increase been
rapid, and the consequent struggle for existence severe to an extreme
degree.

SOURCE: http://teachers.sduhsd.k12.ca.us/gstimson/socialdarwin.htm

> As you spoke of anachronisms: Blaming Darwin for "The Bell Curve", or 
> even racist arguments *derived* from "The Bell Curve", is more than a 
> little pathetic.

I used "the Bell Curve" just before I used the label "the Kitchen
Sink." Why didn't you berate me by just saying "Darwin never wrote
about Kitchen Sinks, and kitchen sinks have nothing to do with
evolution"?

Searle