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

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 14:51:25 +0000 (UTC), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Huck
Turner) wrote:

[...]

I also thought it was very good and would second it.  

Unfortunately, I already used by POTM second this month.

Maybe Adam won't notice.  ;-)

One quibble/question:

[snipping Darwin quote]

>> > > 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.
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > Here Darwin is making an arbitrary value judgement. He appears to
>> > believe that it would be better if the weak (i.e., the unhealthy)
>> > didn't have children. Note that in a society with access to medicine,
>> > what he calls the 'weak' are only marginally less fit than the
>> > 'strong' in reproductive terms. In a society of 'savages' the 'weak'
>> > are much less fit than the 'strong'. We should keep this in mind so
>> > that we don't confuse 'weak' with 'less fit'.
>> > 
>> > There's no racism or social Darwinism here that I can detect, but he
>> > seems to be advocating a kind of eugenics.

AFAIK, Darwin never advocated or supported any *enforced* eugenics law,
although he had some tangental involvement in the issues of consanguineal
marriages that was already being debated before the Origin of Species
(hardly surprising since he married his 1st cousin).  His "eugenics
program" was, as the above indicates, merely a hope that greater education
would lead the "weak" to voluntarily refrain from reproducing.  

Or am I mistaken?

---------------
J. Pieret
---------------

Cogito sum, ergo sum, cogito.

                - Robert Carroll -