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

> > >The credibility of anyone who argues that Darwin never articulated a
> > >racism based on the theory of natural selection is terribly suffering.
> 
> Then it should be a simple matter for you to tell us (no need to look
> it up - I am interested in what *you* think Darwin said) what the 
> selection criterion was and the biological difference
> of the races (again, according to Darwin) based on that criterion.

In Descent of Man, Darwin gave several examples of environmental
conditions that have differentiated human groups making one superior
over the other.

A couple examples are these.

1. Darwin suggested that a colder climate was the selection mechanism
that led to the survival of only those who had a superior ability to
make fire, build efficient shelters, thick clothes, etc.

Thus, he points out that those who live closest to the equator
retrograde where the conditions of life are not as challenging, while
those who survive in cool climates must be those who are predisposed
to advanced intelligence, effort, and industry.

Thus, Darwin would say that it is no accident that most of the
advancements in technology, philosophy, mathematics, and other
intellectual pursuits have originated among Leibniz, Watt, Franklin,
DesCartes, Newton, Morse, Pasteur, Pascal, Einstein, and other
European whites, and that very few, if any, such advancements have
come out of Central Africa, or Brazil, or any other warmer part of the
globe where "colored" people reside.

To the racist, this "scientific" argument of Darwin seems to justify
why the white man is better than the black man.

2. Darwin thought that the inhabitants of the United States were among
the most advanced evolutionarily of all societies. The explanation he
gives for this is that the conditions of the transatlantic filter
sifted out those who are less ambitious, less adaptive, and less
courageous. He explicitly called this process "natural selection."

Thus, Darwin would say that it is no accident that in the late 19th
and early 20th centuries, most technological advancements that we use
even today came out of the U.S.: Edison (lights, phonograph, motion
pictures, dynamos, etc.), Alexander G. Bell (the telephone, building
on Morse's telegraph), Ford (the assembly line & Model T), Orville &
Wilbur Wright (flight), Philo Farnsworth (television), Jonas Salk
(polio vaccine), etc.

Darwin would also say that the rise of the United States as a
superpower was a direct result of this phenomenon of natural
selection.

In this case, however, Darwin would not say that the people of the
United States constitute a "race," but a society that, over time,
could indeed become a distinct race if not subject to intermixture
with others.

These sentiments of Darwin were quickly picked up by the Robber Barons
in the U.S. who obviously resonated with the idea. Carnegie,
Rockerfeller, Morgan, and Vanderbilt would not only agree with Darwin,
but would use his idea to justify laissez faire economics in order
that natural selection would continue to do its work of "creating
progress and advancement."

So, there is the answer to your question.

I do appreciate the rare discussion of the actual issues and facts at
hand amidst an overwhelming number of posts that are nothing more than
insults, meta-talk, chest-pounding, counting numbers of posters on
"each side," and other substance-less tangential material.

Searle