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

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (ambrose searle) wrote:

> > > >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.

To the racist, anything can be used to justify why his race is better 
than other races.  

> 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.

Both of these statements are scientific and testable. The first has been 
shown to be largely incorrect, and the second seems likely to be the 
case.

-- 
|                   Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu>                   |
| "SCSI is *NOT* magic.  There are *fundamental technical reasons* why it   |
| is necessary to sacrifice a young goat to your SCSI chain now and then."  |
|                                                  -- John Woods            |