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

catshark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:01:51 +0000 (UTC), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Huck
> Turner) wrote:
> 
> >catshark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >> 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?
> >
> >I certainly haven't seen any evidence that Darwin advocated
> >engineering a master race or anything as perverse as that. 
> 
> I didn't think so but just checking.  I'd then quibble about saying that
> Darwin supported eugenics on the grounds that "voluntary eugenics" is an
> oxymoron.  

I think that a social policy or movement that encourages or
discourages groups to reproduce meets the definition of 'eugenics' as
I understand the term. I don't think it's just about enforced laws,
but we're down to a quibble about definitions. We could also question
whether he actually intended to discourage the weak from reproducing
in this comment, but if not, why did he say it?

In any event, I think it is unfair to call him a eugenicist although
it may be technically correct to do so given a broad enough
definition. It is unfair because it invites comparisons between him
and the Nazis, which just aren't appropriate. His comments (however
innocent and misguided) seem to come out of his own personal suffering
and a noble desire to save others from his own fate. It would be
perverse to say that Hitler's intentions were likewise.


> 
> >Instead it
> >seems likely that the comments he made about weak people reproducing
> >were very personal to him given that he sufferred from chronic
> >ill-health himself, and felt some responsibility for the ill health of
> >his children. Here's a quote from a biography of Darwin by White and
> >Gribbin (1996) describing his reaction when he realised his sixth son,
> >Charles Waring Darwin, was retarded:
> >
> >pp.184-5
> 
> [snip quote]
> 
> >
> >Reference:
> >White, M. & Gribbin, J. 1996. Darwin: a life in science. Simon &
> >Schuster: London.
> 
> <book club mode>
> 
> How is that?  I've been rather collecting Darwin bios of late.  Is it worth
> getting?  I have Browne; Desmond & Moore; de Beer; Bowler (semi-bio) and
> Himmelfarb (off the top of my head).  Any others you recommend?
> 
> </book club mode>
> 

It's the only one I've read so I guess I'm not the best person to ask.
It seemed pretty thorough and I remember a lot of it, which I guess is
a good indication that it was well written. Which would you recommend
of the ones you have read?


> >H.
> > 
> >---
> >Like-minds don't notice shared mistakes. Talk to someone else.
> 
> Good point.  Now if we could only find some anti-evolutionists worth
> talking to . . .
> 

I like it because it's a piece of advice with no ideological bias,
which, if broadly followed, would tend to cause people's beliefs to
self-organise in such a way that they converge on views consistent
with evidence. And it's a bottom-up process too so no trust
necessarily needs be placed in religious or scientific establishments
to guide it.

There are forces acting against it though, like prejudices against
marriages of mixed religion, race, class, etc., and governmental
influences that aim to dehumanize enemies and dissidents to discourage
any sympathy for their positions. I don't know whether you've noticed
that the rhetoric is actually quite similar on both sides of this 'war
on terror' in that both Bush and Bin Laden describe their enemies in
terms of inherent evil: 'the axis of evil' versus 'the great Satan'.

And on the issue of Darwin's opponents, I wouldn't be the first to
credit them for their part in refining his theory. The process
probably wouldn't be so well understood now if there hadn't been so
many people so emotionally committed to finding holes in it.


> ---------------
> J. Pieret
> ---------------
> 
> Cogito sum, ergo sum, cogito.
> 
>                 - Robert Carroll -


H.
 
---
Like-minds don't notice shared mistakes. Talk to someone else.