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

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (ambrose searle) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > > >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.

Summary of Chapter 5:

Darwin argued that intelligence was selected for in the
early evolution of humans. Once intelligence was important, 
selection continues to act on *all* humans.  Civilized or
savage. 

Courage, sympathy and fidelity are of selective importance in
savages.  However, there are forces working against each other.
Bravery helps the tribe, yet it is the brave who die more
often, so how can bravery be selected for? Etc.

Then Darwin wonders why some societies do not show an *inclination* to
develop (as Darwin would see improvement being more like
Western European cultures).  [Have you ever wondered why?  Read
Guns, Germs and Steel].  Here is the crux:  is it because they
are of superior intelligence? NO.  Superior strength? NO.
This would have been the point for a Social Darwinist
to make such an argument but Darwin didn't.
He says it is too complicated to figure out why.
Circumstance may have been involved.  Quite different
from your reading.

In the hard life, one does not have *time* to do anything but
survive.  In the easy life, there is no reason to anything but hunt
and fish all day, and goof off the rest of the time.  [That is what
many in our "civilized" society want but can't have].  However, that
means no permanent structures, as the food runs out in the immediate
area.  No permanent structures, no civilization.  This is a 
remarkable insight, actually!
 
> 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 that comes to the correct conclusion is
a justification.  You don't think racism was ever arrived at by
a rational decision, do you?

> 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."

Continuing with Chapter 5, Darwin goes on to competition *between*
nations, most of which is explicitly giving credit to others.

Listing of the effects supporting the weak, and conflicting factors 
that lead to more or less success of the weak.  Explictly calling
neglecting the weak evil (hard to reconcile with remorseless
competition with them, and which you clumsily attempted to avoid).
Also, not calling sympathy unfortunate, another thing I am sure you 
would like people to forget.  Stating that civilization checks much 
of natural selection.

And I get to this:
"With civilised nations, as far as an advanced standard of
morality, and an increased number of fairly good men are concerned,
natural selection apparently effects but little; though the
fundamental social instincts were originally thus gained."

Hmmm, makes you think, doesn't it?  Did you read that bit?

Darwin then mentions the concerns of Mr. Greg and Mr. Galton
that the lower classes will out-multiply the upper.  [Galton was
the originator of eugenics, and this was his concern, not race].
Then Darwin gives a *counter* to their concerns (mortality rates).

Then Darwin wonders what makes some civilizations, advance or decline.
Notes that ever progressing is not guaranteed.  Greek (higher than
English culture!) given as example.

The imminence of one culture over others it was competing with.
Do you disagree with this sentiment with respect to the greatness
of the USA?  Are you some godless commie? :)  The effect of natural
selection may have been indirect, as Darwin explained the origins
of courage, energy, etc were long ago, and there is always variation,
of which the US was a beneficiary from one end of the variation.

> 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.

Do you think otherwise?  If not, would that make you
a Social Darwinist?
 
> Darwin would also say that the rise of the United States as a
> superpower was a direct result of this phenomenon of natural
> selection.

Not give it the label "natural selection" and Ronald Reagan 
would have to be called a Social Darwinist.  My, the things you 
learn on USENET!
 
> 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.

Like that would happen!  I was particularly amused by someone
noting that the appearance of third generation slaves was
notably different than those straight from Africa.  Maybe they
were looking at Thomas Jefferson's slaves. :)

> These sentiments of Darwin were quickly picked up by the Robber Barons
> in the U.S. who obviously resonated with the idea. Carnegie,

You do see how Darwin rarely took one side of an issue by now,
and ignored the rest.  Quite the opposite with advocates of
philosophies that Darwinism was just a rationalization for.
Which is exactly how diametrically opposed philosophies could
use the same theory.

> 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."

I quite agree that the idea of natural
selection (and Lamarkism, and Spencerism) resonated with a lot
of folks.  The difficulty comes in
1) Showing Darwin advocated this
2) Showing that these are a necessary consequence

This Dr. Young fellow, when he says Darwinism was social,
was only saying that Darwin did address features of
society in terms of natural selection.  That indeed may not be
generally appreciated.  The word apply
in a phrase "apply natural selection" is problematic
in a definition of Social Darwinism - does application mean use in
explaining (even in the most tentative of ways a la Darwin)
or in engineering?
 
> So, there is the answer to your question.

Thank you.  Really.
 
> 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.

Tracy P. Hamilton