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

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 16:56:49 +0000 (UTC), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (ambrose
searle) wrote:

>> > Neither Nietzsche nor Hitler would make these statements without
>> > presuming the fundamental principle of natural selection of Darwin at
>> > the root.

Restoring "quote" for context:

> I dream of a state of affairs in which every man would know that he
> lives and dies for the preservation of the species. It's our duty to
> encourage that idea: let the man who distinguishes himself in the
> service of the Species be thought worthy of the highest honours."
> 
> -Hitler, TABLE TALK


>> 
>> Nonsense, as natural selection does not involve individuals dying for 
>> the preservation of the species.
>
>Are you kidding? What do you think Darwin means when he says that a
>tribe that has more loyal and courageous warriors will supplant a
>tribe with members less willing to die in support of each other? He's
>talking about people willing to die for the propagation of the tribe.

A "tribe" is different from a "species".  This has to do with 'group
selection' a concept I'd bet you have no idea about.  Essentially, Darwin
is making an analogy to the evolution of (among others) social insects,
such as bees and ants. Why did 'worker' bees and ants evolve?  At first
blush, under natural selection, there is no selective route for them to
evolve, since, by definition, neuter beings can't pass the trait of *being*
neuter to the next generation.  How did this or other "altruistic" behavior
iniminical to the reproductive success of the individual evolve?  The
answer according to Darwin lies in groups that share close (genetic)
heredity.  In hives or ant colonies, the workers share the genetic
characteristics of the queen and, therefore, the queen's reproductive
success is the worker's reproductive success (or, to put it the other way
around, a queen who produces neuter, but useful, offspring will have
greater reproductive success).  

But the trick is to have (relatively speaking) close genetic ties.  Worker
bees won't work for other queens or for the species as a whole.  In social
terms, Hitler might have made the argument about a tribe or even a nation
or some other group that conferred a differential benefit to an individual,
but not to a species.  To the extent that Hitler actually said this (and,
IIRC, there is some question about the veracity of _Table Talk_), it is
based on a misunderstanding of Darwin's theory as great as your own.    

>
>> I see no mention of Darwin in either of those statements. You'll have to 
>> prove a more concrete connection to even begin to demonstrate that they 
>> made use of Darwin's ideas, much less to achieve your aim of tarnishing 
>> Darwin's legacy.
>
>To deny that Hitler borrowed from the doctrines of the Social
>Darwinists is to really bury your head in the sand.

Hitler was a demagogue who stole a lot of stuff from a lot of places
without necessarily understanding any of it beyond that it sounded good in
a speech.  To pretend that Hitler's "philosophy" was coherent and
consistent and based on any rational consideration of Darwin's thought is
to deny the very meaning of the words.

[Snip rest of unsupported assertions]

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

Remember all men would be tyrants if they could.

                    - Daniel Defoe -