Social Darwinism | INFJ Forum

Social Darwinism

Raccoon Love

Raccoon Love

.
Sep 20, 2009
5,412
713
657
MBTI
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
I am pretty clueless on the subject though I've a friend who keeps using it to back up his personal beliefs. He states that humans by nature fight for survival and therefore things like war are natural, and peace may never be attained. (In general,Social Darwinism can be seen as supporting right-wing beliefs)

This however seems to me like Social Darwinism is nothing more than a philosophy used to promote a political agenda. And after much research I've seen people state that Social Darwinism does not reflect Darwin's original thoughts. Not only this but a lot of Darwin's original concepts were found to be flawed, and that definition of evolution has changed over time to fit the scientific model.

So just how accurate is Social Darwinism? What's its definition and does it hold any validity at all?

I am just tired of seeing this as an excuse to justify acts of cruelty as if it were our "nature".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gaze
Have you seen this article?

Social Scientists Build Case for 'Survival of the Kindest'

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091208155309.htm

....In contrast to "every man for himself" interpretations of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, Dacher Keltner, a UC Berkeley psychologist and author of "Born to be Good: The Science of a Meaningful Life," and his fellow social scientists are building the case that humans are successful as a species precisely because of our nurturing, altruistic and compassionate traits....
Click to expand...
 
A good example of social Darwinism: Nazism. You friend doesn't sound like they know what they are talking about.

Social Darwinism is an idea that came around in the 1800s (and has very little to do with Darwinian evolutionary theory) among the upper classes that they were living in better conditions because they were superior somehow genetically. In the 1900s, especially in the United States, social Darwinist ideas resulted in the forced sterilizations of tens of thousands of people (and we all know what social Darwinist ideas did through Nazism, but it originated in the United States and the early form in the British empire).

Social Darwinism has absolutely no scientific or empirical backing whatsoever. It is often used by privileged persons to justify racist or classist claims.

In response to your friend: war is a product of civilization and surplus goods, not human nature. What I mean is that wars as we know them only happen precisely because humans are removed from nature.
 
Acts of cruelty are our nature. But our nature isn't really relevant anymore. Hopefully we change it someday.
 
I agree with [MENTION=834]Dragon[/MENTION]
Also, I have heard it referred to as Survival of the Fitter rather than Fittest. Man is a social creature. The inability to get along with others is not the best strategy and does not make one "fitter".
 
Why do people think that cruelty is an inherent part of human nature, as if there is a hidden irrational sadist in each of us that we all have to struggle to control?
I don't think cruelty is a trait that comes naturally to most people.

The chemistry of the typical human brain is conducive to trusting and empathizing with others.
It's only when people are forced to compete for survival that they will, but that doesn't mean as a whole, people are inherently cruel..
It means people inherently want to live.

But yeah. What Dragon said.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kgal
@acd . Good post. I'd rep you but I'm being told I need to spread some reputation. :( I thought I was doing that btw.

I agree with you. My original belief was in the goodness of people and then they drove tractor trailers over my toes and I decided they were cruel. I think that's what happens to most people. I'm reworking my thoughts at the moment and I think most cruelty results from repeated misunderstandings that are ignored, leading to hurt feelings, defensiveness and eventually hatred. It's so hard to stop when it gets going too.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: acd
Speaking of what Dragon said.
I looked up forced sterilization and was surprised to find several states in the US were doing that - especially Southern states. Social Darwinism at it's worst.

http://www.actionnc.org/institute_index_justice_for_the_south_s_forced_sterilization_victims
This is an excerpt:

Estimated number of North Carolinians sterilized as part of that program: 7,600

Percent of North Carolina's sterilization victims who were women: about 85

Overall percent of North Carolina's sterilization victims who were black: 39

Percent of North Carolina's sterilization victims who were black during the 1960s: 60

Age of the North Carolina eugenics program's youngest victim, a boy who was castrated: 10

Number of North Carolina sterilization victims who are still alive today: nearly 3,000

Date on which North Carolina Gov. Beverly Perdue (D) established a Eugenics Task Force to look at compensating the state's sterilization victims: 3/8/2011

Date on which the task force held a listening session for victims of the state's forced-sterilization efforts: 6/22/2011

Age of Elaine Riddick, who spoke at the listening session, when she was sterilized in 1968 after being raped, getting pregnant and giving birth to the child: 13
Click to expand...

Now I see why people are hesitant to promote sterilization for the mentally retarded, those who have had 3 and 4 children on welfare or have had their children taken away for child abuse. It's clear there was much corruption and malice amongst those in control of that program back in those days.
 
K-gal said:
Now I see why people are hesitant to promote sterilization for the mentally retarded, those who have had 3 and 4 children on welfare or have had their children taken away for child abuse. It's clear there was much corruption and malice amongst those in control of that program back in those days.
Click to expand...
I think (or at least hope) that the problem with forced sterilization for most isn't just that those in charge of the program might have racist tendencies...

(Maybe I misunderstood you)
 
manatee said:
I think (or at least hope) that the problem with forced sterilization for most isn't just that those in charge of the program might have racist tendencies...

(Maybe I misunderstood you)
Click to expand...

What else would be the problem?

The low age of some of the people sterilized in the program suggests the people in charge were not using common sense or compassion at all. What is the point of castrating a 10 year old child? Seems very mean and unjust to me. I feel the same about the forced sterilization of the woman raped at age 13. It makes no sense to me. Perhaps I'm being naive - but the only conclusion I can come to is racism.
The majority of the poor were the blacks in the south back in those days. Segregation continued till the early 1970's.
Back then, if you passed a law saying anyone who is on welfare will only be paid for up to 3 children and after that you must be sterilized, is going to be "by law" potentially limiting the amount of black children being born. That could be viewed as racism as well as it supposedly targets an oppressed population.
 
K-gal said:
What else would be the problem?
Click to expand...
Wow.

I mean, I personally regard the violent removal of something so essential to human's as a person's ability to reproduce a facet of only the most wicked types of authoritarianism. Really, such a blatant denial of self-ownership strikes me as pure evil. Am I really in the minority on this?

I'm actually quite overwhelmed by this. Break.
 
manatee said:
Wow.

I mean, I personally regard the violent removal of something so essential to human's as a person's ability to reproduce a facet of only the most wicked types of authoritarianism. Really, such a blatant denial of self-ownership strikes me as pure evil. Am I really in the minority on this?

I'm actually quite overwhelmed by this. Break.
Click to expand...

I don't think you're in the minority on that position.
 
I don't understand, in a discussion like this isn't our nature one of the most relevant facets to this topic?
 
NDN NT said:
I agree with @Dragon
Also, I have heard it referred to as Survival of the Fitter rather than Fittest. Man is a social creature. The inability to get along with others is not the best strategy and does not make one "fitter".
Click to expand...

Yeah. Well, darwin described "fitness"as number of offspring.

Social Darwinism, to me, seems like an excuse for social engineering. But I think there is some traces of it at a micro level like in high school, where not everyone is created equal from a social standpoint.

As for the study that Kgal quoted, this seems interesting and I want to read their reasoning for it but I gotta leave for work in a minute so I'll save it for later. I'd imagine the exact opposite could be equally well supported though.
 
High school is more like one of Dante's Circles of Hell @bicklez


Also [MENTION=2578]K-gal[/MENTION]
There is evidence to support that clinics run by the government steralized Native women without their consent into the 1970's.
 
NDN NT said:
High school is more like one of Dante's Circles of Hell @bicklez


Also @K-gal
There is evidence to support that clinics run by the government steralized Native women without their consent into the 1970's.
Click to expand...
Yup, along with Black women, Chicanas, Mexicans, Hispanics, Asians, poor women, "radical" women, immigrants from just about anywhere that wasn't Europe...it's overwhelming to think about it and how long it lasted. It wouldn't surprise me if it still happens on some level (other than one jackass doctor here and there) today.
 
Thank you for your posts guys!! I am in complete agreement with all of you =)

It is sad so many are being raised with that mindset.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back