History Trivia / TheSocialDarwinist

17th Apr '13 4:39:19 AM FegelCineplex
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Note that Social Darwinism is usually [[YouFailBiologyForever actively disavowed by biologists]], including Darwin himself. Actual Darwinian natural selection states that organisms possessing properties that are better suited for survival in the environment tend to pass on their genes more often than ones that are less fit for the environment. Take for example a population hit by a disease. If 90% of that population dies due to that disease while the remaining organisms were resistant against it, the remaining organisms will reproduce and the race as a whole will be resilient against the disease in the future. This is something seen all the time in bacteria and insects, [[ZergRush which reproduce in greater quantities]] and more quickly than the more complex mammals. In addition, random mutations occur and will either spread throughout the population or die out. This usually occurs slowly over the course of several generations. It is not necessarily the strongest/most ruthless/etc. who are the fittest, but it can be (and often is) that which can band together in groups for mutual benefit which turn out to be the fittest. It's easier to remember if you consider the context is "survival of those most likely/able to have children."

"The survival of the fittest" is also something of a BeamMeUpScotty, as it was coined not by Darwin himself but Herbert Spencer (though Darwin added the phrase to the fifth edition of ''On the Origin of Species''). Due to lack of research, Spencer occasionally gets accused of being a Social Darwinist himself; the accusation comes from the fact that historian Richard Hofstadter [[QuoteMine presented the following quote]] from Spencer's ''Social Statics''; "If they are sufficiently complete to live, they do live, and it is well they should live. If they are not sufficiently complete to live, they die, and it is best they should die." Hofstadter took the quote out of context; the ''very next paragraph'' begins with the sentence "Of course, in so far as the severity of this process is mitigated by the spontaneous sympathy of men for each other, it is proper that it should be mitigated."

Darwin's "natural selection" was not the brute-force winner-take-all LensmanArmsRace contest some have characterized the process as. Natural selection isn't limited to a competition between different individuals or even species as to which is the most powerful. If predators became efficient enough to hunt all their prey to extinction, [[MutuallyAssuredDestruction they would not be "fit", as they would die out too]]. All parts of entire ecosystems must fit together in a balance that could almost be likened to cooperation in social terms -- the opposite of what the Social Darwinist believes. This also means that, to really emulate the principles of evolution, a conscious agent would have to weigh the consequences of their actions on everyone and everything else rather than fostering an individual or group that is capable of surviving at the expense of others.

Actual evolution can, in fact, lead to [[LensmanArmsRace arms races]] that are self-destructive in the long term. You know saber-toothed tigers? Creatures like that have evolved multiple times, in response to their rhino-like prey developing thicker hides to protect against the longer teeth. In the end, the short-term advantage of keeping up with your main predator/prey would be countered by the disadvantage of lugging around such big teeth and hides and both competing variants would die out. Further, though evolution has found ways around it, the same problem applies with cheating versus co-operation: everyone will be better off if a group works together, but a cheater will always be individually better off than those who contribute, at least until the system collapses from too many cheaters. (The way around this is by punishing cheaters, making it ''not'' be the more profitable option.) The Social Darwinist is rarely found taking ''this'' into account. If they took destructive arms races into account, they would have to either knowingly do what's right by other standards than "natural selection" or knowingly act in a way that leads to an "evolutionary" dead end.

Social Darwinism in the real world has also been criticised for being tautological because what is called fitness is nothing more than whatever the speaker likes. This also makes it hypocritical: you want to intervene with things only to advance that which you want to prevail while saying that interference to advance anything else goes against what is natural.

In fact, sociologists use the term "social Darwinism" not to refer to the improvement of one entire society over another via "survival of the fittest," but rather, that aspects within a society that are popular or useful will continue to exist, whereas the aspects which are unpopular or useless will be phased out. This is sometimes known as MemeticMutation, as RichardDawkins originally coined it: memes that are more influential/useful/likeable/popular/easily imitated can and will spread from person to person, while memes that are old/forced/maladaptive get phased out. Quite ironically, social Darwinism is responsible for the growth of human and individual rights -- exactly the opposite of what fiction implies it is for.

Additionally, since actual Darwinian natural selection can adapt only to your ''current'' situation, the greedy "only the most physically fit survive" version embodied by the villains of this trope is actually a poor long-term survival strategy -- you would end up with a large number of almost-identical, seemingly-optimal "perfect" specimens that are then promptly slaughtered ''en masse'' once something else evolves (or some other change to their environment occurs) that preys on one of their shared weaknesses (or just kill each other off in the endless rounds of infighting they think is so important). An example of this in action would be deer populations. For millennia, evolutionary pressure made it optimal that bucks have large antlers, which allowed them to defend themselves and challenge other deer in fights over mates. Come the rise of [[EgomaniacHunter sport hunting]] in the last couple of centuries, however, and all of a sudden deer with large antlers are being targeted for slaughter. Consequently, the average size of deer antlers plunged, and fast. Same goes to elephants who are now evolving no tusks.

It works out well, then, that evolution appears to be in many ways slow and conservative, frequently retaining seemingly "[[WeWillNotHaveAppendixesInTheFuture non-optimal]]" or currently useless genes through recessive traits and other mechanisms that can ''become'' useful in the future; for a species, [[PureIsNotGood diversity is more valuable than individual strength]].

In fact, social darwinism predated the Origin of Species [[http://scienceblogs.com/primatediaries/2010/01/deconstructing_social_darwinis.php by nearly a decade]] and for decades its proponents actually ''rejected'' Darwin's theory until they figured out using the name of scientists and justifiying your actions with "ForScience" provided [[VillainWithGoodPublicity unquestionable PR]].
----

to:

Note that Social Darwinism is usually [[YouFailBiologyForever actively disavowed by biologists]], including Darwin himself. Actual Darwinian natural selection states that organisms possessing properties that are better suited for survival in the environment tend to pass on their genes more often than ones that are less fit for the environment. Take for example a population hit by a disease. If 90% of that population dies due to that disease while the remaining organisms were resistant against it, the remaining organisms will reproduce and the race as a whole will be resilient against the disease in the future. This is something seen all the time in bacteria and insects, [[ZergRush which reproduce in greater quantities]] and more quickly than the more complex mammals. In addition, random mutations occur and will either spread throughout the population or die out. This usually occurs slowly over the course of several generations. It is not necessarily the strongest/most ruthless/etc. who are the fittest, but it can be (and often is) that which can band together in groups for mutual benefit which turn out to be the fittest. It's easier to remember if you consider the context is "survival of those most likely/able to have children."

"The survival of the fittest" is also something of a BeamMeUpScotty, as it was coined not by Darwin himself but Herbert Spencer (though Darwin added the phrase to the fifth edition of ''On the Origin of Species''). Due to lack of research, Spencer occasionally gets accused of being a Social Darwinist himself; the accusation comes from the fact that historian Richard Hofstadter [[QuoteMine presented the following quote]] from Spencer's ''Social Statics''; "If they are sufficiently complete to live, they do live, and it is well they should live. If they are not sufficiently complete to live, they die, and it is best they should die." Hofstadter took the quote out of context; the ''very next paragraph'' begins with the sentence "Of course, in so far as the severity of this process is mitigated by the spontaneous sympathy of men for each other, it is proper that it should be mitigated."

Darwin's "natural selection" was not the brute-force winner-take-all LensmanArmsRace contest some have characterized the process as. Natural selection isn't limited to a competition between different individuals or even species as to which is the most powerful. If predators became efficient enough to hunt all their prey to extinction, [[MutuallyAssuredDestruction they would not be "fit", as they would die out too]]. All parts of entire ecosystems must fit together in a balance that could almost be likened to cooperation in social terms -- the opposite of what the Social Darwinist believes. This also means that, to really emulate the principles of evolution, a conscious agent would have to weigh the consequences of their actions on everyone and everything else rather than fostering an individual or group that is capable of surviving at the expense of others.

Actual evolution can, in fact, lead to [[LensmanArmsRace arms races]] that are self-destructive in the long term. You know saber-toothed tigers? Creatures like that have evolved multiple times, in response to their rhino-like prey developing thicker hides to protect against the longer teeth. In the end, the short-term advantage of keeping up with your main predator/prey would be countered by the disadvantage of lugging around such big teeth and hides and both competing variants would die out. Further, though evolution has found ways around it, the same problem applies with cheating versus co-operation: everyone will be better off if a group works together, but a cheater will always be individually better off than those who contribute, at least until the system collapses from too many cheaters. (The way around this is by punishing cheaters, making it ''not'' be the more profitable option.) The Social Darwinist is rarely found taking ''this'' into account. If they took destructive arms races into account, they would have to either knowingly do what's right by other standards than "natural selection" or knowingly act in a way that leads to an "evolutionary" dead end.

Social Darwinism in the real world has also been criticised for being tautological because what is called fitness is nothing more than whatever the speaker likes. This also makes it hypocritical: you want to intervene with things only to advance that which you want to prevail while saying that interference to advance anything else goes against what is natural.

In fact, sociologists use the term "social Darwinism" not to refer to the improvement of one entire society over another via "survival of the fittest," but rather, that aspects within a society that are popular or useful will continue to exist, whereas the aspects which are unpopular or useless will be phased out. This is sometimes known as MemeticMutation, as RichardDawkins originally coined it: memes that are more influential/useful/likeable/popular/easily imitated can and will spread from person to person, while memes that are old/forced/maladaptive get phased out. Quite ironically, social Darwinism is responsible for the growth of human and individual rights -- exactly the opposite of what fiction implies it is for.

Additionally, since actual Darwinian natural selection can adapt only to your ''current'' situation, the greedy "only the most physically fit survive" version embodied by the villains of this trope is actually a poor long-term survival strategy -- you would end up with a large number of almost-identical, seemingly-optimal "perfect" specimens that are then promptly slaughtered ''en masse'' once something else evolves (or some other change to their environment occurs) that preys on one of their shared weaknesses (or just kill each other off in the endless rounds of infighting they think is so important). An example of this in action would be deer populations. For millennia, evolutionary pressure made it optimal that bucks have large antlers, which allowed them to defend themselves and challenge other deer in fights over mates. Come the rise of [[EgomaniacHunter sport hunting]] in the last couple of centuries, however, and all of a sudden deer with large antlers are being targeted for slaughter. Consequently, the average size of deer antlers plunged, and fast. Same goes to elephants who are now evolving no tusks.

It works out well, then, that evolution appears to be in many ways slow and conservative, frequently retaining seemingly "[[WeWillNotHaveAppendixesInTheFuture non-optimal]]" or currently useless genes through recessive traits and other mechanisms that can ''become'' useful in the future; for a species, [[PureIsNotGood diversity is more valuable than individual strength]].

In fact, social darwinism predated the Origin of Species [[http://scienceblogs.com/primatediaries/2010/01/deconstructing_social_darwinis.php by nearly a decade]] and for decades its proponents actually ''rejected'' Darwin's theory until they figured out using the name of scientists and justifiying your actions with "ForScience" provided [[VillainWithGoodPublicity unquestionable PR]].
----
[[redirect:Analysis/TheSocialDarwinist]]
9th Apr '13 4:52:52 AM memememememe
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Darwin's "natural selection" was not the brute-force winner-take-all contest some have characterized the process as. Natural selection isn't limited to a competition between different individuals or even species as to which is the most powerful. If predators became efficient enough to hunt all their prey to extinction, they would not be "fit", as they would die out too. All parts of entire ecosystems must fit together in a balance that could almost be likened to cooperation in human terms -- the opposite of what the Social Darwinist believes. This also means that, to really emulate the principles of evolution, a conscious agent would have to weigh the consequences of their actions on everyone and everything else rather than fostering an individual or group that is capable of surviving at the expense of others.

Further, actual evolution can, in fact, lead to [[LensmanArmsRace arms races]] that are destructive in the long term. You know saber-toothed tigers? Creatures like that have evolved multiple times, in response to their rhino-like prey developing thicker hides to protect against the longer teeth. In the end, the short-term advantage of keeping up with your main predator/prey would be countered by the disadvantage of lugging around such big teeth and hides and both competing variants would die out. Further, though evolution has found ways around it, the same problem applies with cheating versus co-operation: everyone will be better off if a group works together, but a cheater will always be individually better off than those who contribute, at least until the system collapses from too many cheaters. (The way around this is by punishing cheaters, making it ''not'' be the more profitable option.) The Social Darwinist is rarely found taking ''this'' into account. If they took destructive arms races into account, they would have to either knowingly do what's right by other standards than "natural selection" or knowingly act in a way that leads to an "evolutionary" dead end.

Social Darwinism in the real world has also been criticised for being tautological because what is called fitness is whatever the speaker thinks is good. This also makes it hypocritical: you want to intervene with things only to advance that which you want to prevail while saying that interference to advance anything else goes against what is natural.

to:

Darwin's "natural selection" was not the brute-force winner-take-all LensmanArmsRace contest some have characterized the process as. Natural selection isn't limited to a competition between different individuals or even species as to which is the most powerful. If predators became efficient enough to hunt all their prey to extinction, [[MutuallyAssuredDestruction they would not be "fit", as they would die out too. too]]. All parts of entire ecosystems must fit together in a balance that could almost be likened to cooperation in human social terms -- the opposite of what the Social Darwinist believes. This also means that, to really emulate the principles of evolution, a conscious agent would have to weigh the consequences of their actions on everyone and everything else rather than fostering an individual or group that is capable of surviving at the expense of others.

Further, actual Actual evolution can, in fact, lead to [[LensmanArmsRace arms races]] that are destructive self-destructive in the long term. You know saber-toothed tigers? Creatures like that have evolved multiple times, in response to their rhino-like prey developing thicker hides to protect against the longer teeth. In the end, the short-term advantage of keeping up with your main predator/prey would be countered by the disadvantage of lugging around such big teeth and hides and both competing variants would die out. Further, though evolution has found ways around it, the same problem applies with cheating versus co-operation: everyone will be better off if a group works together, but a cheater will always be individually better off than those who contribute, at least until the system collapses from too many cheaters. (The way around this is by punishing cheaters, making it ''not'' be the more profitable option.) The Social Darwinist is rarely found taking ''this'' into account. If they took destructive arms races into account, they would have to either knowingly do what's right by other standards than "natural selection" or knowingly act in a way that leads to an "evolutionary" dead end.

Social Darwinism in the real world has also been criticised for being tautological because what is called fitness is nothing more than whatever the speaker thinks is good.likes. This also makes it hypocritical: you want to intervene with things only to advance that which you want to prevail while saying that interference to advance anything else goes against what is natural.



Additionally, since actual Darwinian natural selection can adapt only to your ''current'' situation, the greedy "only the most physically fit survive" version embodied by the villains of this trope is actually a poor long-term survival strategy -- you would end up with a large number of almost-identical, seemingly-optimal "perfect" specimens that are then promptly slaughtered ''en masse'' once something else evolves (or some other change to their environment occurs) that preys on one of their shared weaknesses (or just kill each other off in the endless rounds of infighting they think is so important).An example of this in action would be deer populations. For millennia, evolutionary pressure made it optimal that bucks have large antlers, which allowed them to defend themselves and challenge other deer in fights over mates. Come the rise of [[EgomaniacHunter sport hunting]] in the last couple of centuries, however, and all of a sudden deer with large antlers are being targeted for slaughter. Consequently, the average size of deer antlers plunged, and fast.

to:

Additionally, since actual Darwinian natural selection can adapt only to your ''current'' situation, the greedy "only the most physically fit survive" version embodied by the villains of this trope is actually a poor long-term survival strategy -- you would end up with a large number of almost-identical, seemingly-optimal "perfect" specimens that are then promptly slaughtered ''en masse'' once something else evolves (or some other change to their environment occurs) that preys on one of their shared weaknesses (or just kill each other off in the endless rounds of infighting they think is so important). An example of this in action would be deer populations. For millennia, evolutionary pressure made it optimal that bucks have large antlers, which allowed them to defend themselves and challenge other deer in fights over mates. Come the rise of [[EgomaniacHunter sport hunting]] in the last couple of centuries, however, and all of a sudden deer with large antlers are being targeted for slaughter. Consequently, the average size of deer antlers plunged, and fast.
fast. Same goes to elephants who are now evolving no tusks.
13th Jan '13 4:32:07 AM VVK
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Actual evolution can, in fact, lead to [[LensmanArmsRace arms races]] that are destructive in the long term. You know saber-toothed tigers? Creatures like that have evolved multiple times, in response to their rhino-like prey developing thicker hides to protect against the longer teeth. In the end, the short-term advantage of keeping up with your main predator/prey would be countered by the disadvantage of lugging around such big teeth and hides and both competing variants would die out. Further, though evolution has found ways around it, the same problem applies with cheating versus co-operation: everyone will be better off if a group works together, but a cheater will always be individually better off than those who contribute, at least until the system collapses from too many cheaters. (The way around this is by punishing cheaters, making it ''not'' be the more profitable option.) The Social Darwinist is rarely found taking ''this'' into account.

to:

Actual Further, actual evolution can, in fact, lead to [[LensmanArmsRace arms races]] that are destructive in the long term. You know saber-toothed tigers? Creatures like that have evolved multiple times, in response to their rhino-like prey developing thicker hides to protect against the longer teeth. In the end, the short-term advantage of keeping up with your main predator/prey would be countered by the disadvantage of lugging around such big teeth and hides and both competing variants would die out. Further, though evolution has found ways around it, the same problem applies with cheating versus co-operation: everyone will be better off if a group works together, but a cheater will always be individually better off than those who contribute, at least until the system collapses from too many cheaters. (The way around this is by punishing cheaters, making it ''not'' be the more profitable option.) The Social Darwinist is rarely found taking ''this'' into account.
account. If they took destructive arms races into account, they would have to either knowingly do what's right by other standards than "natural selection" or knowingly act in a way that leads to an "evolutionary" dead end.

Social Darwinism in the real world has also been criticised for being tautological because what is called fitness is whatever the speaker thinks is good. This also makes it hypocritical: you want to intervene with things only to advance that which you want to prevail while saying that interference to advance anything else goes against what is natural.



Additionally, since actual Darwinian natural selection can adapt only to your ''current'' situation, the greedy "only the most physically fit survive" version embodied by the villains of this trope is actually a poor long-term survival strategy -- you would end up with a large number of almost-identical, seemingly-optimal "perfect" specimens that are then promptly slaughtered ''en masse'' once something else evolves (or some other change to their environment occurs) that preys on one of their shared weaknesses (or just kill each other off in the endless rounds of infighting they think is so important).An example of this in action would be deer populations. For millennia, evolutionary pressure made it optimal that bucks have large antlers, which allowed them to defend themselves and challenge other deer in fights over mates. Come the rise of [[EgomaniacHunter sport hunting]] in the last couple of centuries, however, and all of a sudden deer with large antlers are being targeted for slaughter. Consequently, the average size of deer antlers plunged, and fast.

to:

Additionally, since actual Darwinian natural selection can adapt only to your ''current'' situation, the greedy "only the most physically fit survive" version embodied by the villains of this trope is actually a poor long-term survival strategy -- you would end up with a large number of almost-identical, seemingly-optimal "perfect" specimens that are then promptly slaughtered ''en masse'' once something else evolves (or some other change to their environment occurs) that preys on one of their shared weaknesses (or just kill each other off in the endless rounds of infighting they think is so important).An example of this in action would be deer populations. For millennia, evolutionary pressure made it optimal that bucks have large antlers, which allowed them to defend themselves and challenge other deer in fights over mates. Come the rise of [[EgomaniacHunter sport hunting]] in the last couple of centuries, however, and all of a sudden deer with large antlers are being targeted for slaughter. Consequently, the average size of deer antlers plunged, and fast.
fast.
13th Jan '13 4:24:28 AM VVK
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Darwin's "natural selection" was not the brute-force winner-take-all contest some have characterized the process as. Natural selection isn't limited to a competition between different individuals or even species as to which is the most powerful. If predators became efficient enough to hunt all their prey to extinction, they would not be "fit", as they would die out too. All parts of entire ecosystems must fit together in a balance that could almost be likened to cooperation in human terms -- the opposite of what the Social Darwinist believes. This also means that, to really emulate the principles of evolution, a conscious agent would have to weigh the consequences of their actions on everyone and everything else rather than fostering an individual or group that is capable of surviving at the expense of others.

to:

Darwin's "natural selection" was not the brute-force winner-take-all contest some have characterized the process as. Natural selection isn't limited to a competition between different individuals or even species as to which is the most powerful. If predators became efficient enough to hunt all their prey to extinction, they would not be "fit", as they would die out too. All parts of entire ecosystems must fit together in a balance that could almost be likened to cooperation in human terms -- the opposite of what the Social Darwinist believes. This also means that, to really emulate the principles of evolution, a conscious agent would have to weigh the consequences of their actions on everyone and everything else rather than fostering an individual or group that is capable of surviving at the expense of others.
others.

Actual evolution can, in fact, lead to [[LensmanArmsRace arms races]] that are destructive in the long term. You know saber-toothed tigers? Creatures like that have evolved multiple times, in response to their rhino-like prey developing thicker hides to protect against the longer teeth. In the end, the short-term advantage of keeping up with your main predator/prey would be countered by the disadvantage of lugging around such big teeth and hides and both competing variants would die out. Further, though evolution has found ways around it, the same problem applies with cheating versus co-operation: everyone will be better off if a group works together, but a cheater will always be individually better off than those who contribute, at least until the system collapses from too many cheaters. (The way around this is by punishing cheaters, making it ''not'' be the more profitable option.) The Social Darwinist is rarely found taking ''this'' into account.
4th Nov '12 5:40:10 PM memememememe
Is there an issue? Send a Message


In fact, social darwinism predated the Origin of Species [[http://scienceblogs.com/primatediaries/2010/01/deconstructing_social_darwinis.php by nearly a decade]] and for decades its proponents actually ''rejected'' Darwin's theory until they figured out using Darwin's name was [[VillainWithGoodPublicity good PR]].

to:

In fact, social darwinism predated the Origin of Species [[http://scienceblogs.com/primatediaries/2010/01/deconstructing_social_darwinis.php by nearly a decade]] and for decades its proponents actually ''rejected'' Darwin's theory until they figured out using Darwin's the name was of scientists and justifiying your actions with "ForScience" provided [[VillainWithGoodPublicity good unquestionable PR]].
4th Nov '12 5:38:00 PM memememememe
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Note that Social Darwinism is usually [[YouFailBiologyForever actively disavowed by biologists]], including Darwin himself. Actual Darwinian natural selection states that organisms possessing properties that are better suited for survival in the environment tend to pass on their genes more often than ones that are less fit for the environment. Take for example a population hit by a disease. If 90% of that population dies due to that disease while the remaining organisms were resistant against it, the remaining organisms will reproduce and the race as a whole will be resilient against the disease in the future. This is something seen all the time in bacteria and insects, which reproduce in greater quantities and more quickly than mammals. In addition, random mutations occur and will either spread throughout the population or die out. This usually occurs slowly over the course of several generations. It is not necessarily the strongest/most ruthless/etc. who are the fittest, but it can be (and often is) that which can band together in groups for mutual benefit which turn out to be the fittest. It's easier to remember if you consider the context is "survival of those most likely/able to have children."

to:

Note that Social Darwinism is usually [[YouFailBiologyForever actively disavowed by biologists]], including Darwin himself. Actual Darwinian natural selection states that organisms possessing properties that are better suited for survival in the environment tend to pass on their genes more often than ones that are less fit for the environment. Take for example a population hit by a disease. If 90% of that population dies due to that disease while the remaining organisms were resistant against it, the remaining organisms will reproduce and the race as a whole will be resilient against the disease in the future. This is something seen all the time in bacteria and insects, [[ZergRush which reproduce in greater quantities quantities]] and more quickly than the more complex mammals. In addition, random mutations occur and will either spread throughout the population or die out. This usually occurs slowly over the course of several generations. It is not necessarily the strongest/most ruthless/etc. who are the fittest, but it can be (and often is) that which can band together in groups for mutual benefit which turn out to be the fittest. It's easier to remember if you consider the context is "survival of those most likely/able to have children."



Darwin's "natural selection" was not the brute-force winner-take-all contest some have characterized the process as. Natural selection isn't limited to a competition between different individuals or even species as to which is the most powerful. If predators became efficient enough to hunt their prey to extinction, they would not be "fit", as they would die out too. All parts of entire ecosystems must fit together in a balance that could almost be likened to cooperation in human terms -- the opposite of what the Social Darwinist believes. This also means that, to really emulate the principles of evolution, a conscious agent would have to weigh the consequences of their actions on everyone and everything else rather than fostering an individual or group that is capable of surviving at the expense of others. In fact, sociologists use the term "social Darwinism" not to refer to the improvement of one entire society over another via "survival of the fittest," but rather, that aspects within a society that are popular or useful will continue to exist, whereas the aspects which are unpopular or useless will be phased out. It's more like MemeticMutation, as RichardDawkins originally coined it: memes that are more influential/likeable/popular/easily imitated spread from person to person, while memes that are old/forced/maladaptive get phased out. Quite ironically, social Darwinism is responsible for the growth of human and individual rights -- exactly the opposite of what fiction implies it is for.

Additionally, since actual Darwinian natural selection can adapt only to your ''current'' situation, the greedy "only the most physically fit survive" version embodied by the villains of this trope is actually a poor long-term survival strategy -- you would end up with a large number of almost-identical, seemingly-optimal "perfect" specimens that are then promptly slaughtered ''en masse'' once something else evolves (or some other change to their environment occurs) that preys on one of their shared weaknesses (or just kill each other off in the endless rounds of infighting they think is so important).[[hottip:*:An example of this in action would be deer populations. For millennia, evolutionary pressure made it optimal that bucks have large antlers, which allowed them to defend themselves and challenge other deer in fights over mates. Come the rise of [[EgomaniacHunter sport hunting]] in the last couple of centuries, however, and all of a sudden deer with large antlers are being targeted for slaughter. Consequently, the average size of deer antlers plunged, and fast.]] It works out well, then, that evolution appears to be in many ways slow and conservative, frequently retaining seemingly "[[WeWillNotHaveAppendixesInTheFuture non-optimal]]" or currently useless genes through recessive traits and other mechanisms that can ''become'' useful in the future; for a species, [[PureIsNotGood diversity is more valuable than individual strength]].

to:

Darwin's "natural selection" was not the brute-force winner-take-all contest some have characterized the process as. Natural selection isn't limited to a competition between different individuals or even species as to which is the most powerful. If predators became efficient enough to hunt all their prey to extinction, they would not be "fit", as they would die out too. All parts of entire ecosystems must fit together in a balance that could almost be likened to cooperation in human terms -- the opposite of what the Social Darwinist believes. This also means that, to really emulate the principles of evolution, a conscious agent would have to weigh the consequences of their actions on everyone and everything else rather than fostering an individual or group that is capable of surviving at the expense of others.

In fact, sociologists use the term "social Darwinism" not to refer to the improvement of one entire society over another via "survival of the fittest," but rather, that aspects within a society that are popular or useful will continue to exist, whereas the aspects which are unpopular or useless will be phased out. It's more like This is sometimes known as MemeticMutation, as RichardDawkins originally coined it: memes that are more influential/likeable/popular/easily influential/useful/likeable/popular/easily imitated can and will spread from person to person, while memes that are old/forced/maladaptive get phased out. Quite ironically, social Darwinism is responsible for the growth of human and individual rights -- exactly the opposite of what fiction implies it is for.

Additionally, since actual Darwinian natural selection can adapt only to your ''current'' situation, the greedy "only the most physically fit survive" version embodied by the villains of this trope is actually a poor long-term survival strategy -- you would end up with a large number of almost-identical, seemingly-optimal "perfect" specimens that are then promptly slaughtered ''en masse'' once something else evolves (or some other change to their environment occurs) that preys on one of their shared weaknesses (or just kill each other off in the endless rounds of infighting they think is so important).[[hottip:*:An An example of this in action would be deer populations. For millennia, evolutionary pressure made it optimal that bucks have large antlers, which allowed them to defend themselves and challenge other deer in fights over mates. Come the rise of [[EgomaniacHunter sport hunting]] in the last couple of centuries, however, and all of a sudden deer with large antlers are being targeted for slaughter. Consequently, the average size of deer antlers plunged, and fast.]]

It works out well, then, that evolution appears to be in many ways slow and conservative, frequently retaining seemingly "[[WeWillNotHaveAppendixesInTheFuture non-optimal]]" or currently useless genes through recessive traits and other mechanisms that can ''become'' useful in the future; for a species, [[PureIsNotGood diversity is more valuable than individual strength]].
3rd Sep '12 11:52:22 PM mlsmithca
Is there an issue? Send a Message


"The survival of the fittest" is also something of a BeamMeUpScotty, as it was coined not by Darwin himself but Herbert Spencer (though Darwin added the phrase to the fifth edition of ''On the Origin of Species''). Due to [[DidNotDoTheResearch lack of research]], Spencer occasionally gets accused of being a Social Darwinist himself; the accusation comes from the fact that historian Richard Hofstadter [[QuoteMine presented the following quote]] from Spencer's ''Social Statics''; "If they are sufficiently complete to live, they do live, and it is well they should live. If they are not sufficiently complete to live, they die, and it is best they should die." Hofstadter took the quote out of context; the ''very next paragraph'' begins with the sentence "Of course, in so far as the severity of this process is mitigated by the spontaneous sympathy of men for each other, it is proper that it should be mitigated."

to:

"The survival of the fittest" is also something of a BeamMeUpScotty, as it was coined not by Darwin himself but Herbert Spencer (though Darwin added the phrase to the fifth edition of ''On the Origin of Species''). Due to [[DidNotDoTheResearch lack of research]], research, Spencer occasionally gets accused of being a Social Darwinist himself; the accusation comes from the fact that historian Richard Hofstadter [[QuoteMine presented the following quote]] from Spencer's ''Social Statics''; "If they are sufficiently complete to live, they do live, and it is well they should live. If they are not sufficiently complete to live, they die, and it is best they should die." Hofstadter took the quote out of context; the ''very next paragraph'' begins with the sentence "Of course, in so far as the severity of this process is mitigated by the spontaneous sympathy of men for each other, it is proper that it should be mitigated."
10th May '12 8:02:04 AM ashdenej
Is there an issue? Send a Message


In fact, social darwinism predated the Origin of Species [[http://scienceblogs.com/primatediaries/2010/01/deconstructing_social_darwinis.php by nearly a decade]] and for decades its proponents actually ''rejected'' Darwin's theory until they figured out using Darwin's name was [[VillainWithGoodPublicity good PR]]

to:

In fact, social darwinism predated the Origin of Species [[http://scienceblogs.com/primatediaries/2010/01/deconstructing_social_darwinis.php by nearly a decade]] and for decades its proponents actually ''rejected'' Darwin's theory until they figured out using Darwin's name was [[VillainWithGoodPublicity good PR]]PR]].
1st May '12 4:32:01 PM memememememe
Is there an issue? Send a Message
19th Dec '11 11:12:11 PM memememememe
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Darwin's "natural selection" was not the brute-force winner-take-all contest some have characterized the process as. Natural selection isn't limited to a competition between different individuals or even species as to which is the most powerful. If predators became efficient enough to hunt their prey to extinction, they would not be "fit", as they would die out too. All parts of entire ecosystems must fit together in a balance that could almost be likened to cooperation in human terms -- the opposite of what the Social Darwinist believes. This also means that, to really emulate the principles of evolution, a conscious agent would have to weigh the consequences of their actions on everyone and everything else rather than fostering an individual or group that is capable of surviving at the expense of others. In fact, sociologists use the term "social Darwinism" not to refer to the improvement of one entire society over another via "survival of the fittest," but rather, that aspects within a society that are popular or useful will continue to exist, whereas the aspects which are unpopular or useless will be phased out. Quite ironically, social Darwinism is responsible for the growth of human and individual rights -- exactly the opposite of what fiction implies it is for.

to:

Darwin's "natural selection" was not the brute-force winner-take-all contest some have characterized the process as. Natural selection isn't limited to a competition between different individuals or even species as to which is the most powerful. If predators became efficient enough to hunt their prey to extinction, they would not be "fit", as they would die out too. All parts of entire ecosystems must fit together in a balance that could almost be likened to cooperation in human terms -- the opposite of what the Social Darwinist believes. This also means that, to really emulate the principles of evolution, a conscious agent would have to weigh the consequences of their actions on everyone and everything else rather than fostering an individual or group that is capable of surviving at the expense of others. In fact, sociologists use the term "social Darwinism" not to refer to the improvement of one entire society over another via "survival of the fittest," but rather, that aspects within a society that are popular or useful will continue to exist, whereas the aspects which are unpopular or useless will be phased out. It's more like MemeticMutation, as RichardDawkins originally coined it: memes that are more influential/likeable/popular/easily imitated spread from person to person, while memes that are old/forced/maladaptive get phased out. Quite ironically, social Darwinism is responsible for the growth of human and individual rights -- exactly the opposite of what fiction implies it is for.


Added DiffLines:


In fact, social darwinism predated the Origin of Species [[http://scienceblogs.com/primatediaries/2010/01/deconstructing_social_darwinis.php by nearly a decade]] and for decades its proponents actually ''rejected'' Darwin's theory until they figured out using Darwin's name was [[VillainWithGoodPublicity good PR]]
This list shows the last 10 events of 17. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Trivia.TheSocialDarwinist