Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 23,27 (click to see context) from:
Most Social Darwinists have naturally been of the Conservative or Libertarian orientation, while communists such as the Soviet Union condemned the Darwin-Mendel model of genetics in favor of a primitive [[LamarckWasRight Lamarckism]], due to the latter being more attuned with Marxist ideology (this had disastrous consequences in agriculture). One must also not confuse Social Darwinism with eugenics. While many Social Darwinists did advocate eugenics (the Nazis most notoriously), it was also advocated by prominent progressives and socialists in the late 1800s/early 1900s, arguing that the "genetically diseased" should be relieved of having children they couldn't care for and that would be a burden to society, and that if a child is too disordered to even survive in the world then it is much better to subject them to [[MercyKill euthanasia]] for the greater benefit of the whole; in other words, a cruel form of [[TheNeedsOfTheMany utilitarianism]]. However, some held views more in keeping with stereotypical Social Darwinism, as socialists and progressives then sometimes held views modern followers of those philosophies now find abhorrent. It didn't help that many leading progressives and socialists were [[BourgeoisBohemian middle, even upper class people]], with contempt toward the unfortunate despite the supposed concern for them. Basically, many divided the poor into "deserving" and "underserving" types, wanting to help the former but concerned that the latter were having too many children which they felt was bringing down the gene pool. Many advocated birth control for this, and others went to the point of forced sterilization or even euthanasia. However, after the Nazis took such ideas to the horrific extent of the Holocaust, this has become anathema on both the entire political spectrum (apart from a few fringe groups).
Another thing Social Darwinists failed to take into account is the concept of civilization. Though it's true that despots were often the first type of rulers, a civilization typically survived and flourished when every person, ranging from farmers and laborers to officials and rulers, worked together. Wounded individuals were cared for to restore them back to a functional capacity and rulers protected their citizens from raiders in exchange for loyalty and taxes. In diplomacy, though civilizations often viewed themselves as superior, even they saw the value of cooperation and peaceful coexistence, which led to things such as commerce, cultural exchange, and alliances. In other words, Social Darwinism would not be compatible with human dominance and survival. Everyone was born weak, for one, plus many people in history have been physically feeble, had few children (or none at all) yet also contributed highly to civilization (ironically, this is often the case among the most intelligent people, whom Social Darwinists frequently lionize, though by real evolutionary standards they would be unfit-not that this has to [[AppealToNature dictate attitudes]]).
Another thing Social Darwinists failed to take into account is the concept of civilization. Though it's true that despots were often the first type of rulers, a civilization typically survived and flourished when every person, ranging from farmers and laborers to officials and rulers, worked together. Wounded individuals were cared for to restore them back to a functional capacity and rulers protected their citizens from raiders in exchange for loyalty and taxes. In diplomacy, though civilizations often viewed themselves as superior, even they saw the value of cooperation and peaceful coexistence, which led to things such as commerce, cultural exchange, and alliances. In other words, Social Darwinism would not be compatible with human dominance and survival. Everyone was born weak, for one, plus many people in history have been physically feeble, had few children (or none at all) yet also contributed highly to civilization (ironically, this is often the case among the most intelligent people, whom Social Darwinists frequently lionize, though by real evolutionary standards they would be unfit-not that this has to [[AppealToNature dictate attitudes]]).
to:
Most Social Darwinists have naturally been of the Conservative or Libertarian orientation, while communists such as the Soviet Union condemned the Darwin-Mendel model of genetics in favor of a primitive [[LamarckWasRight Lamarckism]], due to the latter being more attuned with Marxist ideology (this had disastrous consequences in agriculture). One must also not confuse Social Darwinism with eugenics. While many Social Darwinists did advocate eugenics (the Nazis most notoriously), it was also advocated by prominent progressives and socialists in the late 1800s/early 1900s, arguing that the "genetically diseased" should be relieved of having children they couldn't care for and that would be a burden to society, and that if a child is too disordered to even survive in the world then it is much better to subject them to [[MercyKill euthanasia]] for the greater benefit of the whole; in other words, a cruel form of [[TheNeedsOfTheMany utilitarianism]]. However, some held views more in keeping with stereotypical Social Darwinism, as socialists and progressives then sometimes held views modern followers of those philosophies now find abhorrent. It didn't help that many leading progressives and socialists were [[BourgeoisBohemian middle, even upper class people]], with contempt toward the unfortunate despite the supposed concern for them. Basically, many divided the poor into "deserving" and "underserving" types, wanting to help the former but concerned that the latter were having too many children which they felt was bringing down the gene pool. Many advocated birth control for this, and others went to the point of forced sterilization or even euthanasia. However, after the Nazis took such ideas to the horrific extent of the Holocaust, this has become anathema on both to the entire political spectrum (apart from a few fringe groups).
Another thing Social Darwinists failed to take into account is the concept of civilization. Though it's true that despots were often the first type of rulers, a civilization typically survived and flourished when every person, ranging from farmers and laborers to officials and rulers, worked together. Wounded individuals were cared for to restore them back to a functional capacity and rulers protected their citizens from raiders in exchange for loyalty and taxes. In diplomacy, though civilizations often viewed themselves as superior, even they saw the value of cooperation and peaceful coexistence, which led to things such as commerce, cultural exchange, and alliances. In other words, Social Darwinism would not be compatible with human dominance and survival. Everyone was born weak, for one, plus many people in history have been physically feeble, had few children (or none at all) yet also contributed highly to civilization (ironically, this is often the case among the most intelligent people, whom Social Darwinists frequently lionize, including many of their own, though by real evolutionary standards they would be unfit-not that this has to [[AppealToNature dictate attitudes]]).
Another thing Social Darwinists failed to take into account is the concept of civilization. Though it's true that despots were often the first type of rulers, a civilization typically survived and flourished when every person, ranging from farmers and laborers to officials and rulers, worked together. Wounded individuals were cared for to restore them back to a functional capacity and rulers protected their citizens from raiders in exchange for loyalty and taxes. In diplomacy, though civilizations often viewed themselves as superior, even they saw the value of cooperation and peaceful coexistence, which led to things such as commerce, cultural exchange, and alliances. In other words, Social Darwinism would not be compatible with human dominance and survival. Everyone was born weak, for one, plus many people in history have been physically feeble, had few children (or none at all) yet also contributed highly to civilization (ironically, this is often the case among the most intelligent people, whom Social Darwinists frequently lionize, including many of their own, though by real evolutionary standards they would be unfit-not that this has to [[AppealToNature dictate attitudes]]).
Changed line(s) 30,31 (click to see context) from:
It's even more questionable because like Above said those who are "fit" depends on the perspective of individuals, not actual science.
to:
It's even more questionable because like Above the above said those who are "fit" depends on the perspective of individuals, not actual science.
