Talk:Social Darwinism

Has anyone considered that if social darwinism were true, that all the poor should be dying off, eventually leaving a race of rich people? Instead, poor are the most numerous and tend to have more children than the rich. If Darwinism were really applied to our society in this way, one would have to conclude that the poor were the really successful ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEvilPanda (talk • contribs) 18:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You might have a point if "Social Darwinism" was actually Darwinism as explained in The Origin of Species. It is not. It is the contention by various interest groups that certain classes of people -- usually including themselves -- are "better" than others in some Neo-evolutionary sense that has nothing to do with biological evolution and deserve to rule the world. They may be simply followers of some philosophy or religion. Furthermore, it is unpredictable which if any human groups will survive when global population implodes, and only afterward will it be known which genotypes or phenotypes were fittest in the Darwinian sense. Fairandbalanced (talk) 01:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Definitions

From my own personal study, I believe there should be a very strict line drawn between Social Darwinism and eugenics. The fourth paragraph in the introduction does not make a good distinction. If no one opposes in the next few days I will take it out completely. Also the section of theories and origins are not correct. Social Darwinism was created on the bases of laissez-faire, that is the people will be left to themselves. Eugenics requires government intervention to speed the process of natural selection. Social Darwinism has it's roots strictly in economic theory, while eugenics is mainly a social and political ideology. You will have to forgive me because I do not know my history well enough to state which came first, or if they both emerged approximately the same time, but I do believe that it would be a major historical error to state that they have the same roots. Please, let me know what you think. InfoNation¹⁰¹ | talk | 05:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an accurate assessment. It is instructive to think of three concepts as occupying the vertices of a triangle.

Eugenics is based on the notion that some central agent (for example, the government) can engineer a breeding program resulting in some superior genetic profile for the population, supposedly better suited to the environmental conditions. Eugenics need not be expressly political, but one can draw parallels between it and national socialism and other forms of totalitarianism.

Dysgenics says much the same thing - except, instead of selective breeding, the idea is to eliminate, as much as possible, all forces of selection (via the action of some central agent - generally the government). The net result will be "equality", which, according to proponents, is an end unto itself, but dysgenics supposedly also opens up new possibilities for human advancement which are supposedly not possible under the operation of single-generational selection. Dysgenics need not be expressly political, but one can draw parallels between it and democratic socialism, and some other Marxism-influenced political identities.

Social Darwinism is a system where all such central planning is detested - it is indeed a laissez-faire concept, sink or swim. Social Darwinism need not be expressly political, but one can draw parallels between it and capitalism (procreation should follow the same model as the free-market, which in turn can be modeled following from evolutionary principles, like natural selection coupled with innovation/modification). 19:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but unless you find sources that say the same thing, this is nothing but OR, and therefore it shouldn't be in the article.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The concept of dysgenics itself is really only at home in a discussion of genotype. Direct anthropomorphic considerations (of the sociopolitical aspect outlined above) are very crude constructions which do not hew to the precise biological use of the term. I think one danger is that, by focusing on the easily politicized extension of the term, we risk conflating an important biological concept with indirect sociological constructions. Next thing you know, biologists innocently researching fruit flies get implicated in fascism, eugenics, and gas chambers. So I agree that we need to make very careful use of these terms.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.186.41.143 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

My understanding, and getting good sources for this isn't that easy, is that social Darwinism is a term redefined by Hofstadter in 1944 to mean Spencerian "survival of the fittest" as used by capitalist free market liberalism, applied to social and economic structures. Eugenics had been promoted by many groups in the US with similar ideas, such as the Rockefeller institution, with sterilisation programs introduced to weed out the unfit or poor[1][2] in a similar way to the harsh Malthusian workhouses of the 1830s which were essentially a Whig economic liberal approach in opposition to the previous paternalist Tory idea of poor relief. However, eugenics as conceived by Galton and his half-cousin Darwin was to be voluntary, choosing mates rather than being sterilised, and this approach is nowadays practiced by vulnerable groups, particularly certain Jews.[3] ... dave souza, talk 00:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Improvements needed

Much of the Wikipedia is vastly improved since I last visited, but this article is rotten. It completely fails to distinguish clearly between biological evolution, socio-economic philosophies of "Social Darwinism", and eugenics. I don't recall Darwin himself making a clear distinction between breeding (which he used extensively for supporting evidence) and evolutionary "fitness," but the distinction is clear to modern evolutionary biologists. Unfortunately I'm not one of those. Fairandbalanced (talk) 01:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, any assistance you can give with improving this article will be greatly appreciated. Darwin's view as expressed here was that "We have seen that man by selection can certainly produce great results, and can adapt organic beings to his own uses, through the accumulation of slight but useful variations, given to him by the hand of Nature. But Natural Selection, as we shall hereafter see, is a power incessantly ready for action, and is as immeasurably superior to man's feeble efforts, as the works of Nature are to those of Art." Don't know if you have a further distinction in mind.

The subject itself is rather confusing, not least because the term was coined by a communist to refer to the laissez faire capitalism of the early 20th century, and includes ideas of social evolution that predate Darwin. This download usefully suggests that " It has sometimes been suggested that the phrase “social Darwinism”—a phrase that carries a large negative valence—be altered to the more historically correct “social Spencerianism,” as if Darwin himself should be exonerated of any application of evolutionary theory to human beings. This suggestion obviously lacks all merit. Neither Darwin nor Spencer thought the human animal exempt from evolutionary understanding and consequent theoretical construction." It also highlights the differences between Darwin's idea of natural selection and Spencer's "survival of the fittest", though it may be noted that Spencer has a claim to have described the process as applied to humans before Darwin published his theory.[4] Anyway, to avoid WP:SYN we need more sources discussing the roots and meanings of "social Darwinism". . . dave souza, talk

Critique of What?

In the "critique and controversy" section I expected a critique of "social darwinism", but it seems it is rather a critique of the critiques of "social darwinism". The fact that some people wrongfully equate biological Darwinism with political Social Darwinism does not justify the attempt to rewrite history. In fact Darwin was abused by the Nazis and other Racialists and Eugenics. It seems to be a somewhat twisted construction to put the blame on ideas, which originated before Darwin.--80.228.184.147 (talk) 14:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)