by threadbear » Wed 30 Aug 2006, 21:43:50
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', '
')Social Darwinism is based on outdated science, and ignores more recent discoveries of natural cooperation like acquistion of new genomes, and cooperation among mycelial networks (mushrooms) and trees.
It was Richard Hofstadter who came up with Social Darwinism and it doesn't have much to do with Darwin, threadbear; it's political ideology. I'm sure Darwin would have been fascinated by these recent discoveries. I recall it was you who told us about Lynn Margulis's
Acquiring Genomes. A very good read, indeed. I don't recall that she disputed natural selection, rather she wished to ammend it. Perhaps I'm misreading your post, though. OK, yes I am, but it just goes to show how discussions involving evolution and ethics can get very garbled. Different people talking about different things.
Social Darwinism is based on the "survival of the fittest" that forms the very backbone of neo-conservative ideology. Ironically, it's also the ideology of the sociopath. If I can beat so and so, then they deserve to be beaten. Multiple meanings for "beaten" here. This idea is lifted directly from Darwin's theory of evolution.
The theory applied to the natural world is now found to be limited, incomplete or in essence--outdated. If it is outdated for it's original purpose, to help describe the natural world, it's abundantly misdirected and misapplied to the human cultural, social and economic sphere. So there, Pal.