Darwin and the Left

[durutti]

I've been doing a lot of research into this topic lately, so I figured I'd discuss it with fellow DUers. Originally, the research was intended for an article, but I've discovered the whole thing to be a pretty monumental task...

Basically, I'd like to discuss how social, political, and economic forces have shaped evolutionary forces, and how they have, in turn, shapes social, political, and economic thought, particularly progressive thought.

Darwin did not invent evolution. Similar processes had previously been speculated upon by Lamarck, among others. And of course, various thinkers in philosophy and the social sciences had conceived of social and/or spiritual evolution.

We must consider Darwin's background. He was a well-to-do English gentleman, influenced by the thought of Thomas Malthus (who, among other things, thought that war was a means of "culling the herd" of humanity). One can safely say that social, cultural, economic, and political biases corrupt much scientific inquiry today. And such biases were demonstrably given even more reign in Darwin's time.

And of course, Darwin's theory of evolution is just that -- a theory. Evolution itself is a fact -- but Darwin's idea of natural selection as the main mechanism of evolution is theory. He acknowledged that other mechanisms were at work -- sexual selection, for example. Later scientists have theorized mechanisms like symbiogenesis and punctuated equillibria. Natural selection took basically two forms: organisms to survive their environment and organisms against each other.

The Right was divided over Darwin's theories. Some saw it as a validation of the Hobbesian war of all vs. all. Others opposed it on the grounds of its seeming invalidation of organized religion.

But the Left embraced Darwin. Marx dedicated the first edition of Capital to him. The attitude among socialists was that Darwin was in the main correct; but that to some extent, his ideas were colored by his class ideology. In later editions, Darwin even employed some of the language of Herbert Spencer, originator of social Darwinism.

The Left saw evolutionary benefits in cooperation. Two important works arguing for this view were Kropotkin's Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution and Pannekoek's Marxism and Darwinism.

Some of the Right and almost the entire Left (outside the Soviet Union, which was overtaken by Lysenkoist pseudoscience) used Darwin to defend their ideals. In the U.S., Darwinism was largely associated with the political Left until the 1970s.

1975 marked the heavily-promoted publication of Sociobiology: The New Synthesis (complete in coffee table format!) by Harvard ethologist Edward O. Wilson. Most of the book was a reasonably decent work of science. But in the first and last two chapters, Wilson made some sweeping claims about human behavior, claiming (without much evidence) that capitalism, racism, and sexual inequality (among other things) were evolved parts of human nature. Wilson became an overnight celebrity, while his claims sparked an uproar both among the New Left and revered scientists like Richard Lewontin and Stephen Jay Gould.

Lewontin, Gould, and others published many articles criticizing sociobiology. I've read most of them, and must say that I've yet to find very convincing refutations.

Then, in the early 1990s -- largely in response to criticisms of sociobiology -- "evolutionary psychology" was born. It attempted to forego sociobiology's sweeping claims and selective readings of history and instead focus on individual behavior as it might have developed due to evolution.

Unfortunately, evolutionary psychology -- though in some ways more promising -- has fallen into many of the same traps as sociobiology. For a more thorough examination of these problems, I recommend the book Alas, Poor Darwin, edited by Hilary Rose.

The sociobiology/evolutionary psychology debate is, it seems to me, far from over. Yet The Nation published a 2002 article defending sociobiology. And recently, Daniel Singer published A Darwinian Left, urging Leftists to change their approach in significant ways. You can read an excerpt here: http://www.ne-plus-ultra.org/singer.htm

So, DUers, what do you think of all this? Has Darwin helped or hurt the Left? Does Darwinism validate the Left? Invalidate it? Does the Left need to become more "Darwinian" and accepting of the fact that the status quo may at least at some level be a consequence of human nature?

[ldoolin]

1. This is probably above my head as I'm not...

...an expert in Darwinian evolution, but it seems to me that Darwin's theory of evolution was an observation of an actual fact and even his theory of natural selection has never been disproven, while Lamarckian evolution has pretty much been discarded by serious scientists. Kropotkin's point about mutual aid playing a role in evolution is valid but it supplements Darwin's natural selection theory (doesn't negate it), and serves as a counterpoint to those who would misuse Darwin to justify practices in human relations that advocated the strong preying on the weak, slavery, militarism, and other things falling under the "social Darwinism" category.

Darwin's theory is, ironically, almost like Christianity in the sense that the same writings have been used in support of diametrically opposed practices and beliefs (from Marx to Nietzsche to Hitler). I don't think that merely accepting a scientific fact as scientific fact harms or invalidates the left at all. The USSR made the mistake of reacting to the "social Darwinist" misuse of Darwin by adopting Lamarckian evolution as official state doctrine, which set back Soviet science by decades.

Malthus did hold some nutty views which were probably colored by his own upper class background, but his main point about overpopulation is still valid today and he deserves credit for being the first person to raise that issue.

[cprise]

2. Do you believe in civilization?

That is the main question we need to ask when determining if the Left is sufficiently preventing Social Darwinism.

You can catch Thatcherites and Libertarians telling us in their own ways that there is no such thing as civil society; that the law of the jungle drives everything. This is their doublespeak for Social Darwinism.

Civilization needs to be about valuing people for their inherent humanity, and that implies a good measure of social responsibility. Anything else is either survival-of-the-fittest anarchy, or an inferior sham. The urgency of always having to look after yourself does not allow for long-range planning and stability to emerge within a culture; there is too must waste and alienation, and prosperity declines.

I think there is a strong undercurrent to our national politics now that amounts to a contest between Centrists and the Right to reclaim the collective spirit for our country. Lots of BS about religious faith-- very dangerous.

Darwin is our friend, as long as we make clear that humanity's evolutionary endowment has advanced us beyond a certain threshold where we can be civilized; where we can build on the successes of our ancestors and strive to be organized, informed and fair.

You can use evolution to stress either self-interest or connectedness,conflict or enlightenment.

[durutti]

5. Well, this is how I see it...

Ethics and morality are separate spheres. You can't derive an ought from an is.

On the other hand, it's not unreasonable to try to determine what human nature is, and to formulate policy around it.

Also, the question arises: if humans naturally resist cooperation and egalitarianism, then would it be desirable to someday use genetic engineering to modify human nature? I think so.

[Broken]

3. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

You can read Peter Kropotkin.

In his writings he shows how evolution is what gave us our morals, solidarity and cooperation.

But since his views on evolution to not square up with our currently held political ideology, he is left far back on the shelf.

[durutti]

8. My problems w/ Kropotkin...

1. He wasn't a scientist.

2. He often speaks of the evolutionary benefits of cooperation as benefiting the species as a whole. But Darwin's theory didn't deal with benefited species as a whole; only what benefited individual organisms.

3. He had an obvious political agenda.

4. The observations he made were made in underpopulated areas.

5. As I read Darwin, even if organisms must cooperate to survive, there's still a drive to compete due to sexual selection.

[Broken]

23. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"5. As I read Darwin, even if organisms must cooperate to survive, there's still a drive to compete due to sexual selection."


Sexual selection does not necessarily mean this selection is based on economic competition. We used to live in communistic communities much longer then economic class society, and the competition for sexual selection didn't have to do with material wealth as it does today. I believe sexual selection has a lot to do with our enviroment.



"3. He had an obvious political agenda."

So do people who advocate social Darwinism. The only difference is that social Darwinsits can point to our economic system and say, "see, my theory matches reality". Darwin didn't have to outright say he had a political agenda or even believe he had one. His views and the glasses he looked at the world with were created from his middle/upper class enviroment. I believe this is why he empasized competition between individuals as opposed to cooperation of social animals. It reflects his 18th century capitalist enviroment. Just the observation of social animals tells us how cooperation benefits the species as a whole. This can apply to #2 as well. You will have to show that Kropotkin's arguments pertaining to cooperation as a factor of evolution are false, not just that he contradicts Darwin. ("Evolution and the Envirment". "Mutual Aid, A Factor of Evolution", and "Anarchist Morality" can be read to see where people of this philosophy believe our morals come from)



"1. He wasn't a scientist."


He made money writing articles for scientific literature.




"If the misery of our poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin."
Charles Darwin--- Voyage of the Beagle


I can argue that the misery of the poor is caused by our intitutions and not by the "laws of nature", and how those institutions were created by the intiation of force against the masses of people. I can deconstruct capitalism in a libertarian fashion and show how this extreme economic competition (competition without solidairity) between individuals is artificial, which would clearly show that social darwinism is a tool to legitimize class oppression. Although, that would have to be another time because I'am not in the mood. I can give you a link though, I doubt you'd be interested, but here it is. www.anarchistfaq.org

[Peregrine]

4. Well you flunked science 101

And of course, Darwin's theory of evolution is just that -- a theory. Evolution itself is a fact -- but Darwin's idea of natural selection as the main mechanism of evolution is theory. He acknowledged that other mechanisms were at work -- sexual selection, for example. Later scientists have theorized mechanisms like symbiogenesis and punctuated equillibria.

It is apparent you have no idea what theory means.

Natural selection took basically two forms: organisms to survive their environment and organisms against each other.

And you have no idea what natural selection is. Natural selection is the increase in allel frequency in a population due to successful reproduction. It doesn't have two forms, the only thing important is for an organism to survive to reproduce.

Darwinism does not support the right, left, up, or down. It's political use is in error. Darwinism is a science and apolitical. All it does is provide an explanation of what can be observed in nature. In short it is materialistic.

[durutti]

7. Forgive me, Your Highness!

I'm glad you've had the opportunity to stroke your own ego. Now to respond:

And of course, Darwin's theory of evolution is just that -- a theory. Evolution itself is a fact -- but Darwin's idea of natural selection as the main mechanism of evolution is theory. He acknowledged that other mechanisms were at work -- sexual selection, for example. Later scientists have theorized mechanisms like symbiogenesis and punctuated equillibria.

It is apparent you have no idea what theory means.

A theory is a widely accepted set of principles to explain a group of facts or phenomena that has been repeatedly tested and is used to my predictions about natural phenomena. I was merely differentiating between evolution the fact and evolution the theory, because many people are under the mistaken assumption that they are one and the same.

Theories are not immutable. That's why -- as I pointed out -- some scientists have proposed ideas like punctuated equillibria to fill perceived gaps in Darwin's original theory.

Natural selection took basically two forms: organisms to survive their environment and organisms against each other.

And you have no idea what natural selection is. Natural selection is the increase in allel frequency in a population due to successful reproduction. It doesn't have two forms, the only thing important is for an organism to survive to reproduce.

From Origin of Species:

"I use this term in a large and metaphorical sense including dependence of one being on another, and including (which is more important) not only the life of the individual, but success in leaving progeny. Two canine animals, in a time of dearth, may be truly said to struggle with each other which shall get food and live. But a plant on the edge of a desert is said to struggle for life against the drought.... As the mistletoe is disseminated by birds, its existence depends on birds; and it may metaphorically be said to struggle with other fruit-bearing plants, in order to tempt birds to devour and thus disseminate its seeds rather than those of other plants. In these several senses, which pass into each other, I use for convenience sake the general term of struggle for existence."

Thus, while you're right in pointing that there is only one natural selection, Darwin assigned several meanings to the "struggle for existence" through which natural selection was said to work.

Darwinism does not support the right, left, up, or down. It's political use is in error. Darwinism is a science and apolitical. All it does is provide an explanation of what can be observed in nature. In short it is materialistic.

Nothing is apolitical, especially not science. The scientific method is in many respects a superior way of ascertaining truth; however, science is still necessarily influenced by numerous social and economic biases.

[el_gato]

6. cooperation as opposed to competition

is a mojor driving force in the natural world.
It is not just about a "death match"
In this respeoct I think Darwin was somewhat mistaken.

[treepig]

9. you appear to be infected by the neo-con's obsession with darwin

the idea of evolution long pre-dated darwin - sure, darwin contributed some important ideas (and if nothing else, brought the whole idea into the spot light).

however, you have to remember that he lived 150 years ago, back when chemists believed in the "theory" of phlogiston (see phogistinhttp://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0838824.html). does that foolishness invalidate the whole field of chemistry? similarly, just because darwin didn't get all the detail right doesn't make evolution any less of a reality

basically, evolution is a simple fact of life, much like chemistry is a simple fact of life. in both cases, robust debate continues on some of the finer details but the underlying scientific foundation is unquestioned.

[durutti]

10. I said as much in my original post. n/t

[treepig]

11. i guess my point was "why?"

why do you stoop to the level of right-wingers by obsessing on darwin? (or any of the individual proponents of different aspects of any of the various hypotheses that deal with the mechanisms of evolution).

for example, by linking the name "darwin" with "theory," you're right away defining the debate on their terms. that's because darwin's ideas did not meet the criteria for a scientific theory as defined in the modern era (i.e., now):

http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/introduction.html

Terms Used in Describing the Nature of Science*

Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true." Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.

Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.

Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

The contention that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact" confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.

in any event, mixing science with politics is a sure fire way to screw things up, and just what the right wing wacko's want you to do. heck, if they hated chemistry, they could easily invoke the example of two-time nobel prize winner linus pauling and his idiotic ideas about vitamin c to discredit the entire field. science works best when the personalities are stripped away and the ideas are evaluated based on the evidence, not on the political connections of their propenents.

[VTMechEngr]

17. When people go "oh, its Just a theory"

I go, well, so is gravity. The theory of gravity. How does gravity form, what is it? We know it exists, but how? We haven't worked all of that out, but it exists and we have ways of modeling its behaviour in our normal life.

Its the same with evolution. We know the general behaviour exists, so we try to better understand the mechanics of that behaviour.

[pmbryant]

12. I don't see any connection between Darwin and "the Left"

I must admit to being almost completely ignorant about this whole sociobiology vs evolutionary psychology debate, but that stuff is way beyond simple "Darwinism" anyway.

Natural selection is a scientific hypothesis about the evolution of species. I don't see how it is relevant at all to political debates.

--Peter

[K-W]

13. Natural Selection isnt really a theory.

It is an observation and can be logically proven. Evolution is also an observation. Evolution by natural selection, and more important, speciation by natural selection is the theory.

Sociobiology and evolutionary psychology are not science in the slightest. They are philosophy. It is pure conjecture and can never be falsified.

The issue at hand here is human behavior, which is only in part based on genetics and the development and inheritance of behavior is not only very different than evolution by natural selection as most of us know it, it is almost entirely a mystery to science. If political and philosophical minds would like to speculate on the matter, they are free to, but let us not confuse it with science. But a model based on Darwins work would be at the very least massively incomplete,

[megatherium]

24. Evolutionary psychology is indeed very speculative,

but there is clear evidence of a genetic component for behavior, including human behavior. Much research indicates that personality is about half genetic and half environment (upbringing). See David C. Rowe, The Limits of Family Influence: Genes, Experience, and Behavior, The Guilford Press, New York, 1994.

How much human sexual behavior is programmed by genetics is hard to say. Cliches such as the promiscuity of males often don't hold up under scrutiny (we know that many men fall passionately in love with their mate, for their whole lives). Men are supposed to be better at geometry and logic than women, but about a third of all mathematics PhDs are now being awarded to women. It's not hard to suppose that the remaining imbalance is purely cultural.

[Tims]

14. No connections

Darwin's theories are about biological mechanics, they are not about social structures.

All social sciences suffer from the same problem: society is so complex that it is virtually impossible to observe any behavior in sufficient isolation to determine unambiguously "cause and effect". In other words, we cannot typically perform true controlled experiments where we can eliminate all variables except the ones under study.

We are forced to look instead at histories of uncontrolled populations and perform highly subjective measurements of changes which occur when a variable we are interested have changed. Our own subjectivity in the observation, our inability to control other factors which may skew the results and the fact that we rarely have the luxury of multiple population sets observed under similar circumstances all lead to the fact that social theories tend to have limited application and limited lifetimes. Most social theories come and go quickly.

Because it is so difficult to form social theories direct from observation, the temptation is to borrow theories from the other sciences and try to fit the observation to the theory. Because hard data is so rare and meanings are so subjective, it is easy for one to build a case supporting almost any theory. There is the tendency to imply that the strengths of the theory in its original non-social application lend validity to its application in the social realm, even though the mechanics which define the former have little or no meaning in the latter.

Social science has always been envious of mathematics and the natural sciences, always hoping to build a theoretical base that will put it on equal footing with them, but such envy is unwarranted. Social science must accept that their science will always be in flux and will always have limited predictive power. They must rely on theory which emerges from within and not try to hijack ones from other sciences.

A person's social status always tints their observations, and Darwin is no exception, but his observations were still clearly about biology not about society. Even if he may have made some connection between the two, his overwhelming focus was on biology. It would be others who would make the leap to Social Darwinism and promote it.

Clearly society has evolved. Our social constructs did not appear fully formed to our ancestors as a gift from the Gods any more than all the animals in the world appeared fully formed in the Garden of Eden, but this is where the similarities end. Any theory regarding social evolution must be developed from observing the social strata, not by making parallels with the geological strata.

Darwin is neither left or right, friend or foe, he is simply the one who pointed biology in the right direction. Darwin only justifies a specific view of biological origins, he does not justify any specific view of social structures or origins.

[starroute]

15. The real problems come out of survival of the fittest

The nasty edge in Darwinism mainly has to do with its elitism. The idea of survival of the fittest, when applied to human societies, has led to the conclusions that (1) those who prosper are superior in every way to those who don't, and (2) helping the weak is tampering with the system and dooming everyone to evolutionary failure in the long run. These two ideas are deeply embedded in the thinking of the right, and are responsible for much of its self-favoring and callousness towards those less fortunate. But even the left has tended to accept them, although with some accomodation for a social safety net so that the weak will fall easy rather than hard.

But out at the leading edge of evolutionary theory, real challenges are being raised to Darwin's model of natural selection as a simple, linear process of winnowing out inferior traits and allowing superior ones to prevail.

The emphasis on cooperation, symbiosis, and non-zero-sum games is one of these challenges.

Another is the idea that evolution doesn't really select for "fittest," but only for a quick-and-cheap "fit enough to get by." It's the organic equivalent of the way that technology tends to favor devices that are simple, sturdy, low-maintenance, and adaptable -- VHS over Betamax, Windows over Mac. In addition, evolution is like technology in generally being satisfied with the first viable solution to a particular need and not looking further.

A third challenge has to do with an interesting result which comes out of work in artificial intelligence. The experimenters started with a simple algorithm for solving a particular kind of problem and then set their computer to introducing random "mutations" into the algorithm with the aim of improving it. They found that when they specified that any mutation had to be immediately superior to be kept, the machine didn't make much progress. But when they allowed mutations to be preserved even if their initial result was a decrease in effectiveness, the machine would often end up combining several mutations that ultimately resulted in a vast improvement in the algorithm.

All these new ideas, put together, suggest an evolutionary philosophy in which the rich and powerful have a lot less to pat themselves on the back about, the poor and struggling may have what it will take to get us through the next great environmental crisis, and a maximum of tolerance and cooperation on all sides is the best policy under any circumstances.

(Parenthetically, the open source movement is an outstanding example of such a philosophy in practice. For example, Linux at this point isn't "better" than Windows, but it has far more evolutionary potential. Its bottom-up rather than top-down process of development allows far more room for happy accidents. And it's cooperative as all git-out. That's where you need to look to see what comes after Darwin.)

[K-W]

16. Social Darwinism is simply a misunderstanding of the theory

and always has been. Survival of the fittest doesnt mean survival of the judged superior. It simply means that those who survive tend to be successful in a given enviroment, meaning that all people alive today are fit, and no one can be more fit than any other.

[Tims]

18. Here we go again

Fine. So we are still trying to shoehorn a biological theory into a social context. Well lets look at the issue of "survival of the fittest".

In a biological context fitness is clearly defined and measurable. It is simply reproductive success. Nothing more, nothing less. Now how do we define fitness in a social context without being subjective? We can't use the same measure as we do in biology for clearly the poor third world nations have won reproductive success award, but we could hardly call them successful on a social level, at least not more so than any other group of people.

What other measure can we use? Wealth, social equality (and how do we define that), political power? See, the point is we have to agree on what constitutes fitness first before we can apply it, and everyone is going to have a different view of what fitness is. There is of course the circular argument that only the fittest survive so therefore survival defines who is fit, but this gets us nowhere.

Darwin tried to explain where things came from, not justify there existence (are intestinal parasites inherently good simply because the arose out of the natural order of evolution?). The Social Darwinists had no desire to simply explain, they needed justification for the existing social order. This is a Panglossian view of life. In other words - nature dictated the existing social order, therefore it is the only possible order and therefore the best possible order (we live in the best of all possible worlds). Even if Social Darwinism has merit, it can only only be in explaining how we got where we are - it cannot be used to justify the status quo. One needs to resist the temptation of taking a theory's explanatory or predictive powers and extending it to imply justification.

If we remove this concept of justification (one Darwin clearly did not imply) the statement that "nasty edge in Darwinism mainly has to do with its elitism" makes no sense. Darwin's theories have no hint of elitism, in fact, he made it a point to show that no animal was inherently better than another based on where on the ancestral tree it branched. A barnacle was no less fit than an eagle, each were equally fit for their environment. Nor did he imply that that the lucky individuals who possessed novel genetic traits which gave them improved reproductive success were better than those who did not. It was simply random fortune that an ever changing environment would favor these traits over any others. To Darwin, nature was harsh, but played no favorites.

[starroute]

20. The elitism is within species, not between species

The assumption in the decades after Darwin was that evolution must be going on *right now*, and that certain individuals must be fitter than others and thus favored by nature to be the parents of the next generation.

That idea was used to justify racism. It was used to justify a class society. It was used to justify World War I. It was used to justify any method to keep the "unfit" from reproducing -- from birth control, to forced sterilization, to genocide. It was used to encourage people to harden their hearts and allow the poor to starve or to die from lack of medical care.

No, Darwin himself wasn't a Social Darwinist. But the premises of Social Darwinism are there in Darwin's work. The simple statement that evolution occurs because the fit survive and the unfit die has been the source of an untoward amount of mischief. And I rejoice at any alternative paradigm that suggests otherwise.

[durutti]

22. But but but...

The "struggle for survival" is a struggle against natural forces. If resources are too scarce to be shared, then organisms will fight over them. But if there's enough for everyone, altruism or cooperation will often result. In fact, the case -- as Kropotkin did -- that cooperation is usually more beneficial than competition.

More recently, some have begun to theorize that human beings actually evolved egalitarian traits.

For 90-95 percent of our existence as a species, we lived in hunter-gatherer societies. That's beyond debate.

It's generally held that there was more sexual equality than there would be in subsequent societies. Women and children gathered and hunted small animals. Men hunted big game, but this was mostly a subsidiary task; it was not a dependable source of food. Many of these societies -- perhaps most -- were matralineal (though probably not matriarchal).

Food was shared both within and between tribes. Tribes would also exchange children.

Food for thought.

[Broken]

25. ++++++++++++++++++++++

I agree with starroute.

From the very begining the upper classes embraced Darwinism for the justification of their place in class society. And still do today. So I find it odd that you do not admit this (at least in this post). But you say "The "struggle for survival" is a struggle against natural forces", capitalism IS considered a natural force. That it is the default economy in the presence of freedom. And this is considered "natural" evolutionary competition between inidivduals against 'each other', as opposed to natural forces (which capitalism isn't).

[Tims]

28. Why do you think

that capitalism "is the default economy in the presence of freedom"? This is not true. Socialist and communist based economies have historical precedence. Anthropologist have observed non-capitalist economies any many cultures. Not all non-capitalist economies exist simply by oppression of capitalism. Capitalism is not a natural force, it is simply a social construct. It may have evolved independently in many cultures, but all that says is that it is effective and easily implemented. Capitalism is the result of social evolution, not one of evolution's selective forces.

Embracing a false representation of Darwin is not the same as embracing Darwin. I apparently cannot say this enough - Darwin does not justify anything. Anyone who uses Darwin to justify has no concept of the purpose of the theory (or any scientific theory for that matter) which is to explain and predict. Scientific theories are not value judgements on nature.

Society does indeed evolve. Any theory regarding societal evolution would simply be able to tell us how we got from point "A" to point "B". It would not justify, validate or in anyway make any claim as to the goodness or rightfulness of point "B". "B" just is. People seeking justification are seeking something science cannot provide. We cannot condemn Darwin for telling us how the world works simply because other people's pride prevents them from understanding his meaning.

[Tims]

27. I beg to differ

The premises of Social Darwinism is NOT in Darwin's work. You say that Darwin was used to justify all sorts abhorrent policies and beliefs, yet Darwin can justify nothing. We cannot blame Darwin or his theories for their misuse or misapplication.

I'm not sure what you mean by rejoicing "at any alternative paradigm that suggests otherwise". By this do you mean that without Darwin, society would have been different, that all these ills you mention would have disappeared without Darwin's support? Or are you suggesting that because Darwin's theories fail to solve our social problems that his paradigm was wrong, even though he had no intention of applying it to the social realm? In the first case, other justifications would have been made as they had always been made in the centuries before Darwin. WWI, racism, and all the other ill you mention would still have occured, their perpetrators would simply have found other means of justification. As to the later, no alternative paradigm is needed. Darwin's theories cannot be thrown out simply because we don't like their implications (or perceived implications).

Anyone who believes that Darwin justifies a social condition must contend with the fact that at any one time virtually all possible social systems are in effect somewhere on the planet and are working just fine despite the Darwinian "proof" in some other place that they should have failed. Would the capitalist look at the success of the Bolshivik revolution as "survival of the fittest" in action. Yet from the bastardized view of Social Darwinism, this is indeed what was happening. Do the Chinese now represent the "fittest" system. They seem to be doing quite well and there are more of them than there are of anyone else.

The simple point is Darwin was used as an excuse. No blame can be placed on the theory itself because, had it not existed, other excuses would be found. Darwin's strength lies in its biological truth, it cannot be condemned because of its misapplication outside of biology.

One could just as easily claim that since quantum mechanics proves that the act of measurement alters the resulting measured values that we should not vote because the act of voting itself invalidates the results and therefore quantum mechanics justifies dictatorships. Should we now condemn quantum mechanics?

[JackDragna]

29. No, they're not.

The paradigms of social Darwinism are NOT in Darwin's work. Social Darwinism makes an assumption about the nature of human society Darwin would never grant: namely, that the playing field among humans is equal. Evolution works under the assumption that organisms in a particular environment are exposed to the same biotic and abiotic factors that influence their survivability. Human populations, on the other hand, have constructed a society where being "fit" does not guarantee increased access to resources or conditions which promote survivability. Don't "rejoice" at an alternative paradigm to evolution, because in pure scientific terms, there isn't one.

[The River]

19. Forget Darwin for a moment

and take a hard look at the evolution of everything
BUT the "species". (Conservatives fear evolution so they
they always reduce the discussion (fight) to Darwin and
Chimpanzee Americans.)

Look at the evolution of self governance.
Look at the evolution of matter.
Look at the evolution of not-matter.
Look at the evolution your own emotional
and intellectual views.
Start by remembering every stage of political
or social "belief" you held and look for the
pattern.

Everything evolves. Understanding how things evolve brings a new awareness to every facet of life. When children learn the "pattern" in letters they have learned how to read words. When we learn the patterns of evolution we begin to read worlds.

[starroute]

21. Very acute -- and exactly right

Welcome to DU.

[The River]

26. Thanks..

I've been around a few years.
Mostly I just look for links in LBN
but this thread was of particular
interest.