Krimel replied: My point is that arguments against social Darwinism are not necessarily relevant to natural selection. They are not even relevant to whether or not the principles of evolution operate in societies or on ideas.
dmb says: Arguments against social darwinism aren't relevant to whether or not evolution operates in society? Okay, that is so goofy and nonsensical that I figure you've GOT to bluffing. Obviously, social darwinism and the case against it are both about exactly that. Basically, social darwinism is what you get when the concept of natural selection is applied to human society. It's still very much with us. We've all heard it. It's the attitude that says the poor are poor because they're unfit, unable to adapt. The nastier versions back in the day would even openly hope for their extinction. [Krimel] Social Darwinism does track well to capitalism and objectivist philosophy but it is by no means the only way to view evolutionary influence on society. Social Darwinism regarded survival of the fittest as "might makes right", nature writ in tooth and claw. This is a shallow and flatly wrong headed view of natural selection. Natural selection has nothing whatever to do with survival per se. It has to do with reproductive success. The more aggressive types are out beating each other up and the wimps stay home and charm the ladies. Or it is the ones who can function as a group and cooperate that sleep together. Or it is the ones with a social life not the lone wolves who breed. Nature displays a wide range of possibilities that confer reproductive success. Aggression and dominance are just one of them and not an especially popular one at that. There is every indication that human morality evolved in such a way that our increased brain size allowed more social relationships and reduced intra-group aggression. In a review of evolutionary biology in "The Science of Good and Evil" Michael Shermer points out this relationship in our nearest ancestors. Chimpanzees have within group cooperation and between group aggression but they also should fairly high levels of within group violence. Where as the Bonabos with slightly greater brain size tend toward larger social groups and less aggression. Humans have larger social groups and even less internal aggression. Shermer does an excellent job of showing how evolutionary theory can account for lots of social even moral behavior. But then so does just about any analysis of primate social behavior. In fact, the variation in patterns of social organization across the entire primate family from lemurs to humans is relatively small compared to other biological families. moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
