Talk:Social Darwinism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Social Darwinism, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||||||||||
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
 Archives |
| 2002-2007 discussions |
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)
[edit] 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
- 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)
