Death Panels: The Original Darwinist Health Care
Sound of Trumpet
Friday, September 18, 2009
Darwin and Death Panels
[Jews at Birkenau selected upon arrival for the gas chamber - a taste
of Darwinian health care?]
During the recent debate concerning health care reform, one criticism
of the President's plan is that it would allegedly create death panels
- governmental bodies that would cut off care for the critically ill
as a cost-cutting measure.
It's interesting to consider what Charles Darwin, the founder of
atheism, would have had to say about this:
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those
that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised
men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of
elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the
sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost
skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is
reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a
weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the
weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who
has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this
must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon
a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of
a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any
one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The Descent of Man by Charles Darwin
Talk about health care reform! Wow! According to atheists, we should
discontinue health care or we will eventually lose the evolutionary
battle and become extinct. This is supposedly science.
If the atheists become more influential, we should probably start
investing in companies producing hydrogen cyanide and crematoria.
[An atheist might argue that Darwin is not making here any practical
recommendation, and on the contrary immediately afterwards he argues
that “if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it
could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present
evil”. Clearly, however, someone a little more heartless or bolder
perhaps, than Darwin could reach a different conclusion. In fact, that
is exactly what happened later in Germany. It could even be argued
that were Darwin alive today and were he to witness the present
economic crisis and spirally health care costs, he himself might have
decided differently regarding the “weak and helpless”.]
raven1
<soundof...@dcemail.com> wrote:
>It's interesting to consider what Charles Darwin, the founder of
>atheism
The stupid! Make it stop!
Phlip
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 04:08:13 -0800 (PST), Sound of Trumpet
>
> >It's interesting to consider what Charles Darwin, the founder of
> >atheism
>
> The stupid! Make it stop!
I thought Chaz leaned Unitarian...
VoiceOfReason
wrote:
> http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/09/darwin-and-death-panels...
>
> Friday, September 18, 2009
> Darwin and Death Panels
>
> [Jews at Birkenau selected upon arrival for the gas chamber - a taste
> of Darwinian health care?]
Only an odious little man could type such a statement. You're an
embarrassment to your species.
<remaining hate speech snipped>
Erwin Moller
> http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/09/darwin-and-death-panels.html
>
>
> Friday, September 18, 2009
> Darwin and Death Panels
>
> [Jews at Birkenau selected upon arrival for the gas chamber - a taste
> of Darwinian health care?]
>
I quited reading here, unsure if I should cry or laugh out loud.
What I am sure of is this: The one that wrote that is a sick, stupid,
poorly informed, and horrible person.
Get lost please.
Who do you think you are doing a service by posting such crap, Mr. Sound
of Trumpet?
Erwin Moller
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
5265 Dead, 398 since 1/20/09
dishonestly -- modified by Ben Stein for his goofy movie, "Expelled".
Here's the undoctored quote:
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those
that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized
men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of
elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick;
we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to
save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe
that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution
would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of
civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the
breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly
injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care,
or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race;
but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as
to allow his worst animals to breed.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an
incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally
acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in
the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused.
Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason,
without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may
harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is
acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to
neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit,
with an overwhelming present evil.
Puts quite a different slant on what Darwin was saying, doesn't it?
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 04:08:13 -0800, Sound of Trumpet wrote:
> http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/09/darwin-and-death-
Devils Advocaat
> http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/09/darwin-and-death-panels...
> It's interesting to consider what Charles Darwin, the founder of
> atheism, would have had to say about this:
>
Just a small point, since when was Charles Darwin the founder of
atheism?
Syd M.
wrote:
> http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/09/darwin-and-death-panels...
>
> Friday, September 18, 2009
> Darwin and Death Panels
>
>
Don't exist, Sound Of Perpetual Lies.
PDW
Spartakus
> http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/09/darwin-and-death-panels...
>
> Friday, September 18, 2009
> Darwin and Death Panels
>
> [Jews at Birkenau selected upon arrival for the gas chamber - a taste
> of Darwinian health care?]
>
> During the recent debate concerning health care reform, one criticism
> of the President's plan is that it would allegedly create death panels
> - governmental bodies that would cut off care for the critically ill
> as a cost-cutting measure.
And that proved to be a bald-faced lie.
> It's interesting to consider what Charles Darwin, the founder of
> atheism, would have had to say about this:
Ha ha! Gee, I wonder what Charles Babbage had to say about health
care reform in the 21st century.
James A. Donald
Darwin was a progressive. His theory, however, leads to
moral and political conclusions that progressives,
including Darwin, find unpalatable, and that many
progressives, most notoriously Gould, find utterly
intolerable.
haiku jones
You can no more derive moral and political
conclusions from Darwin's work than you
can from considering the organo-metallic
reactions of the platinum-group metals
or the Balmer spectrum of hydrogen.
Anyone attempting to do so is a
prime example of People Unclear
on the Point.
Haiku Jones
Phlip
> Darwin was a progressive. His theory, however, leads to
> moral and political conclusions that progressives,
> including Darwin, find unpalatable, and that many
> progressives, most notoriously Gould, find utterly
> intolerable.
D never said "only the strong survive". That is a militaristic distortion.
Darwinian evolution is all about efficient cooperation within interdependent
webs of life. That is why the crocodile knows better than to eat the little
birds who clean its teeth.
polymer
Do you have any evidence that interpretations of his work that led to
such intolerable and unpalatable conclusions were correct interpretations?
I was under the impression that Gould famously (not notoriously) gave the
lie to several such interpretations.
Mark Evans
SNIP
>
> Ha ha! Gee, I wonder what Charles Babbage had to say about health
> care reform in the 21st century.
Well, since he never finished his differential engine Ada Lovelace
never got to run that time-travel program she was working on so we
will never know.
Mark Evans
Phlip
> Do you have any evidence that interpretations of his work that led to
> such intolerable and unpalatable conclusions were correct interpretations?
Besides the Nazis openly cited Darwin when practicing eugenics?
polymer
Please re-read my question C-A-R-E-F-U-L-L-Y:
Phlip
Oookay. I suspect that if we abandon all concepts of compassion, and didn't mind
punishing the innocent at random, then I suspect that an aggressive eugenics
program would weed out lots of bad genes - including mine for myopia & pronated
ankles - thus leading to a true Master Race with very low medical bills.
It works for dogs & cauliflowers...
polymer
How do I simplify this enough for you???
Let's try this:
Do you have any evidence that interpretations of Darwin's
theory that led to "aggressive eugenics programs" and such are
C
O
R
R
E
C
T
I
N
T
E
R
P
R
E
T
A
T
I
O
N
S
?
Free Lunch
Sound of Trumpet <soundof...@dcemail.com> wrote in
<52d02317-c53e-493e...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>:
>http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/09/darwin-and-death-panels.html
>
>
>Friday, September 18, 2009
>Darwin and Death Panels
>
>[Jews at Birkenau selected upon arrival for the gas chamber - a taste
>of Darwinian health care?]
... Nonsense that the Trumpet of Ignorance was willing to ignorantly
copy and post deleted ...
What overwrought nonsense by someone who clearly failed to take a decent
biology class. I might as well compare the insurance companies to those
deathcamp managers because they have demonstrated that they will let
people die rather than pay for expected coverage.
Free Lunch
VoiceOfReason <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote in
<62186fd7-7acc-4c8c...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>:
I think the Trumpet of Ignorance was only copying someone else's hate.
Free Lunch
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in
<ks61f51r61stbinlf...@4ax.com>:
Nope.
Free Lunch
Phlip <phli...@gmail.com> wrote in <lh1Im.8787$Cc6....@newsfe07.iad>:
Show us.
Free Lunch
Spartakus <spar...@my-deja.com> wrote in
<eba29567-96ad-40c9...@g22g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
>Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@dcemail.com> wrote:
>
>> http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/09/darwin-and-death-panels...
>>
>> Friday, September 18, 2009
>> Darwin and Death Panels
>>
>> [Jews at Birkenau selected upon arrival for the gas chamber - a taste
>> of Darwinian health care?]
>>
>> During the recent debate concerning health care reform, one criticism
>> of the President's plan is that it would allegedly create death panels
>> - governmental bodies that would cut off care for the critically ill
>> as a cost-cutting measure.
>
>And that proved to be a bald-faced lie.
More like projection. Their proposal of doing nothing will allow the
current "death panels" of insurance companies continue. They cannot
imagine a universe where greed isn't allowed to kill.
>> It's interesting to consider what Charles Darwin, the founder of
>> atheism, would have had to say about this:
>
>Ha ha! Gee, I wonder what Charles Babbage had to say about health
>care reform in the 21st century.
I've got a machine for that.
Phlip
>>> Do you have any evidence that interpretations of his work that led to
>>> such intolerable and unpalatable conclusions were correct interpretations?
>> Besides the Nazis openly cited Darwin when practicing eugenics?
>
> Show us.
Huh? That would be like citing Oppenheimer openly cited Einstein while
constructing the first atomic bomb...
Free Lunch
Phlip <phli...@gmail.com> wrote in <0A2Im.38$gg6...@newsfe25.iad>:
Excuses, excuses.
Darwin's discovery had nothing to do with the Nazis.
Phlip
You are answering someone who said "Darwin was a Nazi".
Free Lunch
Phlip <phli...@gmail.com> wrote in <Em3Im.8838$Cc6...@newsfe07.iad>:
So that person lied.
Cory Albrecht
Uh, Phlip, that isn't evidence, that's merely your own mental meanderings.
Smiler
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 04:08:13 -0800 (PST), Sound of Trumpet
> <soundof...@dcemail.com> wrote:
>
>> It's interesting to consider what Charles Darwin, the founder of
>> atheism
>
Beyond his control.
--
Smiler
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
All gods are bespoke. They're all made to
perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer
Smiler
He hasn't the intelligence to write anything sensible himself.
Not that the above is even remotely sensible.
James A. Donald
<575j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You can no more derive moral and political conclusions
> from Darwin's work than you can from considering the
> organo-metallic reactions of the platinum-group metals
> or the Balmer spectrum of hydrogen.
Darwin's work is about us, about what kind of animal we
are, not about organo metallic reactions. You certainly
can derive moral and political conclusions from facts
about people, facts about what kind of animals we are.
For example:
It follows from Darwinism that people whose ancestors
have spent the last ten thousand years in an environment
of agriculture, artifacts, and clothing, will be
considerably better adapted to such an environment than
those whose ancestors have spent the last ten thousand
years running naked through the jungle, and Darwin
proceeds to list a great pile of evidence that they are,
as evidence for Darwinism.
It immediately follows from that theory and that
evidence that affirmative action will fail and has
failed (a political conclusion), and that affirmative
action is evil and based on lies (a moral conclusion)
Similarly, one can deduce from Darwinism, from the great
differences between men and women discussed at such
considerable length in "the Descent of Man" that Marie
Curie's Nobel prize was fraudulent and should be
rescinded, a moral and political conclusion.
What kind of animal are we? Among other things we are
social but fierce and political, so moralities based on
caring for far away strangers will fail dismally, not
being in our nature, and their application will be full
of lies, hypocrisy, and dreadful crimes, as of course we
observe - so communism will fail, as it has, a political
conclusion, and is evil, a moral conclusion.
James A. Donald
> D never said "only the strong survive". That is a militaristic distortion.
He did however provide evidence for differences between men and women,
evidence for differences between whites and blacks, and evidence for a
morality innate in our natures that is fiercely egoistic, tribalistic,
and localistic.
James A. Donald
<pol...@operamail.com> wrote:
> Do you have any evidence that interpretations of his
> work that led to such intolerable and unpalatable
> conclusions were correct interpretations?
1. They were Darwin's interpretation.
2. They obviously follow, and Darwin pointed to the
concordance of theory and observation as evidence for
his theory, making all sorts of politically incorrect
deductions, and listing evidence for the truth of these
horrifying deductions.
For example, for the example that progressives find most
outrageous and horrifying, it very straightforwardly
follows from Darwinism, that blacks will on average have
substantially superior sense of smell and be
considerably better at running, while whites will on
average be substantially better at artifacts and
civilization, due to the difference in the environments
of their ancestors over the last several millenia. Over
the last several millenia, blacks have been chasing down
their meals while whites have been domesticating their
meals. It also follows, from the difference in
environments over the last seventy thousand years or so,
that whites will have a much higher future orientation
and blacks a much higher present orientation - whites
will be more inclined to prepare for the future, since
for the last seventy thousand years or so the ancestors
of today's whites and chinese experienced severe
winters, and the ancestors of today's blacks did not -
hence whites and chinese will be a substantially better
credit risk, which difference, having been selected for
a considerably longer time span, will be much greater
than the other differences, with very little overlap.
It follows then from Darwinism that political measures
to enforce that equal credit is available to members of
protected minorities will result in financial collapse,
as of course happened.
raven1
Wow, that's... pretty kooky.
polymer
> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 15:24:36 -0600, polymer <pol...@operamail.com>
> wrote:
>> Do you have any evidence that interpretations of his work that led to
>> such intolerable and unpalatable conclusions were correct
>> interpretations?
>
> 1. They were Darwin's interpretation.
Wrong.
http://www.enotes.com/genocide-encyclopedia/social-darwinism :
Darwin himself used the phrase "struggle for survival" metaphorically to describe all that organisms
do in order to reproduce successfully. He utilized terms such as development and evolution in ways
that resisted the imputation of progress or improvement.
...
...no reputable school of evolutionary biology or psychology maintains that a theory of social
Darwinism in the strict sense would endorse the conclusions of historical social Darwinism,
especially its tendency to rationalize conflict and conquest.
...
It is not too much to say as a historical matter that social Darwinism was neither Darwinist, nor
particularly social. Its point was never to promote scientific discussion of the complex implications
natural selection offers in providing resources for social and political thought. Instead, it has tended
merely to use Darwinism as a rationale for existing forms of exploitation and their extension,
especially but not exclusively in support of racism and genocide.
http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/eh4.shtml :
This problem in Social Darwinist thinking stems from the fact that the theory falls into the
"naturalistic fallacy", which consists of trying to derive an ought statement from an is statement.
For example, the fact that you stubbed your toe this morning does not logically imply that you
ought to have stubbed your toe! The same argument applies to the Social Darwinists' attempt to
extend natural processes into human social structures. This is a common problem in philosophy,
and it is commonly stated that it is absolutely impossible to derive ought from is (though this is still
sometimes disputed); at the very least, it is impossible to do it so simply and directly as the Social
Darwinists did. (See also Evolution and Ethics.)
...
Social Darwinism in its basic (and extremist) forms are based on a logical fallacy, and do not really
follow from Darwinian thinking in any way.
...
Evolutionary theory does, however, have numerous important implications for ethical systems and
for philosophy in general. First, it topples any system that exalts humans above the rest of nature.
The implications of evolution are clear: humans share a common origin with all other living things,
and are made of the same basic stuff as inanimate matter. Despite many theories to the contrary,
humans do not transcend the material world, and they cannot be treated that way by ethicists.
...
Conclusions
In conclusion, evolutionary theory has some important implications for the development of a proper
ethical system most conducive to human life. These implications are that humans, like other
animals, are a part of nature and must not be treated as transcending it; but, on the other hand,
humans have memes as well as genes, and therefore cannot be treated as equivalent to animals or
to natural processes. An evolutionary ethics would also have the task of giving a proper natural
definition of humanity and of defining basic rights. Any ethical system devised on the basis of
evolutionary theory must be memetically appealing, particularly to adherents of modern
memeplexes (since these are the people it would have to convince). A proper ethical system in a
merit-based cultural context does indeed incorporate some ideas derived from the much-maligned
system of Social Darwinism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin#Political_interpretations
Darwin noted that aiding the weak to survive and have families could lose the benefits of natural
selection, but cautioned that withholding such aid would endanger the instinct of sympathy, "the
noblest part of our nature", and factors such as education could be more important. When Galton
suggested that publishing research could encourage intermarriage within a "caste" of "those who
are naturally gifted", Darwin foresaw practical difficulties, and thought it "the sole feasible, yet I
fear utopian, plan of procedure in improving the human race", preferring to simply publicise the
importance of inheritance and leave decisions to individuals.[154]
...
Darwin's theory of evolution was a matter of explanation. He thought it "absurd to talk of one
animal being higher than another" and saw evolution as having no goal,...
...
Darwin's views on social and political issues reflected his time and social position. He valued
European civilisation and saw colonisation as spreading its benefits, with the sad but inevitable
effect of extermination of savage peoples who did not become civilised. Darwin's theories
presented this as natural, and were cited to promote policies which went against his humanitarian
principles.[159]
...
Darwin's holistic view of nature included "dependence of one being on another", thus pacifists,
socialists, liberal social reformers and anarchists such as Prince Peter Kropotkin stressed the value
of co-operation over struggle within a species.[160]
Paul, Diane B. (2003), "Darwin, social Darwinism and eugenics", in Hodge, Jonathan; Radick,
Gregory, The Cambridge Companion to Darwin, Cambridge University Press, pp. 214–239, ISBN
0-521-77730-5
...
Darwin himself insisted that social policy should not simply be guided by concepts of struggle and
selection in nature.[161]
Bannister, Robert C. (1989), Social Darwinism: Science and Myth in Anglo-American Social Thought.,
Philadelphia: Temple University Press, ISBN 0-87722-566-4
<snp>
Terry Cross
> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:54:49 +1000, James A. Donald wrote:
> > wrote:
> >> Do you have any evidence that interpretations of his work that led to
> >> such intolerable and unpalatable conclusions were correct
> >> interpretations?
>
> > 1. They were Darwin's interpretation.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin#Political_interpretations
> ...
> Darwin himself insisted that social policy should not simply be guided by concepts of struggle and
> selection in nature.[161]
> Bannister, Robert C. (1989), Social Darwinism: Science and Myth in Anglo-American Social Thought.,
> Philadelphia: Temple University Press, ISBN 0-87722-566-4
That is one of the weakest denials I have heard all day: ... not
SIMPLY be guided by concepts of struggle and selection in nature.[
Allegedly, Darwin had a more complicated concept of social Darwinism
in mind.
So comforting.
TCross
Lars Eighner
lovely and talented James A Donald broadcast on alt.atheism:
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:24:26 -0800 (PST), haiku jones
><575j...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> You can no more derive moral and political conclusions
>> from Darwin's work than you can from considering the
>> organo-metallic reactions of the platinum-group metals
>> or the Balmer spectrum of hydrogen.
> Darwin's work is about us, about what kind of animal we
> are,
No such thing. What kind of animal we are is a fact of anatomy and
physiology, not of evolution which is a part of science based on facts
Darwin did not have a hundred and fifty years ago.
> not about organo metallic reactions. You certainly
> can derive moral and political conclusions from facts
> about people, facts about what kind of animals we are.
> For example:
> It follows from Darwinism that people whose ancestors
> have spent the last ten thousand years in an environment
> of agriculture, artifacts, and clothing, will be
> considerably better adapted to such an environment than
> those whose ancestors have spent the last ten thousand
> years running naked through the jungle,
This is nonsense. Ten thousand years is a drop in the ocean in an
evolutionary time-frame. Acquired characteristics are not heritable. There
are only a few places on earth which have been cultivated for anything like
10,000 years --- some of them are in Africa and none of them are in Europe.
You wrong on history. You are wrong on biology.
--
Lars Eighner *Atheist #1965* use...@larseighner.com <http://larseighner.com/>
287 days since Rick Warren prayed over Bush's third term.
Obama: No hope, no change, more of the same. Yes, he can, but no, he won't.
James A. Donald
wrote:
> Wrong.
> http://www.enotes.com/genocide-encyclopedia/social-darwinism :
> Darwin himself used the phrase "struggle for survival" metaphorically to describe all that organisms
> do in order to reproduce successfully. He utilized terms such as development and evolution in ways
> that resisted the imputation of progress or improvement.
> ...
> ...no reputable school of evolutionary biology or psychology maintains that a theory of social
> Darwinism in the strict sense would endorse the conclusions of historical social Darwinism,
> especially its tendency to rationalize conflict and conquest.
There is no such faction or ideology as social Darwinism and never
was. Like "neoliberalism", or witchcraft, "social Darwinism" it is an
invention of its enemies, who invent an imaginary evil, and then use
it to punish and destroy real people.
No person has ever called himself a social darwinist, nor has any
person ever believed the things that social darwinists are alleged to
believe, or said the things that social darwinists are alleged to have
said.
"Social Darwinism" is a hateful caricature of real people and real
belief systems.
Devils Advocaat
> On 3 Nov, 12:08, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@dcemail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/09/darwin-and-death-panels...
>
> atheism?
I wonder why SoT is seemingly unwilling to answer this question?
polymer
What, exactly, about that are you objecting to?
polymer
No, it's not. Some people are classified, perhaps against their
will, as social Darwinists, and they said what they said.
You are a social Darwinist. Darwin was not.
5265 Dead, 398 since 1/20/09
> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 15:24:36 -0600, polymer <pol...@operamail.com>
> wrote:
>> Do you have any evidence that interpretations of his work that led to
>> such intolerable and unpalatable conclusions were correct
>> interpretations?
>
> 1. They were Darwin's interpretation.
Actually, they weren't.
>
> 2. They obviously follow, and Darwin pointed to the concordance of
> theory and observation as evidence for his theory, making all sorts of
> politically incorrect deductions, and listing evidence for the truth of
> these horrifying deductions.
You know that even the Ben Stein version of Darwin that started this
string was heavily edited and stripped of context, right?
5265 Dead, 398 since 1/20/09
Darwin never used the phrase "social Darwinism" and never tried to apply
his theories to any human society. (He also wasn't an atheist, no matter
how loudly the jesus-bleaters scream it, but we'll save that for another
time). If he had, he would have noted that cooperation and selflessness
were vital to survival, not just in one's own community, but with
others. You can't study nature without finding thousands of examples
every day.
Phlip
Besides the dogs & cauliflowers. Or maybe God made dogs all different
shapes & sizes, and made cauliflowers absurdly big...
Dan Clore
STrumpet posts tons of garbage, but never answers feedback on it.
Probably doesn't even read the responses or ensuing threads.
--
Dan Clore
New book: _Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon_:
http://tinyurl.com/yd3bxkw
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
(Wait for the new edition: http://hplmythos.com/ )
Lord We�rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
Dan Clore
> http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/09/darwin-and-death-panels.html
> Friday, September 18, 2009 Darwin and Death Panels
>
> [Jews at Birkenau selected upon arrival for the gas chamber - a taste
> of Darwinian health care?]
Unlikely, since Hitler was a lifelong Roman Catholic who endorsed
Creationism in Mein Kampf.
--
Dan Clore
New book: _Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon_:
http://tinyurl.com/yd3bxkw
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
(Wait for the new edition: http://hplmythos.com/ )
Lord We�rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
Free Lunch
Phlip <phli...@gmail.com> wrote in
<9a9147d2-1f1f-4872...@f18g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
But cauliflowers are just strangely shaped cabbage.
Terry Cross
> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 00:16:57 -0600, polymer <poly...@operamail.com>
Uh, really? Have you not heard of the laws under which mental
institutions were sterilizing inmates a few decades ago in the United
States? Have you not heard of the subject of Eugenics and its
founder, Francis Galton, cousin of Charles Darwin?
According to the Wikipedia, the logo from the Second International
Eugenics Conference in 1921 read: "Eugenics is the self-direction of
human evolution." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
TCross
5265 Dead, 398 since 1/20/09
Half cousin, actually. They weren't blood kin.
>
> According to the Wikipedia, the logo from the Second International
> Eugenics Conference in 1921 read: "Eugenics is the self-direction of
> human evolution." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
>
> TCross
In one of the great ironies, the Jewish Chronicles had a story on him in
1910, "Eugenics and the Jew" in which they lauded his theories to the
skies, and that Mosaic law as a form of eugenics had already improved
"the Jewish people".
As recently as 1930, it was widely acclaimed the Xian circles, as well:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1252/is_8_134/ai_n27223292/
James A. Donald
> > Darwin's work is about us, about what kind of animal we
> > are,
Lars Eighner
> No such thing. What kind of animal we are is a fact of anatomy and
> physiology,
Which can only be understood in the light of evolution.
> based on facts Darwin did not have a hundred and fifty years ago.
Darwin had all the relevant facts for the questions that are today
disturbing us politically and morally, and subsequent research has
only provided more evidence and more detail for the same conclusions
that Darwin found troubling.
These being:
1. That all men were *not* created equal - that races are unequal,
that men and women are unequal.
2. That morality is a tool to enable an egoistic killer ape to work
well with a band of other egoistic killer apes.
> > It follows from Darwinism that people whose ancestors
> > have spent the last ten thousand years in an environment
> > of agriculture, artifacts, and clothing, will be
> > considerably better adapted to such an environment than
> > those whose ancestors have spent the last ten thousand
> > years running naked through the jungle,
> This is nonsense. Ten thousand years is a drop in the ocean in an
> evolutionary time-frame.
Ten thousand years is five hundred generations. Four hundred
generations of separation is sufficient to form a new species, and
sometimes does so, though four thousand is more typical to form a new
species.
Further, Europeans have been separated from subsaharan africans for
about seventy thousand years, three thousand generations, which
getting rather close to what often causes species differences, causes
one species to become several. If you look at closely related
species, they are often separated by only five thousand generations or
so, sometimes less, sometimes much less, sometimes only a few hundred
generations.
James A. Donald
> > No person has ever called himself a social
> > darwinist, nor has any person ever believed the
> > things that social darwinists are alleged to
> > believe, or said the things that social darwinists
> > are alleged to have said.
> >
> > "Social Darwinism" is a hateful caricature of real
> > people and real belief systems.
polymer
> No, it's not. Some people are classified, perhaps
> against their will, as social Darwinists, and they
> said what they said.
They did not say what those who use the word "social
Darwinism" claim they said - not one of them, not a
single one. For starters I did not say those things.
James A. Donald
No one accused of social Darwinism has ever used the phrase to
describe his own beliefs either, nor has anyone ever held the beliefs
attributed to social Darwinists. It is a completely made up ideology
used to demonize real people.
polymer
> James A. Donald wrote:
>> > No person has ever called himself a social darwinist, nor has any
>> > person ever believed the things that social darwinists are alleged to
>> > believe, or said the things that social darwinists are alleged to
>> > have said.
>> >
>> > "Social Darwinism" is a hateful caricature of real people and real
>> > belief systems.
>
> polymer
>> No, it's not. Some people are classified, perhaps against their will,
>> as social Darwinists, and they said what they said.
>
> They did not say what those who use the word "social Darwinism" claim
> they said -
Got data to back that up?
>not one of them, not a single one. For starters I did not
> say those things.
Social Darwinism is associated in most people's minds
with insane, bonzo statements like this one of yours:
"It follows then from Darwinism that political measures
to enforce that equal credit is available to members of
protected minorities will result in financial collapse,
as of course happened."
Of course, you are actually bringing up this idiocy
to discredit evolutionary science. Do keep in mind that
the science does not become untrue if some result
does not please you.
5265 Dead, 398 since 1/20/09
Exactly so.
James A. Donald
polymer
> > > Do you have any evidence that interpretations of
> > > his work that led to such intolerable and
> > > unpalatable conclusions were correct
> > > interpretations?
James A. Donald:
> > 1. They were Darwin's interpretation.
"5265 Dead, 398 since 1/20/09"
> Actually, they weren't.
Here once again, are some of Darwin's politically
incorrect observations on race. He had politically
incorrect observations and conclusions on pretty much
everything (sex being another area that upsets people no
end), but these days race tends offend the most, so here
it is:
First the full title of "the origin of species":
: : The Origin of Species by Means of Natural
: : Selection: The Preservation of Favored Races
: : in the Struggle for Life
And now, some references to human races in "the descent
of man"
: : the sense of smell is of extremely slight
: : service, if any, even to the dark coloured
: : races of men, in whom it is much more highly
: : developed than in the white and civilised
: : races
: : ...
: : Do the races or species of men, whichever
: : term may be applied, encroach on and replace
: : one another, so that some finally become
: : extinct? We shall see that all these
: : questions, as indeed is obvious in respect to
: : most of them, must be answered in the
: : affirmative, in the same manner as with the
: : lower animals.
: : ...
: : Prof. Montegazza writes to me from Florence,
: : that he has lately been studying the last
: : molar teeth in the different races of man,
: : and has come to the same conclusion as that
: : given in my text, viz., that in the higher or
: : civilised races they are on the road towards
: : atrophy or elimination.
: : ...
: : Some savage races, such as the Australians,
: : are not exposed to more diversified
: : conditions than are many species which have a
: : wide range.
: : ...
: : Professor Schaaffhausen first drew attention
: : to the relation apparently existing between a
: : muscular frame and the strongly-pronounced
: : supra-orbital ridges, which are so
: : characteristic of the lower races of man.
: : ...
: : as the hands became perfected for prehension,
: : the feet should have become perfected for
: : support and locomotion. With some savages,
: : however, the foot has not altogether lost its
: : prehensile power, as shewn by their manner of
: : climbing trees, and of using them in other
: : ways.
: : ...
: : The belief that there exists in man some
: : close relation between the size of the brain
: : and the development of the intellectual
: : faculties is supported by the comparison of
: : the skulls of savage and civilised races, of
: : ancient and modern people, and by the analogy
: : of the whole vertebrate series. Dr. J.
: : Barnard Davis has proved,137 by many careful
: : measurements, that the mean internal capacity
: : of the skull in Europeans is 92.3 cubic
: : inches; in Americans 87.5; in Asiatics 87.1;
: : and in Australians only 81.9 cubic inches.
: : ...
: : Nor is the difference slight in moral
: : disposition between a barbarian, such as the
: : man described by the old navigator Byron, who
: : dashed his child on the rocks for dropping a
: : basket of sea-urchins, and a Howard or
: : Clarkson; and in intellect, between a savage
: : who uses hardly any abstract terms, and a
: : Newton or Shakespeare. Differences of this
: : kind between the highest men of the highest
: : races and the lowest savages, are connected
: : by the finest gradations. Therefore it is
: : possible that they might pass and be
: : developed into each other.
: : ...
: : The strong tendency in our nearest allies,
: : the monkeys, in microcephalous idiots, and in
: : the barbarous races of mankind, to imitate
: : whatever they hear deserves notice, as
: : bearing on the subject of imitation.
: : ...
: : Judging from the hideous ornaments, and the
: : equally hideous music admired by most
: : savages, it might be urged that their
: : Aesthetic faculty was not so highly developed
: : as in certain animals, for instance, as in
: : birds.
: : ...
: : without the accumulation of capital the arts
: : could not progress; and it is chiefly through
: : their power that the civilised races have
: : extended, and are now everywhere extending
: : their range, so as to take the place of the
: : lower races.
: : ...
: : At some future period, not very distant as
: : measured by centuries, the civilised races of
: : man will almost certainly exterminate, and
: : replace, the savage races throughout the
: : world. At the same time the anthropomorphous
: : apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has
: : remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The
: : break between man and his nearest allies will
: : then be wider, for it will intervene between
: : man in a more civilised state, as we may
: : hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape
: : as low as a baboon, instead of as now between
: : the negro or Australian and the gorilla.
: : ...
: : We will first consider the arguments which
: : may be advanced in favour of classing the
: : races of man as distinct species, and then
: : the arguments on the other side.
: : ...
: : The inferior vitality of mulattoes is spoken
: : of in a trustworthy work as a well-known
: : phenomenon; and this, although a different
: : consideration from their lessened fertility,
: : may perhaps be advanced as a proof of the
: : specific distinctness of the parent races.
: : ...
: : Now if we reflect on the weighty arguments
: : above given, for raising the races of man to
: : the dignity of species, and the insuperable
: : difficulties on the other side in defining
: : them, it seems that the term "sub-species"
: : might here be used with propriety. But from
: : long habit the term "race" will perhaps
: : always be employed.
: : ...
: : Hence the capacity for high musical
: : development which the savage races of man
: : possess, may be due either to the practice by
: : our semi-human progenitors of some rude form
: : of music, or simply to their having acquired
: : the proper vocal organs for a different
: : purpose.
: : ...
: : Through the means just specified, aided
: : perhaps by others as yet undiscovered, man
: : has been raised to his present state. But
: : since he attained to the rank of manhood, he
: : has diverged into distinct races, or as they
: : may be more fitly called, sub-species. Some
: : of these, such as the Negro and European, are
: : so distinct that, if specimens had been
: : brought to a naturalist without any further
: : information, they would undoubtedly have been
: : considered by him as good and true species.
But on almost any political or moral question, there is
plenty in Darwin to piss you lot off.
polymer
Do you believe in some sort of connection between "you lot"
and tendencies be pissed by incomplete context-less citations?
Do you notice that you have found nothing in which Darwin
makes a jump from what is to what ought to be?
Do you think that evolutionary science is in exactly
the same state it was in more than a century ago?
James A. Donald
> > "Social Darwinism" is a hateful caricature of real
> > people and real belief systems.
Terry Cross
> Uh, really? Have you not heard of the laws under
> which mental institutions were sterilizing inmates a
> few decades ago in the United States?
They did not call themselves social darwinists, nor did
they believe the things that social darwinists are
accused of believing. Social Darwinism is not just
eugenics, but a whole collection of policies and ideas.
Social Darwinism is constructed by taking one idea from
one alleged bad guy, one bad act from another bad guy,
another idea from yet another alleged bad guy, and
gluing them all together like a ransom note with
total disregard for any logical consistency or historical
association.
James A. Donald
> >> Some people are classified, perhaps against their will,
> >> as social Darwinists, and they said what they said.
James A. Donald:
> > They did not say what those who use the word "social Darwinism" claim
> > they said -
polymer
> Got data to back that up?
You are the one who claims that there is such an ideology as social
darwinism. Point out a social darwinist.
polymer
Bullcrap. There are clear cases that people who use the term
have in mind when they use it: Racialism, Nazism,
imperialism, Eugenics, and other closely related social theories
that promote social policy based on (perceived) evolutionary
theory.
Do creationists not exist because there are lots of kinds of creationists?
Do scientists not exist because there are lots of kinds of scientists?
polymer
I did not use the word "ideology."
Hitler is a clear case.
Euginicists are clear cases.
Terry Cross
Oho, not the slightest, of course. While stating that race is
quality, that white is superior, and that civilized is intelligent,
Darwin would be the last to suggest that societies should be ruled by
superior intelligent people. Heck, he would have baboons and
Aboriginals in medical school in a blink, and on the payrolls of
accounting firms, too.
> Do you think that evolutionary science is in exactly
> the same state it was in more than a century ago?
Do you think that question is anywhere near the subject at hand? --
even within a 200 yard field goal, maybe?
TCross
Lisa Lisa
wrote:
> The Darwin quote that God-struck Strumpet
chuckle
> is using was selectively -- and
> dishonestly -- modified by Ben Stein for his goofy movie, "Expelled".
>
> Here's the undoctored quote:
>
> With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those
> that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized
> men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of
> elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick;
> we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to
> save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe
> that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution
> would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of
> civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the
> breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly
> injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care,
> or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race;
> but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as
> to allow his worst animals to breed.
>
> The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an
> incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally
> acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in
> the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused.
> Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason,
> without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may
> harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is
> acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to
> neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit,
> with an overwhelming present evil.
>
> Puts quite a different slant on what Darwin was saying, doesn't it?
Methinks Darwin favors health care reform.
Lisa
James A. Donald
> > You are the one who claims that there is such an
> > ideology as social darwinism. Point out a social
> > darwinist.
polymer
> I did not use the word "ideology." Hitler is a clear
> case.
Social Darwinists are also supposed to believe in hard
core capitalism - believe that those who are unable to
support themselves need to perish. Hitler believed that
Aryans should look after aryans, believed in an aryan
welfare state, and in a socialist economy - (though only
socialist in the Obama sense rather than in the Soviet
sense)
> Euginicists are clear cases.
John Holdren, Obama's science Czar, is a eugenicist,
supporting forced abortions of undesirables. Do you
think he is a social Darwinist?
Devils Advocaat
> Devils Advocaat wrote:
> > On 3 Nov, 17:14, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> On 3 Nov, 12:08, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@dcemail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/09/darwin-and-death-panels...
> >>> It's interesting to consider what Charles Darwin, the founder of
> >>> atheism, would have had to say about this:
> >> Just a small point, since when was Charles Darwin the founder of
> >> atheism?
>
> > I wonder why SoT is seemingly unwilling to answer this question?
>
> STrumpet posts tons of garbage, but never answers feedback on it.
> Probably doesn't even read the responses or ensuing threads.
Which makes me wonder why the heck he/she/it bothers to post anything.
>
> --
> Dan Clore
>
> New book: _Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon_:http://tinyurl.com/yd3bxkw
> My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
> (Wait for the new edition:http://hplmythos.com/)
> Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
polymer
> James A. Donald:
>> > You are the one who claims that there is such an ideology as social
>> > darwinism. Point out a social darwinist.
>
> polymer
>> I did not use the word "ideology." Hitler is a clear case.
>
> Social Darwinists are also supposed to believe in hard core capitalism -
Some do.
The important point is that that kind of capitalist believes that social
policy should be based on (their perceived) views of the theory.
Some capitalists are social Darwinists, others are not.
Of course, I strongly suspect that you are still hedging to discredit
evolutionary science as being false by all this. Sad -- that would
be a fallacy; the factuality of the science would not be affected at all.
Tell me that you are not trying to discredit the factuality of science
by your postings.
> believe that those who are unable to support themselves need to perish.
> Hitler believed that Aryans should look after aryans, believed in an
> aryan welfare state, and in a socialist economy - (though only socialist
> in the Obama sense rather than in the Soviet sense)
>
>> Euginicists are clear cases.
>
> John Holdren, Obama's science Czar, is a eugenicist, supporting forced
> abortions of undesirables. Do you think he is a social Darwinist?
Not interested in Holdren;
he may or may not be.
polymer
<snippage>
>Oho, not the slightest, of course. While stating that race is
>quality, that white is superior, and that civilized is intelligent,
>Darwin would be the last to suggest that societies should be ruled by
>superior intelligent people. Heck, he would have baboons and
>Aboriginals in medical school in a blink, and on the payrolls of
>accounting firms, too.
None of these context-less quotes show any promotion
of social _policy_. Darwin was right about most
things, wrong about some as subsequent science shows,
but he had better sense than to want to base social
policy on his findings.
Constantinople
> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:18:42 +1000, James A. Donald wrote:
> > James A. Donald:
> >> > You are the one who claims that there is such an ideology as social
> >> > darwinism. Point out a social darwinist.
>
> > polymer
> >> I did not use the word "ideology." Hitler is a clear case.
>
> > Social Darwinists are also supposed to believe in hard core capitalism -
>
> Some do.
You seem to be inventing your own new concept of social darwinism,
which you seem to be populating on the fly with whatever pops into
your head. If there is any social darwinist, then Herbert Spencer is a
social darwinist. Herbert Spencer is a social darwinist the way the
Salem witches were witches. That is: if there were any witches (in the
original sense of being genuinely magical and genuinely consorting
with the real devil - not to be confused with wicca, the recent neo-
paganist religion), the Salem witches were witches. The Salem witches
were of course not witches. There are no witches, never have been. And
similarly, if there was ever any social darwinist, then Herbert
Spencer was a social darwinist. That is the first and last test case.
If Herbert Spencer was no social darwinist, then there are no social
darwinists and the concept is a lie.
Herbert Spencer is the necessary and sufficient test case. If he was a
social darwinist, then they exist. If not, then they don't and the
label is a lie.
> The important point is that that kind of capitalist believes that social
> policy should be based on (their perceived) views of the theory.
> Some capitalists are social Darwinists, others are not.
>
> Of course, I strongly suspect that you are still hedging to discredit
> evolutionary science as being false by all this. Sad -- that would
> be a fallacy; the factuality of the science would not be affected at all.
James is a Darwinist. Your attack on motivation is doubly fallacious
when you are wrong about the motivation.
polymer
> On Nov 5, 7:26 am, polymer <poly...@operamail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:18:42 +1000, James A. Donald wrote:
>> > James A. Donald:
>> >> > You are the one who claims that there is such an ideology as
>> >> > social darwinism. Point out a social darwinist.
>>
>> > polymer
>> >> I did not use the word "ideology." Hitler is a clear case.
>>
>> > Social Darwinists are also supposed to believe in hard core
>> > capitalism -
>>
>> Some do.
>
> You seem to be inventing your own new concept of social darwinism, which
> you seem to be populating on the fly with whatever pops into your head.
Nope. Just noting how it is _used_ today.
> If there is any social darwinist, then Herbert Spencer is a social
> darwinist.
Was, not is.
> Herbert Spencer is a social darwinist the way the Salem
> witches were witches. That is: if there were any witches (in the
> original sense of being genuinely magical and genuinely consorting with
> the real devil - not to be confused with wicca, the recent neo- paganist
> religion), the Salem witches were witches. The Salem witches were of
> course not witches. There are no witches, never have been. And
> similarly, if there was ever any social darwinist, then Herbert Spencer
> was a social darwinist.
There is no reason to believe that this is true.
The word is not used in that way today.
>That is the first and last test case. If Herbert
> Spencer was no social darwinist, then there are no social darwinists and
> the concept is a lie.
>
> Herbert Spencer is the necessary and sufficient test case. If he was a
> social darwinist, then they exist. If not, then they don't and the label
> is a lie.
False. "Social Darwinism" has undergone usage changes in the
same way "agnostic" has undergone usage changes since coined
in the late 19th century. The usage of the original coiner is always
_one_ of the correct usages, but language drift also creates other
correct usages.
>
>> The important point is that that kind of capitalist believes that
>> social policy should be based on (their perceived) views of the theory.
>> Some capitalists are social Darwinists, others are not.
>>
>> Of course, I strongly suspect that you are still hedging to discredit
>> evolutionary science as being false by all this. Sad -- that would be
>> a fallacy; the factuality of the science would not be affected at all.
>
> James is a Darwinist. Your attack on motivation is doubly fallacious
> when you are wrong about the motivation.
I have not heard James say that.
Terry Cross
Now you have made the statement, prove it. No doubt you have Darwin's
political resume in your briefcase.
TCross
polymer
Indeed I do:
http://www.enotes.com/genocide-encyclopedia/social-darwinism
Darwin himself used the phrase "struggle for survival" metaphorically to describe all that organisms
do in order to reproduce successfully. He utilized terms such as development and evolution in ways
that resisted the imputation of progress or improvement.
...no reputable school of evolutionary biology or psychology maintains that a theory of social
Darwinism in the strict sense would endorse the conclusions of historical social Darwinism,
especially its tendency to rationalize conflict and conquest.
It is not too much to say as a historical matter that social Darwinism was neither Darwinist, nor
particularly social. Its point was never to promote scientific discussion of the complex implications
natural selection offers in providing resources for social and political thought. Instead, it has tended
merely to use Darwinism as a rationale for existing forms of exploitation and their extension,
especially but not exclusively in support of racism and genocide.
http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/eh4.shtml
This problem in Social Darwinist thinking stems from the fact that the theory falls into the
"naturalistic fallacy", which consists of trying to derive an ought statement from an is statement.
For example, the fact that you stubbed your toe this morning does not logically imply that you
ought to have stubbed your toe! The same argument applies to the Social Darwinists' attempt to
extend natural processes into human social structures. This is a common problem in philosophy,
and it is commonly stated that it is absolutely impossible to derive ought from is (though this is still
sometimes disputed); at the very least, it is impossible to do it so simply and directly as the Social
Darwinists did. (See also Evolution and Ethics.)
Social Darwinism in its basic (and extremist) forms are based on a logical fallacy, and do not really
follow from Darwinian thinking in any way.
Evolutionary theory does, however, have numerous important implications for ethical systems and
for philosophy in general. First, it topples any system that exalts humans above the rest of nature.
The implications of evolution are clear: humans share a common origin with all other living things,
and are made of the same basic stuff as inanimate matter. Despite many theories to the contrary,
humans do not transcend the material world, and they cannot be treated that way by ethicists.
Conclusions
In conclusion, evolutionary theory has some important implications for the development of a proper
ethical system most conducive to human life. These implications are that humans, like other
animals, are a part of nature and must not be treated as transcending it...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin#Political_interpretations
Darwin noted that aiding the weak to survive and have families could lose the benefits of natural
selection, but cautioned that withholding such aid would endanger the instinct of sympathy, "the
noblest part of our nature", and factors such as education could be more important. When Galton
suggested that publishing research could encourage intermarriage within a "caste" of "those who
are naturally gifted", Darwin foresaw practical difficulties, and thought it "the sole feasible, yet I
fear utopian, plan of procedure in improving the human race", preferring to simply publicise the
importance of inheritance and leave decisions to individuals.[154]
Darwin's theory of evolution was a matter of explanation. He thought it "absurd to talk of one
animal being higher than another" and saw evolution as having no goal,...
Darwin's views on social and political issues reflected his time and social position. He valued
European civilisation and saw colonisation as spreading its benefits, with the sad but inevitable
effect of extermination of savage peoples who did not become civilised. Darwin's theories
presented this as natural, and were cited to promote policies which went against his humanitarian
principles.[159]
Darwin's holistic view of nature included "dependence of one being on another", thus pacifists,
socialists, liberal social reformers and anarchists such as Prince Peter Kropotkin stressed the value
of co-operation over struggle within a species.[160]
Paul, Diane B. (2003), "Darwin, social Darwinism and eugenics", in Hodge, Jonathan; Radick,
Gregory, The Cambridge Companion to Darwin, Cambridge University Press, pp. 214–239, ISBN
0-521-77730-5
Darwin himself insisted that social policy should not simply be guided by concepts of struggle and
selection in nature.[161]
Bannister, Robert C. (1989), Social Darwinism: Science and Myth in Anglo-American Social Thought.,
Philadelphia: Temple University Press, ISBN 0-87722-566-4
Thank you.
James A. Donald
> > They did not call themselves social darwinists, nor
> > did they believe the things that social darwinists
> > are accused of believing. Social Darwinism is not
> > just eugenics, but a whole collection of policies
> > and ideas. Social Darwinism is constructed by taking
> > one idea from one alleged bad guy, one bad act from
> > another bad guy, another idea from yet another
> > alleged bad guy, and gluing them all together like a
> > ransom note with total disregard for any logical
> > consistency or historical association.
polymer <pol...@operamail.com>
> Bullcrap. There are clear cases that people who use
> the term have in mind when they use it: Racialism,
> Nazism, imperialism, Eugenics, and other closely
> related social theories that promote social policy
> based on (perceived) evolutionary theory.
And there are clear cases that people have in mind when
they accuse people of being witches, having sex with the
devil, and making cows milk dry up.
If you want to know why real people believed in
colonialism and imperialism, and often still do, take a
look at Zimbabwe, and then read what the real advocates
of imperialism really said:
<http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/kipling.html>
<http://www.archive.org/details/translationsfrom00abdu>
<http://www.archive.org/details/ancientmodernimp00cromrich>
None of which has any resemblance to social darwinism.
Can you imagine Kipling, or Lord Cromer, or Munshi
Abdullah proposing forced abortions as John Holdren,
Obama's science Czar, did?
Munshi Abdullah contrasts the rule of the rajas with the
rule of the white man, and attributes colonialism to the
wrath of God against the Rajas:
: : the doings of Malay princes are not little
: : oppressions; such as in ravishing of the
: : wives and daughters of their subjects just as
: : they lust, with as little thought as the
: : catching of a chicken, and as little fear of
: : God, to the shame of His creatures. Again,
: : killing these people as if they were nothing
: : better than ants, they having done no crime
: : calling for death. Further, in taking men's
: : goods by force, killing the owners, or
: : keeping them captive ; never paying their
: : debts; given to gambling, cock-fighting,
: : keeping multi- tudes of slaves, who despoil
: : God's creatures, stabbing them ; or, as is
: : the case in Borneo and Koti, where they
: : commit piracies on the European ships,
: : killing the crews. Further, they send their
: : spear to people's houses, oppressively
: : requiring their goods and chattels ; forcing
: : betrothals, and such like misdemeanours of
: : different grades, of which I am ashamed to
: : write in my story. Moreover, thej' humiliate
: : the slaves of God, who are created like
: : themselves, looking on them like dogs, — as,
: : for example, when they go along the road
: : people have to sit down in the middle of the
: : road till they are past, whether it be in the
: : mud or the filth, all are ordered to squat
: : down. More especially, again, they make
: : hundreds and twenties of daughters of their
: : subjects into concubines, closing them in
: : their harems, and once or twice in taking
: : concubines they keep them till death, not
: : allowing them to marry other men ; and were
: : such to marry, they would kill and root out
: : the whole house of such a woman. The fathers
: : and the mothers of their concubines may be
: : sick unto death, yet are they not allowed to
: : go out to see them. And while they detain
: : them in their courts, yet they do not feed
: : and clothe them sufficiently, but treat them
: : as slaves ; but when they are enamoured of a
: : woman, they blindly obey her in all her
: : behests. If she wants to kill, he kills
: : accordingly. All these hang on their lusts
: : only, not on justice or the laws of Islam,
: : nor on the counsel of the public, but on
: : their self-will. Then, as a matter of course,
: : each raja has ten or fifteen children, but
: : some have twenty or thirty. Such children
: : have the nature and disposition of brute
: : beasts, owing to their undergoing no teaching
: : from their fathers in any good direction when
: : young, but only following sensuality,
: : becoming practised in evil, such as
: : cock-fighting, gambling, opium eating,
: : treachery, and assassination; and when they
: : grow big, if the father does one quarter of
: : wickedness, the son does three-quarters more
: : than he. And all the slaves of God that feel
: : their wickedness, oppression, and injustice,
: : have no redress but to the Lord, who sees and
: : hears the bowlings and lamentations of
: : mankind, and He it is who will repay all
: : these doings with true justice. And these
: : sleep soundly before they reflect, but when
: : it is light God repays them.
: :
: : Is it not true that in this part of the world
: : full half has been originally under the
: : government, laws, and direction of the
: : Malays, for I have seen in many histories and
: : traditions of the race making mention of
: : Malay princes of old, their power, greatness,
: : and worth? Then what is the reason that God
: : has taken these from them, giving them to
: : other races ? Is it not because of their
: : oppression and overburdening injustice, by
: : which God has depressed them, and put them
: : under the government of other races? Then if
: : this state and these manners be perpetuated,
: : God alone can foretell ; but to my idea, who
: : am unlearned,— whose knowledge comes not of
: : himself, — to a certainty the very name of
: : Malay will be lost in the world, by the will
: : of the Almighty ; for have I not read in many
: : books that He is at enmity with such
: : oppressors ? And from this sentence I draw my
: : argument, that when one hates God he will be
: : destroyed. Delay, then, to fight the
: : Almighty.
: :
: : Moreover, because in my age I have seen many
: : Malay countries destroyed and becoming
: : wildernesses, places for elephants and
: : tigers, by reason of the oppressiveness and
: : injustice of rajas and sons of rajas, — such
: : as Selangore, and Perak, and Qneda ; again,
: : as Padang, and Moar, and Batu Pahat, and
: : Eissnng, and how many more places the same as
: : these. Now, in former times all these were
: : rich countries, beautiful and full of people;
: : but now the name remains only, after
: : reverting into forest, the inhabitants having
: : removed to other places — some in poverty,
: : eating one day and starving two days ; — all
: : these griefs and misfortunes come from the
: : oppressions of the rajas and the sons of
: : rajas. And not to look at the distance, see
: : Padang, how well populated it was at one time
: : ; how many its men of wealth and variety of
: : merchandise coming out from thence, in those
: : times I allude to ; how immense the
: : quantities of betel-nut exported, numbers of
: : ships yearly carrying this production to
: : Kalinga and Bengal 5 besides this, the
: : quantities of ivory, benzoin, and rattans ;
: : nor were durians eaten in Malacca unless they
: : were the durians of Padang, and these in such
: : abun- . dance as to bring two or three doits
: : only each (about a farthing to a halfpenny) ;
: : also mangosteens were in millions, for which
: : four or five stores were erected in Malacca,
: : in which to keep them — here they sold for
: : five or six to the doit (one-eighth of a
: : penny), — but of dukus they could not be
: : reckoned, they were so abundant ; half of
: : Malacca was raised up with the skins of these
: : fruits brought from Padang ; and in regard to
: : other fruits that came from thence, they were
: : beyond my powers of relation.
: :
: : Now, I myself have gone to see the mangosteen
: : and durian gardens, and when I got to the top
: : of a man- gosteen tree, I could see that for
: : two or three miles they extended without
: : break ; and in the durian season the fruit
: : fell in thousands, and these were of the
: : villages only, and not of the hills. The name
: : of these hills is Moara. But as to the
: : myriads of trees, God alone could count them,
: : for their rearing was the business of the
: : population of Padang in former times, and at
: : their season they cleared them only, and at
: : the time of falling it was their occupation
: : to collect them. Many of the merchants of
: : Malacca became rich from the trade of Padang
: : ; the rents returned thousands of dollars
: : annually, too numerous to detail. Thus the
: : country rejoiced in ease and comfort. This
: : was at the time Sultan Mahomed governed
: : Linga, Ehio, and Pahang, and Padang Moar and
: : Bafu Pahat acknowledged him. And he watched
: : them justly, well, and with moderation, in
: : the manner above related.
: :
: : Then after Sultan Mahomed died there came
: : sons of rajas from various places. Thus in
: : about three days after the event, one touched
: : at Padang, and as he landed on the beach, he
: : ordered his lance forward, requesting rice,
: : fowls, and what else he desired. Now, the
: : people of Padang were very simple, looking on
: : the name of rajas and sons of rajas as gods,
: : reverencing them with their bones all
: : trembling; so they gave their property away
: : to him, not receiving a doit for the same. So
: : he went away, when ten or fifteen days
: : afterwards came three or four other sons of
: : rajas, each and every one requesting, and
: : some even landing themselves and taking by
: : force, like pirates, whatever they saw, using
: : them as their own ; the owners only winking
: : their eyes, the fools, from fear of the sons
: : of .the rajas. So they bore all. These sons
: : of rajas had no shame, nor fear of God nor
: : the people, so they did as their evil
: : propensities led them. Some of them also
: : behaved like brute beasts, laying hold of and
: : desecrating the young women. After these had
: : gone then others came, and what they wanted
: : could not be denied them ; for if they were
: : denied or opposed, they did not stop at
: : murder or house-burning, till even the cocoa-
: : nut trees were destroyed, and felled to the
: : ground.
: :
: : Thus they destroyed all the slaves of God by
: : their injustice and oppressions, till they
: : were scattered abroad, deserting their
: : villages and village greens, their cul-
: : tivated fields and rice plots, fleeing to
: : various places. Thousands were thus sent
: : astray along the coasts, leaving their
: : dwelling to revert to forest^— a place for
: : tigers and elephants. Does not God know all
: : their sufferings and burdens, and has He not
: : also been their avenger ?
: :
: : Hear, gentlemen, of another wonder which
: : especially affects a custom of Malay rajas,
: : and which is not a Mahomedan one, nor of any
: : other race in the world ; but it is a
: : devilish custom, sensual and wicked. That is,
: : in Malay rajas taking people's children and
: : making concubines of them, and this without
: : the slightest con- sideration of the feelings
: : of the parents, their own flesh and blood.
: : Thus their child, as it were, is dead to
: : them. ...
: :
: : ...
: :
: : ... But can ye, O rajas, aways live thus, and
: : not die. Do ye not think the Lord's word is
: : true, when He says, 'All ye sensualists shall
: : die to eternity,' and that when the time
: : comes He will inquire most certainly of you,
: : rewarding you for you good or evil deeds.
: : And do you shut your ears or eyes so that ye
: : hear not nor see the customs and laws of the
: : white man. If they wish to put to death any
: : one for his crime--that is a crime that
: : deserves death--how much examination,
: : consideration, consultation, and care over it
: : have they not, together with the testimony of
: : witnesses; and these also have to prove
: : themselves to the satisfaction of twelve
: : jurymen, in every particular, before they
: : will assent to death.
: :
Munshi Abdullah tells us:
: : Now all the four races in Malacca were
: : exceedingly fond of and attached to the
: : governorship of Major Farquhar. The country
: : itself was tranquil, and merchants came and
: : went from all quarters to traffic here. The
: : poor people even got a good living, as more
: : especially did the rich. All got good wages
: : in foreign trade, and many people from other
: : countries also arrived to seek a living, and
: : who took wives to themselves. Thus the mixed
: : race became numerous in Malacca under the
: : good laws and customs of the place. Each race
: : had its captain ; these again installed
: : elders in each village, who, in the first
: : place, looked over and settled small matters,
: : and if they could not settle them, then the
: : subject was taken to the captain, and
: : afterwards, if it could not be settled by
: : him, it was taken before the fiscal, and if
: : again it could not be settled, then it went
: : to the court.
: : ...
: : Now, Colonel Farquhar was a man of good
: : parts, slow at fault-finding, having an equal
: : bearing to poor as well as to rich, holding
: : neither the one lower nor the other higher.
: : If persons, however poor or mean, shotdd come
: : before him to lay a complaint, they had
: : immediate access, and the whole plaint was
: : listened to, and he gave advice and comisel
: : till he had appeased them. Thus they returned
: : rejoicing. And if he went out walking,
: : driving, or riding, the poor people and
: : others would salute him, on which occasions
: : he would always return the same. His was an
: : open hand to all God's slaves. All these
: : circumstances became as a rope to tether the
: : hearts of mankind to him. As dew falls at
: : night and expands the flowers in the garden
: : with its beneficence, which again diffuse
: : their odours over the face of the earth. Thus
: : all the deer that roam in the forest, even
: : they come forth and assemble in that garden,
: : to collect these flowers which are most
: : beautiful ; to wit, as for example it is the
: : opinion of the intelligent reasoner from the'
: : above, when a man is really good, he is named
: : as good for all ages to come ; and even when
: : dead his good name attaches to his memory.
: : Now, if it be the idea of the great or the
: : rich or the mighty, that by giving respect to
: : the low., or the poor their greatness or
: : mightiness is deteriorated thereby, I ask.
: : What says the proverb? 'Does a snake by
: : coiling round the root of a bamboo lose its
: : poison ? And whilst a great elephant has four
: : feet, yet he sometimes trips, and at other
: : times faUs prostrate. Further, the birds that
: : fly in the air, even they, at times, fall to
: : the ground. And more especially is it with us
: : human beings, whose nature is weak, whose
: : life is uncertain, and who are perishable
: : creatures, which state is not to be avoided,
: : from one age to another ; for the greatness
: : and mightiness of this world flits — they are
: : not guaranteed to one for any length of time,
: : but only the name of being good or bad. This
: : people speak of after they are gone.'
: : ...
: : many of them were very troublesome and
: : oppressive in the markets, and the dealers
: : were afraid of them as being dependants of a
: : mighty person. In dealing with the people
: : they followed the custom of the dependants of
: : Malay princes, who do as they like with the
: : inhabitants, and where in case of any one
: : being killed, seven are devoted to death by
: : way of reparation,. These do not know the
: : excellence of English customs. Don't mention
: : great princes, for they will not do what is
: : improper ; for if they kill a man
: : (improperly), so do they kill their own laws
: : ; for on no account can they allow by custom
: : a single person to do injury to another one,
: : whether great or small, whether prince or
: : subject — all are equal in the sight of the
: : law.
: : ...
: : Not long after this, Colonel Farquhar also
: : made up his mind to return to Europe; and
: : when the report got abroad, the Singapore
: : people were very much distressed because he
: : had been a good Governor, clever and careful
: : of his peole. The Malacca people especially
: : felt this, as he had been as a father to
: : them. From the time he had been in both
: : countries, he had never hurt anyone's
: : feelings, nor done but what was right; to all
: : races he had been equally fatherly, helping
: : them much and counselling them. On this
: : account all loved with fear for his decisions
: : were just ...
: :
: : So all the people of Singapore made ready
: : presents, requisites for a procession, prows
: : and musical instruments and on the day before
: : he intended to sail, thousands of them came
: : to see him. Some wept outright, knowing his
: : goodness, but others feigned it, to make
: : people believe they were friends of his.
: : Others brought various kinds of present,
: : Chinese in Chinese fashion, Malays in Malay
: : fashion, Klings in Kling fashion. ...
: :
: : ...
: :
: : So when Colonel Farquhar had dressed and
: : eaten in his house, he embarked in a ketch,
: : and thousands of poople followed him from his
: : house to the seashore, each and every one
: : bidding him good-bye, and offering their
: : respects; and in receiving each, he was
: : detained two hours before he could get into
: : the vessel, his tears flowing. He then took
: : off his hat and bid them good-bye — this four
: : or five times to the crowd* Hundreds of prows
: : that were waiting now followed him with loud
: : acclamations. This astonished him so much
: : that he bent himself down. The people in the
: : prows now fired cannons,guns, and crackers,
: : some sang, some fiddled, each to their notion
: : — the Chinese in the fashion of Chinese, the
: : Malays in the fashion of Malays, the Klings
: : in the fashion of Klings — making the whole
: : sea resound. This went on till he had arrived
: : at the ship, which he ascended. The prows now
: : surrounded the ship, and the crews now also
: : boarded to say good-bye. He received each
: : with kind words which consoled them,
: : counselling them with much eloquence. The
: : appearance of the scene was as a father
: : amongst his children, till all were weeping;
: : he wept also. After awhile they took leave
: : and descended to their prows, which returned
: : to the shore; and as they were departing.
: : Colonel Farquhar came to the side of the
: : ship, and, taking off his hat, he bade them
: : farewell four or five times. They returned
: : the salute, crying out, ' Salamat! (safety to
: : you ! ) Sail with a good wind, that you may
: : arrive at your country, to see your parents
: : and relations. Salamat! Long life to you,
: : that you may come back again to be our
: : governor.' He now waved his hat three times,
: : when the sails were loosened and set, and the
: : people in the prows now returned to their
: : houses. They were as people in deep grief;
: : and for days, wherever I went, people were
: : always talking of him and Mr. Raffles as good
: : men. Many spoke in loud praise of them and
: : their dispositions — in amiability,
: : gracefulness, and pleasant faces.
James A. Donald
> Do you notice that you have found nothing in which
> Darwin makes a jump from what is to what ought to be?
Darwin tells us:
: : Nor is the difference slight in moral
: : disposition between a barbarian, such as the
: : man described by the old navigator Byron, who
: : dashed his child on the rocks for dropping a
: : basket of sea-urchins, and a Howard or
: : Clarkson; and in intellect, between a savage
: : who uses hardly any abstract terms, and a
: : Newton or Shakespeare. Differences of this
: : kind between the highest men of the highest
: : races and the lowest savages, are connected
: : by the finest gradations. Therefore it is
: : possible that they might pass and be
: : developed into each other.
And since you will claim that in context, it must means
something completely different, here is the fuller
context.
: : WE HAVE seen in the last two chapters that
: : man bears in his bodily structure clear
: : traces of his descent from some lower form;
: : but it may be urged that, as man differs so
: : greatly in his mental power from all other
: : animals, there must be some error in this
: : conclusion. No doubt the difference in this
: : respect is enormous, even if we compare the
: : mind of one of the lowest savages, who has no
: : words to express any number higher than four,
: : and who uses hardly any abstract terms for
: : common objects or for the affections,* with
: : that of the most highly organised ape. The
: : difference would, no doubt, still remain
: : immense, even if one of the higher apes had
: : been improved or civilised as much as a dog
: : has been in comparison with its parent-form,
: : the wolf or jackal. The Fuegians rank amongst
: : the lowest barbarians; but I was continually
: : struck with surprise how closely the three
: : natives on board H. M. S. Beagle, who had
: : lived some years in England, and could talk a
: : little English, resembled us in disposition
: : and in most of our mental faculties. If no
: : organic being excepting man had possessed any
: : mental power, or if his powers had been of a
: : wholly different nature from those of the
: : lower animals, then we should never have been
: : able to convince ourselves that our high
: : faculties had been gradually developed. But
: : it can be shewn that there is no fundamental
: : difference of this kind. We must also admit
: : that there is a much wider interval in mental
: : power between one of the lowest fishes, as a
: : lamprey or lancelet, and one of the higher
: : apes, than between an ape and man; yet this
: : interval is filled up by numberless
: : gradations.
: :
: : * See the evidence on those points, as
: : given by Lubbock, Prehistoric
: : Times, p. 354, &c.
: :
: : Nor is the difference slight in moral
: : disposition between a barbarian, such as the
: : man described by the old navigator Byron, who
: : dashed his child on the rocks for dropping a
: : basket of sea-urchins, and a Howard or
: : Clarkson; and in intellect, between a savage
: : who uses hardly any abstract terms, and a
: : Newton or Shakespeare. Differences of this
: : kind between the highest men of the highest
: : races and the lowest savages, are connected
: : by the finest gradations. Therefore it is
: : possible that they might pass and be
: : developed into each other.
: :
: : My object in this chapter is to shew that
: : there is no fundamental difference between
: : man and the higher mammals in their mental
: : faculties. Each division of the subject might
: : have been extended into a separate essay, but
: : must here be treated briefly. As no
: : classification of the mental powers has been
: : universally accepted, I shall arrange my
: : remarks in the order most convenient for my
: : purpose; and will select those facts which
: : have struck me most, with the hope that they
: : may produce some effect on the reader.
: :
: : With respect to animals very low in the
: : scale, I shall give some additional facts
: : under Sexual Selection, shewing that their
: : mental powers are much higher than might have
: : been expected. The variability of the
: : faculties in the individuals of the same
: : species is an important point for us, and
: : some few illustrations will here be given.
: : But it would be superfluous to enter into
: : many details on this head, for I have found
: : on frequent enquiry, that it is the unanimous
: : opinion of all those who have long attended
: : to animals of many kinds, including birds,
: : that the individuals differ greatly in every
: : mental characteristic. In what manner the
: : mental powers were first developed in the
: : lowest organisms, is as hopeless an enquiry
: : as how life itself first originated. These
: : are problems for the distant future, if they
: : are ever to be solved by man.
James A. Donald
> > Do you believe in some sort of connection between
> > "you lot" and tendencies be pissed by incomplete
> > context-less citations? Do you notice that you
> > have found nothing in which Darwin makes a jump from
> > what is to what ought to be?
Terry Cross
> Oho, not the slightest, of course. While stating that
> race is quality, that white is superior, and that
> civilized is intelligent, Darwin would be the last to
> suggest that societies should be ruled by superior
> intelligent people. Heck, he would have baboons and
> Aboriginals in medical school in a blink, and on the
> payrolls of accounting firms, too.
Not to mention female software engineers.
Here is some more politically incorrect Darwin (and I
have not yet delved into his wonderful political
incorrectness about women)
: : Man, like every other animal, has no doubt
: : advanced to his present high condition
: : through a struggle for existence consequent
: : on his rapid multiplication; and if he is to
: : advance still higher, it is to be feared that
: : he must remain subject to a severe struggle.
: : Otherwise he would sink into indolence, and
: : the more gifted men would not be more
: : successful in the battle of life than the
: : less gifted. Hence our natural rate of
: : increase, though leading to many and obvious
: : evils, must not be greatly diminished by any
: : means. There should be open competition for
: : all men; and the most able should not be
: : prevented by laws or customs from succeeding
: : best and rearing the largest number of
: : offspring. Important as the struggle for
: : existence has been and even still is, yet as
: : far as the highest part of man's nature is
: : concerned there are other agencies more
: : important. For the moral qualities are
: : advanced, either directly or indirectly, much
: : more through the effects of habit, the
: : reasoning powers, instruction, religion, &c.,
: : than through natural selection; though to
: : this latter agency may be safely attributed
: : the social instincts, which afforded the
: : basis for the development of the moral sense.
: :
: : The main conclusion arrived at in this work,
: : namely, that man is descended from some lowly
: : organised form, will, I regret to think, be
: : highly distasteful to many. But there can
: : hardly be a doubt that we are descended from
: : barbarians. The astonishment which I felt on
: : first seeing a party of Fuegians on a wild
: : and broken shore will never be forgotten by
: : me, for the reflection at once rushed into my
: : mind- such were our ancestors. These men were
: : absolutely naked and bedaubed with paint,
: : their long hair was tangled, their mouths
: : frothed with excitement, and their expression
: : was wild, startled, and distrustful. They
: : possessed hardly any arts, and like wild
: : animals lived on what they could catch; they
: : had no government, and were merciless to
: : every one not of their own small tribe. He
: : who has seen a savage in his native land will
: : not feel much shame, if forced to acknowledge
: : that the blood of some more humble creature
: : flows in his veins. For my own part I would
: : as soon be descended from that heroic little
: : monkey, who braved his dreaded enemy in order
: : to save the life of his keeper, or from that
: : old baboon, who descending from the
: : mountains, carried away in triumph his young
: : comrade from a crowd of astonished dogs- as
: : from a savage who delights to torture his
: : enemies, offers up bloody sacrifices,
: : practices infanticide without remorse, treats
: : his wives like slaves, knows no decency, and
: : is haunted by the grossest superstitions.
: :
: : Man may be excused for feeling some pride at
: : having risen, though not through his own
: : exertions, to the very summit of the organic
: : scale; and the fact of his having thus risen,
: : instead of having been aboriginally placed
: : there, may give him hope for a still higher
: : destiny in the distant future. But we are not
: : here concerned with hopes or fears, only with
: : the truth as far as our reason permits us to
: : discover it; and I have given the evidence to
: : the best of my ability. We must, however,
: : acknowledge, as it seems to me, that man with
: : all his noble qualities, with sympathy which
: : feels for the most debased, with benevolence
: : which extends not only to other men but to
: : the humblest living creature, with his
: : god-like intellect which has penetrated into
: : the movements and constitution of the solar
: : system- with all these exalted powers- Man
: : still bears in his bodily frame the indelible
: : stamp of his lowly origin.
James A. Donald
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 09:01:42 -0800, Constantinople
wrote:
> > social darwinism, which you seem to be populating on
> > the fly with whatever pops into your head.
polymer
> Nope. Just noting how it is _used_ today.
You argued that Darwin was not a social darwinist
because he did not believe X, Y, and Z - but no real
person has ever believed X, Y, and Z simultaneously, X,
Y, and Z being logically and emotionally incompatible.
"Social Darwinist" is used today like "fascist", as a
random smear against anyone you lot do not like - the
difference being that there are and were real fascists,
but there are no real social darwinists and never have
been.
A real social darwinist would be the equivalent of witch
who says "Yes, I am a witch because I like having sex
with demons and making cow's milk dry up"
When you accuse someone of being a social darwinist, you
accuse him of believing stuff that NO ONE BELIEVES IN.
For example, when you call someone who supports
colonialism and imperialism a social darwinist, you say
that he accepts your account of colonialism and
imperialism as true, but supports colonialism and
imperialism anyway. But obviously no one who supports
colonialism and imperialism accepts your account of it
as true, nor is it likely that anyone would accept your
account (imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism)
as true except in order to demonize the past, or
demonize capitalism, or both, just as no one would agree
that witches have sex with demons, except in order to
demonize witches.
James A. Donald
> > > > Point out a social darwinist.
polymer
> > > Hitler is a clear case.
James A. Donald:
> > Social Darwinists are also supposed to believe in
> > hard core capitalism -
polymer
> Some do.
In which case they do not believe in the other stuff
that Social Darwinists are supposed to believe in -
because there is no such thing as "Social Darwinism". It
is an internally inconsistent ideology invented to
demonize people, lacking logical or emotional
consistency.
James A. Donald
wrote:
> None of these context-less quotes show any promotion
> of social _policy_.
OK, here is some context where Darwin explicitly
promotes a social policy of "severe struggle" and
"open competition"
polymer
> --
> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 09:01:42 -0800, Constantinople wrote:
>> > You seem to be inventing your own new concept of social darwinism,
>> > which you seem to be populating on the fly with whatever pops into
>> > your head.
>
> polymer
>> Nope. Just noting how it is _used_ today.
>
> You argued that Darwin was not a social darwinist because he did not
> believe X, Y, and Z - but no real person has ever believed X, Y, and Z
> simultaneously, X, Y, and Z being logically and emotionally
> incompatible.
Well, that was completely incoherent.
>
> "Social Darwinist" is used today like "fascist",
No it's not. It's used like:
X believes that Darwanian theory should be used for
social policy. Other uses:
* Social Darwinism refers to various ideologies based on a concept that competition among all
individuals, groups, nations, or ideas drives social evolution in human societies. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism
* A theory that the laws of evolution by natural selection also apply to social structures
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/social_Darwinism
* Term coined in the late 19th century to describe the idea that humans, like animals and plants,
compete in a struggle for existence in which natural selection results in “survival of the fittest. ...
martiallaw911.info/glossary.htm
* ( in social Darwinism ) The theory was used to support laissez-faire capitalism and political
conservatism. ...
www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/551180/social-differentiation
* An attempt to adapt Charles Darwin natural selection principles to human society, thus
producing a culture that embraces the "survival of the fittest." This is based on a misunderstanding
of Darwin's theories. ...
www.religioustolerance.org/gl_s1.htm
* A social theory which states that the level a person rises to in society and wealth is determined
by their genetic background.
regentsprep.org/Regents/global/vocab/topic.cfm
* The application of the concept of evolution to the historical development of human societies,
placing special emphasis on the idea of "struggle for survival." Hitler picked up these ideas and
incorporated them into Nazism.
www.theology.edu/theology/glossary.htm
* The concept that the strongest and most able in society will survive (the survival of the fittest).
Used to justify imperialism – non-western ...
www.mspugh.net/Documents/specificterms.doc
* The application of Darwinism to the study of human society; a theory that
people.westminstercollege.edu/students/jlk0627/US%20HIST.Vocab4test%232.doc
> as a random smear
> against anyone you lot do not like - the difference being that there are
> and were real fascists, but there are no real social darwinists and
> never have been.
>
> A real social darwinist would be the equivalent of witch who says "Yes,
> I am a witch because I like having sex with demons and making cow's milk
> dry up"
>
> When you accuse someone of being a social darwinist, you accuse him of
> believing stuff that NO ONE BELIEVES IN.
No you don't.
>
> For example, when you call someone who supports colonialism and
> imperialism a social darwinist,
You call them that if they believe that the colonialism or imperialism
bases social policy on evolutionary theory.
> you say that he accepts your account of
> colonialism and imperialism as true, but supports colonialism and
> imperialism anyway.
Now you're just babbling.
> But obviously no one who supports colonialism and
> imperialism accepts your account of it as true, nor is it likely that
> anyone would accept your account (imperialism as the highest stage of
> capitalism) as true except in order to demonize the past, or demonize
> capitalism, or both, just as no one would agree that witches have sex
> with demons, except in order to demonize witches.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> >That is the first and last test case. If Herbert
>> > Spencer was no social darwinist, then there are no social darwinists
>> > and the concept is a lie.
You are ignoring linguistic drift. Every major dictionary has
a definition for social Darwinism.
polymer
> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 07:03:10 -0600, polymer <pol...@operamail.com>
> wrote:
>> None of these context-less quotes show any promotion of social
>> _policy_.
>
> OK, here is some context where Darwin explicitly promotes a social
> policy of "severe struggle" and "open competition"
OK, finally. Of course you omitted the book,
"The Life of Charles Darwin," and the page numbers,
but, OK.
Note that here he is calling for open competition:
"There should be open competition for
all men; and the most able should not be
prevented by laws or customs from succeeding
best and rearing the largest number of
offspring. "
This, at best, condones a small subset of
what is called "social Darwinism" in its present use.
James A. Donald
> This, at best, condones a small subset of what is
> called "social Darwinism" in its present use.
But no one has ever advocated more than a small subset
of "social Darwinism", because the ideas attributed to
social Darwinists are mutually incompatible. If someone
advocates one aspect of "social darwinism" he is
necessarily going to oppose all the rest of it.
Constantinople
> False. "Social Darwinism" has undergone usage changes in the
> same way "agnostic" has undergone usage changes since coined
> in the late 19th century. The usage of the original coiner is always
> _one_ of the correct usages, but language drift also creates other
> correct usages.
Look:
"A careful reading of the theories of Sumner and Spencer exonerates
them from the century-old charge of social Darwinism in the strict
sense of the term. They themselves did not advocate the application of
Darwin's theory of natural selection, "the law of the jungle," to
human society." - Howard L. Kaye, The social meaning of modern
biology: from social Darwinism to sociobiology
So Spencer was not a Social Darwinist. But meanwhile:
"Social Darwinism is a belief, popular in the late Victorian era in
England, America, and elsewhere, which states that the strongest or
fittest should survive and flourish in society, while the weak and
unfit should be allowed to die. The theory was chiefly expounded by
Herbert Spencer, whose ethical philosophies always held an elitist
view and received a boost from the application of Darwinian ideas such
as adaptation and natural selection."
http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/eh4.shtml
So social darwinism is the theory chiefly expounded by Herbert
Spencer, but by the way, the theory expounded by Herbert Spencer was
not social darwinism.
Let's make it even shorter:
"A is B, and B is not A."
So social darwinism is not social darwinism.
Nothing can't not be itself.
And you propose to fix this logical incoherence by claiming "language
drift".
James A. Donald
> > "Social Darwinist" is used today like "fascist",
polymer
> No it's not. It's used like:
> X believes that Darwanian theory should be used for
> social policy. Other uses:
>
> * Social Darwinism refers to various ideologies based on a concept that competition among all
> individuals, groups, nations, or ideas drives social evolution in human societies. ...
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism
But pretty much all ideologies today, including Obama's, endorse
competition for that purpose - recall Obama on "too big to fail" -
piously denying he is destroying competition, and promising he is
going to introduce competition. Similarly Obama on health insurance
Further, Darwin endorsed social competition, and you responded that
since he did not endorse the whole absurd social Darwinist agenda of
lunatic and self contradictory evil, he was not a social darwinist.
So in practice, you only accuse *some* people who endorse competition
as being social darwinists, and when you accuse them, you accuse them
of embracing the whole social darwinist agenda - but no one endorses
the whole social darwinist agenda and no one ever has, since it is a
totally made up agenda invented to demonize people, like accusing
women of having sex with demons.
polymer
> On Nov 5, 12:16 pm, polymer <poly...@operamail.com> wrote:
>
>> False. "Social Darwinism" has undergone usage changes in the same way
>> "agnostic" has undergone usage changes since coined in the late 19th
>> century. The usage of the original coiner is always _one_ of the
>> correct usages, but language drift also creates other correct usages.
>
> Look:
>
> "A careful reading of the theories of Sumner and Spencer exonerates them
> from the century-old charge of social Darwinism in the strict sense of
> the term.
"...strict sense of the term." This in itself implies that
there are other senses. Language drift -- remember.
> They themselves did not advocate the application of Darwin's
> theory of natural selection, "the law of the jungle," to human society."
> - Howard L. Kaye, The social meaning of modern biology: from social
> Darwinism to sociobiology
>
> So Spencer was not a Social Darwinist. But meanwhile:
>
> "Social Darwinism is a belief, popular in the late Victorian era in
> England, America, and elsewhere, which states that the strongest or
> fittest should survive and flourish in society, while the weak and unfit
> should be allowed to die. The theory was chiefly expounded by Herbert
> Spencer, whose ethical philosophies always held an elitist view and
> received a boost from the application of Darwinian ideas such as
> adaptation and natural selection."
>
> http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/eh4.shtml
>
> So social darwinism is the theory chiefly expounded by Herbert Spencer,
> but by the way, the theory expounded by Herbert Spencer was not social
> darwinism.
You seem to be ignoring the "boost."
polymer
> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 08:38:06 +1000, James A. Donald wrote:
>> > "Social Darwinist" is used today like "fascist",
>
> polymer
>> No it's not. It's used like:
>> X believes that Darwanian theory should be used for social policy.
>> Other uses:
>>
>> * Social Darwinism refers to various ideologies based on a concept
>> that competition among all
>> individuals, groups, nations, or ideas drives social evolution in human
>> societies. ...
>> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism
>
> But pretty much all ideologies today, including Obama's,
You seem to think that I would object to this?
> endorse
> competition for that purpose - recall Obama on "too big to fail" -
> piously denying he is destroying competition, and promising he is going
> to introduce competition.
Careful here -- you don't want to equate "competition" with
social-competition-based-on-evolutionary-theory. The competition
you are talking about may or may not be.
> Similarly Obama on health insurance
>
> Further, Darwin endorsed social competition, and you responded that
> since he did not endorse the whole absurd social Darwinist agenda of
> lunatic and self contradictory evil, he was not a social darwinist.
>
> So in practice, you
Careful with that "you," please.
> only accuse *some* people who endorse competition as
> being social darwinists, and when you accuse them, you accuse them of
> embracing the whole social darwinist agenda - but no one endorses the
> whole social darwinist agenda and no one ever has, since it is a totally
> made up agenda invented to demonize people, like accusing women of
> having sex with demons.
The people who are members of the set can disagree about a lot.
They do believe, in common, that some social policy should be based on
Darwin's theory, or at least evolutionary theory. Just to endorse
competition is not enough to place them in the set.
polymer
Not true. See my answer to the other message of yours.
Dan Clore
> On 4 Nov, 17:03, Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>> Devils Advocaat wrote:
>>> On 3 Nov, 17:14, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 3 Nov, 12:08, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@dcemail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/09/darwin-and-death-panels...
>>>>> It's interesting to consider what Charles Darwin, the
>>>>> founder of atheism, would have had to say about this:
>>>> Just a small point, since when was Charles Darwin the founder
>>>> of atheism?
>>> I wonder why SoT is seemingly unwilling to answer this question?
>> STrumpet posts tons of garbage, but never answers feedback on it.
>> Probably doesn't even read the responses or ensuing threads.
>
> Which makes me wonder why the heck he/she/it bothers to post
> anything.
The following possibilities spring to mind:
(1) STrumpet wants to promote its ideology, but lacks the mental ability
to respond to counter-arguments and so has to stick to copy-and-pasting
others' work.
(2) STrumpet wants to discredit the ideology embodied in its posts, by
exposing these easily debunked pieces to public criticism.
(3) STrumpet is engaging in plain old trolling.
Any of these could also account for the awful newsgroup lists STrumpet
crossposts to. (I usually see them in alt.anarchism.)
--
Dan Clore
New book: _Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon_:
http://tinyurl.com/yd3bxkw
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
(Wait for the new edition: http://hplmythos.com/ )
Lord We�rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
James A. Donald
> >> > "Social Darwinist" is used today like "fascist",
polymer
> The people who are members of the set can disagree
> about a lot. They do believe, in common, that some
> social policy should be based on Darwin's theory, or
> at least evolutionary theory.
If so, then Darwin was a social darwinist, since I have
just quoted him advocating some major social policies
based on his theory.
But you just argued that Darwin was not a social
Darwinist since he did not endorse the whole pile of
lunatic and self contradictory evil nonsense attributed
to social Darwinists.
But *no* *one* endorse the whole collection, because
each bit of "social darwinism" contradicts all the
others, logically and emotionally.
If accepting a single one of the ideas attributed to
social darwinists is sufficient to make one a social
darwinist, then just about everyone is a social
darwinist, indeed the only way to avoid being a social
darwinist is to believe mutually contradictory things
simultaneously. If, however, to be a social darwinist,
one has to accept the whole pile, or a substantial part
of it, then there are no social darwinists, never have
been, and never could be.
polymer
> James A. Donald wrote:
>> >> > "Social Darwinist" is used today like "fascist",
>
> polymer
>> The people who are members of the set can disagree about a lot. They do
>> believe, in common, that some social policy should be based on Darwin's
>> theory, or at least evolutionary theory.
>
> If so, then Darwin was a social darwinist, since I have just quoted him
> advocating some major social policies based on his theory.
>
> But you just argued that Darwin was not a social Darwinist since he did
> not endorse the whole pile of lunatic and self contradictory evil
> nonsense attributed to social Darwinists.
The term is more commonly applied to things like Nazism and
eugenics today. Social policy based on his theories would be
a necessary but not sufficient condition.
>
> But *no* *one* endorse the whole collection, because each bit of "social
> darwinism" contradicts all the others, logically and emotionally.
>
> If accepting a single one of the ideas attributed to social darwinists
> is sufficient to make one a social darwinist,
See above paragraph.
> then just about everyone
> is a social darwinist, indeed the only way to avoid being a social
> darwinist is to believe mutually contradictory things simultaneously.
> If, however, to be a social darwinist, one has to accept the whole pile,
> or a substantial part of it, then there are no social darwinists, never
> have been, and never could be.
By that argument, there could be no religious people, either.
After all, religions are mostly mutually contradictory, and no one
I know of believes all the religions. Yet there manifestly are
religious people. The whole thing is not about the compatibility
of the beliefs, but of the classification of beliefs.
polymer
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:12:28 +1000, James A. Donald wrote:
>
>> James A. Donald wrote:
>>> >> > "Social Darwinist" is used today like "fascist",
>>
>> polymer
>>> The people who are members of the set can disagree about a lot. They
>>> do believe, in common, that some social policy should be based on
>>> Darwin's theory, or at least evolutionary theory.
>>
>> If so, then Darwin was a social darwinist, since I have just quoted him
>> advocating some major social policies based on his theory.
>>
>> But you just argued that Darwin was not a social Darwinist since he did
>> not endorse the whole pile of lunatic and self contradictory evil
>> nonsense attributed to social Darwinists.
>
> The term is more commonly applied to things like Nazism and eugenics
> today. Social policy based on his theories
...or more commonly mistaken interpretations of his theories...
Terry Cross
Most people outside the Communist Bloc are convinced that the best
society is produced by each job being done in the best manner
possible, and that is accomplished partially by installing the best
person for the job. Thus, most people agree with the concept of
interpersonal competition.
That said, Darwinism enters the picture with the doctrine that ability
to perform is inheritable, and that social competition may be used to
select the genetic strains with the greatest ability.
This concept is tempting, but badly flawed by the immeasurable
influence of education and environment on individual ability. No one
has been able to split the influences of nature and nurture
satisfactorily.
The other monkey wrench in the system is the inheritance of
environment. Fat parents tend to teach their bad nutritional habits
to their children, miseducated parents their miseducation to their
children, religious parents their religion to their children, and
slovenly parents their slovenliness to their children.
By individuals and schools of thought recognizing some of the above
factors and not others, and by weighting the factors differently in
developing policies, the spectrum of social Darwinists is as broad as
the spectrum of Christians.
Darwin himself could not distinguish between the nature and the
nurture of aboriginals in watching their conduct -- or between the
nature and nurture of Europeans. No one could without vast research
and many selected cases of familial transplants.
For the term to be useful, we must require of our candidate "social
Darwinist" the following beliefs:
Human intelligence and ability is inheritable
Success in society is a reliable measure of intelligence and ability
Possibility of inheritable environments may be usefully ignored
If our candidate passed those tests, we could classify her as a social
Darwinist. Such a person would award political power, education, and
reproductive rights on the basis of the wealth of the individual and
the family. Such a person would also restrict the reproductive rights
of the less educated/powerful/wealthy -- and possibly practice
sterilization or even euthanasia for the bottom end of the scale.
TCross
polymer
Y'know, Terry, I don't agree with some of that,
but it ain't bad. I think the term, as _largely_ used today,
singles out social policy based on misinterpretations
of Darwinism that tend to coercive methods.
James A. Donald
> >> >> > "Social Darwinist" is used today like "fascist",
polymer
> >> The people who are members of the set can disagree about a lot. They do
> >> believe, in common, that some social policy should be based on Darwin's
> >> theory, or at least evolutionary theory.
James A. Donald wrote:
> > If so, then Darwin was a social darwinist, since I have just quoted him
> > advocating some major social policies based on his theory.
> >
> > But you just argued that Darwin was not a social Darwinist since he did
> > not endorse the whole pile of lunatic and self contradictory evil
> > nonsense attributed to social Darwinists.
polymer
> The term is more commonly applied to things like Nazism and
> eugenics today.
No it is not. Real eugenics advocates are not called social
darwinists, and when real nazis are called social darwinists, the
person calling them that is lying about the nazi program.
Who advocates involuntary eugenics today? It is people like John
Holdren and planned parenthood, who are somehow never called Social
Darwinists.
Nor is real recently existent Nazism called social darwinism, rather,
social darwinist "nazis" are pro capitalist, pro free market, anti
regulation nazis, anti welfarist nazis, a species every bit as
fictitious as social darwinists themselves.
polymer
> James A. Donald wrote:
>> >> >> > "Social Darwinist" is used today like "fascist",
>
> polymer
>> >> The people who are members of the set can disagree about a lot. They
>> >> do believe, in common, that some social policy should be based on
>> >> Darwin's theory, or at least evolutionary theory.
>
> James A. Donald wrote:
>> > If so, then Darwin was a social darwinist, since I have just quoted
>> > him advocating some major social policies based on his theory.
>> >
>> > But you just argued that Darwin was not a social Darwinist since he
>> > did not endorse the whole pile of lunatic and self contradictory evil
>> > nonsense attributed to social Darwinists.
>
> polymer
>> The term is more commonly applied to things like Nazism and eugenics
>> today.
>
> No it is not. Real eugenics advocates are not called social darwinists,
> and when real nazis are called social darwinists, the person calling
> them that is lying about the nazi program.
I simply disagree. I think the term, as _largely_ used today,
singles out social policy based on misinterpretations
of Darwinism that tend to coercive methods.
>
> Who advocates involuntary eugenics today?
Not to the point.
>It is people like John
> Holdren and planned parenthood, who are somehow never called Social
> Darwinists.
I don't know about Holdren, and have not followed news about him.
>
> Nor is real recently existent Nazism called social darwinism, rather,
I don't even know what you mean by 'recently existent Nazism.'
> social darwinist "nazis"
You are saying the 'recently existent' nazis are the same
people who are called social darwinists? I don't even understand
what the hell you're talking about. Clean this up.
You're beginning to babble again. Take your time.
polymer
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 15:36:49 +1000, James A. Donald wrote:
>
>> James A. Donald wrote:
>>> >> >> > "Social Darwinist" is used today like "fascist",
>>
>> polymer
>>> >> The people who are members of the set can disagree about a lot.
>>> >> They do believe, in common, that some social policy should be based
>>> >> on Darwin's theory, or at least evolutionary theory.
>>
>> James A. Donald wrote:
>>> > If so, then Darwin was a social darwinist, since I have just quoted
>>> > him advocating some major social policies based on his theory.
>>> >
>>> > But you just argued that Darwin was not a social Darwinist since he
>>> > did not endorse the whole pile of lunatic and self contradictory
>>> > evil nonsense attributed to social Darwinists.
>>
>> polymer
>>> The term is more commonly applied to things like Nazism and eugenics
>>> today.
>>
>> No it is not. Real eugenics advocates are not called social
>> darwinists, and when real nazis are called social darwinists, the
>> person calling them that is lying about the nazi program.
>
> I simply disagree. I think the term, as _largely_ used today, singles
> out social policy based on misinterpretations of Darwinism that tend to
> coercive methods.
>
>
>
>> Who advocates involuntary eugenics today?
You do realize that a term 'as it is used today' does not
necessarily have to be referring to contemporary versions
of the things it refers to?!
James A. Donald
> I think the term, as _largely_ used today, singles out
> social policy based on misinterpretations of Darwinism
> that tend to coercive methods.
Such as? Name someone?
The only notable person who fits that description is
John Holdren, Obama's science Czar, who is in every way
the opposite of the people you guys call Social
Darwinists.
The people you call social Darwinists are those that
advocate free enterprise and freedom of contract,
maybe for the Darwinian reasons that Darwin
advocated those things, maybe for the goal of economic
development, as the PAP does. And you then call those
guys social darwinists, and claim they are advocating
colonialism, imperialism, apartheid, the extermination
of the Jews, and so on and so forth even though what
they are proposing is the opposite of coercive methods.
polymer
> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 23:48:29 -0600, polymer <pol...@operamail.com>
> wrote:
>> I think the term, as _largely_ used today, singles out social policy
>> based on misinterpretations of Darwinism that tend to coercive methods.
>
> Such as? Name someone?
In the articles I posted from and discussed earlier in this
thread, the main examples given were euginics, Nazism, imperialism,
and such.
>
> The only notable person who fits that description is John Holdren,
> Obama's science Czar, who is in every way the opposite of the people you
> guys
WTF is us guys? Who do you have me classified with, exactly?
> call Social Darwinists.
>
> The people you call social Darwinists are those that advocate free
> enterprise and freedom of contract,
No I don't. That is a lie.
> maybe for the Darwinian reasons that
> Darwin advocated those things, maybe for the goal of economic
> development, as the PAP does. And you then call those guys social
> darwinists,
No I don't. That is another lie.
Constantinople
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 20:04:15 +1000, James A. Donald wrote:
> > wrote:
> >> I think the term, as _largely_ used today, singles out social policy
> >> based on misinterpretations of Darwinism that tend to coercive methods.
>
> > Such as? Name someone?
>
> In the articles I posted from and discussed earlier in this
> thread, the main examples given were euginics, Nazism, imperialism,
> and such.
So, Holdren. Commit yourself, yes or no, is he a social darwinist?
> > The only notable person who fits that description is John Holdren,
> > Obama's science Czar, who is in every way the opposite of the people you
> > guys
>
> WTF is us guys? Who do you have me classified with, exactly?
You are offended? Then you are willing to commit yourself to calling
Holdren a social darwinist, contrary to James's claim that you are
not? Remember, James's claim that you do not consider Holdren a social
darwinist is offensive to you. You object to being classed as someone
who would not class Holdren as a social darwinist. And yet I do not
see you saying, "yes, he is".
Again I am seeing the logical incoherence of your position, and this
reflects the logical incoherence of the label "social darwinist". On
the one hand, you (apparently) repeatedly refuse to classify Holdren
as a social darwinist. On the other hand, you object to being classed
as someone who would refuse to classify Holren as a social darwinist.
That is pretty close to be being incoherent.
> > call Social Darwinists.
>
> > The people you call social Darwinists are those that advocate free
> > enterprise and freedom of contract,
>
> No I don't. That is a lie.
Then I tell you frankly: you are using the term in an idiosyncratic
way, one which does not match the way the term appears in the widely
read literature, such as student textbooks (which rarely if ever fail
to treat Herbert Spencer as the very model, the very prototype of a
social darwinist), and what you have to say about the term is of
interest only to your personal biographer.
You were asked repeately to name social darwinists. Repeatedly you
declined to name Spencer though he was brought up (I have not,
however, read every single post by you - maybe somewhere else you call
him a social darwinist). You are therefore not using the term the way
it is used virtually everywhere. You are in fact using it in an
idiosyncratic way.
The term "social darwinist" is in fact an incoherent term. You have
attempted to fashion a coherent idea out of it, and possibly in so
doing have departed from the common meaning. But you refuse even to
bite the bullet of your own description. You are offered Holdren as an
example of the term in your idiosyncratic sense, and you
simultaneously are outraged that James doubts you would class Holdren
as a social darwinist, and yet repeatedly decline to class Holdren as
a social darwinist (as far as I can see - I have only read most, not
all, of your posts).
James A. Donald
wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 20:04:15 +1000, James A. Donald wrote:
>
polymer
> >> I think the term, as _largely_ used today, singles out social policy
> >> based on misinterpretations of Darwinism that tend to coercive methods.
James A. Donald:
> > Such as? Name someone?
polymer
> In the articles I posted from and discussed earlier in this
> thread, the main examples given were euginics, Nazism, imperialism,
> and such.
You are not naming someone. Eugenics is John Holdren, imperialism is
Munshi Abdullah, and Nazism is Adolf Hitler, and none of these guys
were social darwinists.
> > The only notable person who fits that description is John Holdren,
> > Obama's science Czar, who is in every way the opposite of the people you
> > guys
> WTF is us guys? Who do you have me classified with, exactly?
The fans of mass murder and slavery, of tyranny and rule by terror.
The people who rejoiced when the tyrant Mugabe was imposed on Rhodesia
from outside in place of the democratically elected Bishop Muzorewa.
The people who oppose wiping out the malaria mosquito. The fans of
coercive eugenics, such as Obama's science czar, John Holdren. The
people who seek to destroy the constitution of Honduras and make
Zelaya president for life, like Chavez.
polymer
> On Nov 7, 8:43 am, polymer <poly...@operamail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 20:04:15 +1000, James A. Donald wrote:
>> > On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 23:48:29 -0600, polymer <poly...@operamail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> I think the term, as _largely_ used today, singles out social policy
>> >> based on misinterpretations of Darwinism that tend to coercive
>> >> methods.
>>
>> > Such as? Name someone?
>>
>> In the articles I posted from and discussed earlier in this thread, the
>> main examples given were euginics, Nazism, imperialism, and such.
>
> So, Holdren. Commit yourself, yes or no, is he a social darwinist?
I don't have the foggiest idea. Don't know anything about the guy.
>
>> > The only notable person who fits that description is John Holdren,
>> > Obama's science Czar, who is in every way the opposite of the people
>> > you guys
>>
>> WTF is us guys? Who do you have me classified with, exactly?
>
> You are offended? Then you are willing to commit yourself to calling
> Holdren a social darwinist, contrary to James's claim that you are not?
> Remember, James's claim that you do not consider Holdren a social
> darwinist is offensive to you.
WTF are you talking about? I don't know anything at all about
Holdren.
polymer
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 07:43:53 -0600, polymer <pol...@operamail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 20:04:15 +1000, James A. Donald wrote:
>>
> polymer
>> >> I think the term, as _largely_ used today, singles out social policy
>> >> based on misinterpretations of Darwinism that tend to coercive
>> >> methods.
>
> James A. Donald:
>> > Such as? Name someone?
Hannah Arendt.
Arendt, H.: Elements of Totalitarianism,
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich: New York 1951. pp. 178-179
>
> polymer
>> In the articles I posted from and discussed earlier in this thread, the
>> main examples given were euginics, Nazism, imperialism, and such.
>
> You are not naming someone. Eugenics is John Holdren, imperialism is
> Munshi Abdullah, and Nazism is Adolf Hitler, and none of these guys were
> social darwinists.
Hitler was, as the term is used now.
Terry Cross
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 06:35:27 +1000, James A. Donald wrote:
Hate to disappoint, but none of those descriptions or classifications
have anything to do with Darwinism. They may all be mean people, but
the social Darwinism advocated by Darwin was not just mean, it was
directed toward a purpose.
TCross