|
How the Social Darwinist's ideology develops:
1) In nature only the strong survive
2) We should follow nature's example and not protect the 'weak'
3) The weak are too tenacious - we must make life more difficult for them
4) They just won't die - let's kill them - as a service to nature
5) Everyone who is unlike us must die - because they are weak (if it were not so they would be the ones killing us).
Most sane people will already feel there is something wrong with this view - for the rest - here's what you're missing
1 -- Darwin didn't say only the strong survive - it's the fittest that are prone to survive - not fit in the sense that Arnold Schwarzenegger is fit (from steroids) - but fit to survive their environment - those that adapt best to their reality. Irises and humming birds and buttercups and butterflies - all are fit to survive in their environments - but they are not big and strong and powerful in the Nazi sense.
2 -- a) See point 1. "Weak" is a non-concept most of the time, but nature does protect the delicate, simple, subtle, and soft (it is largely from nature we learn to appreciate these things).
b) "Follow nature" - is a strange concept - on the one hand we never quit being a part of nature so it is saying try to be what you already are - on the other hand in any sense that civilization is separate and distinct from nature - it is that way good reason. The primary motivation for creating civilizations in the first place was to protect us from the ravages of nature (the elements and beasts). We built cities and societies to bring an end to the mindless loss of life and limb - to keep all of us safe - "strong" and "weak" alike.
c) Some may feel this argument contradicts itself because 2-a says the delicate and soft survive in nature and 2-b says we need cities and societies in order to survive nature. There is no contradiction - however - one only need to understand there are two important and distinct aspects to the primal need for survival - one is individual survival and the other is survival of the species. The species survives - according to Charles Darwin - by adapting to (or just already being suited for) whatever environment it is in. The survival of the individual - on the other hand - is a little bit a matter of skill - and a lot a matter of luck. Civilization was not so much an instrument of aid to the survival of the species (ours had managed to pull that off for millions of years) but so that more individuals could live, and live longer and better.
d) Speaking of species surviving - have you seen any dinosaurs lately? What else is bigger, stronger or more powerful? Scientists say they were killed off by meteor - which may or may not be true - but the fact remains they were not "fit" enough to survive and we were. Not only did humans/primates survive - but we alone among all the species developed the super complex modern civilization we all take for granted. Why us and not some other species? We were not the biggest, the strongest, the fastest, we didn't have any natural weapons like horns, super fangs,
more
|
|