The fallacies and failure of social Darwinism.

[Seth]

I have to admit there is something to Seth's post. A lot of these social programs have poor exit strategies.

But angry conservative politicians benefit from this as much as liberal ones.

Yes. The point is that the very term "social Darwinism" is a loaded one and is nearly always misused. What's good for one person is bad for another...from the political and social perspective. But what happens to them, what the outcome of the combination of their decisions, their actions and outside forces, be they natural or by design is not "social Darwinism" it's merely evolution in action.

[FBM]

Yes, it is a moral claim. But then I'm not supporting the usual definitions of social Darwinism, which are, as I mention in my last post, irrational, illogical and fallacious...

No problem. If you're not arguing for SD, then the rest of that is off-topic politics.

[FBM]

I have to admit there is something to Seth's post. A lot of these social programs have poor exit strategies.

But angry conservative politicians benefit from this as much as liberal ones.

Yes. The point is that the very term "social Darwinism" is a loaded one and is nearly always misused. What's good for one person is bad for another...from the political and social perspective. But what happens to them, what the outcome of the combination of their decisions, their actions and outside forces, be they natural or by design is not "social Darwinism" it's merely evolution in action.

What's the difference between "natural" and "by design"? Is there any human activity that's unnatural? I don't know of anything in the universe that's unnatural.

You could make a case for saying that every human action factors into natural selection. It quickly becomes meaningless.

[Seth]

I have to admit there is something to Seth's post. A lot of these social programs have poor exit strategies.

But angry conservative politicians benefit from this as much as liberal ones.

Yes. The point is that the very term "social Darwinism" is a loaded one and is nearly always misused. What's good for one person is bad for another...from the political and social perspective. But what happens to them, what the outcome of the combination of their decisions, their actions and outside forces, be they natural or by design is not "social Darwinism" it's merely evolution in action.

What's the difference between "natural" and "by design"? Is there any human activity that's unnatural? I don't know of anything in the universe that's unnatural.

You could make a case for saying that every human action factors into natural selection. It quickly becomes meaningless.

I was merely distinguishing between some natural event like a flood or hurricane that affects the ability of the individual to survive as opposed to some intentional act by another human, nothing more.

[FBM]

I know I'm just splitting hairs; I just wanted to point out that human intentions and designs are no less natural than floods and hurricanes. It's soap box I like to jump up on from time to time.

[Seth]

I know I'm just splitting hairs; I just wanted to point out that human intentions and designs are no less natural than floods and hurricanes. It's soap box I like to jump up on from time to time.

I happen to completely agree with you in this. That's why I find the blatherings of econuts who insist that humans are some foreign extraterrestrial invader so ridiculous and boring.

We are a part of nature. We just happen to be much better equipped to control nature to our benefit.

[pErvinalia]

Social darwinism turns 'survival of the fittest' into 'might is right.' The is-ought fallacy.

Except Darwin didn't coin the phrase, "survival of the fittest." This was coined by Herbert Spencer, the grandfather of Social Darwinism.

It doesn't matter. That's what social darwinism is.

[pErvinalia]

Our generous welfare system selects for only one thing, fecundity.

Doubtful (not that I for a second believe you hold this view for any verifiable reasons). The third world has both a higher fertility rate and a higher fecundity rate than the rich developed world.

[pErvinalia]

What I routinely ask, and what is roundly ignored by "socialists" is what logic is used to JUSTIFY enslaving me to the service of the dependent class.

And you always get an answer. Well you used to, when people used to think it was worth their time replying to you.

[pErvinalia]

I know I'm just splitting hairs; I just wanted to point out that human intentions and designs are no less natural than floods and hurricanes. It's soap box I like to jump up on from time to time.

I happen to completely agree with you in this. That's why I find the blatherings of econuts who insist that humans are some foreign extraterrestrial invader so ridiculous and boring.

We are a part of nature. We just happen to be much better equipped to control nature to our benefit.

In the short-term. I suspect we are no better than any other species. We will be smashed with a correction at one point, like all species that outstrip their environment are.

[Tyrannical]

A human created society has it's own evolutionary pressures to adapt to that human created environment. Just as living in an arctic or tropical environment causes adaptations such as changes in skin color or body shape. Social Darwinism is no different than normal Darwinism because it is based on environmental pressures shaping natural selection.

[Animavore]

A human created society has it's own evolutionary pressures to adapt to that human created environment. Just as living in an arctic or tropical environment causes adaptations such as changes in skin color or body shape. Social Darwinism is no different than normal Darwinism because it is based on environmental pressures shaping natural selection.

Social Darwinism is as different to Darwinism as selectively breeding animals is to letting them evolve, un-tampered, in the wild.
That is to say, Social Darwinism is artificial selection, not natural selection.

[FBM]

Edit.

[Seth]

Our generous welfare system selects for only one thing, fecundity.

Doubtful (not that I for a second believe you hold this view for any verifiable reasons). The third world has both a higher fertility rate and a higher fecundity rate than the rich developed world.

Fallacy. Just because the third world may have those attributes does not mean that the welfare state in the first world does not select for fecundity.

[Seth]

What I routinely ask, and what is roundly ignored by "socialists" is what logic is used to JUSTIFY enslaving me to the service of the dependent class.

And you always get an answer. Well you used to, when people used to think it was worth their time replying to you.

No, I never get an answer. I get a fallacious appeal to common practice, among other various fallacies tossed about to evade actually providing a well-thought-out and rational argument supporting socialism. It amounts to "socialism is good because I like it."