The fallacies and failure of social Darwinism.

[FBM]

Sure, but the Clampets are outliers surely. Personally, I'd think that kind of rags to riches thing is on the same odds as winning the lottery.

But that wealth lasts for generations and affects the economy strongly. And inheritance in general is contra natural selection insofar as it enables inferiors to "succeed". There's no natural selection going on there.

[Jason]

Inheritance isn't any different from inheriting 'superior' genes so far as I can see.

If I make an example of it, I'd put it like this: A population finds itself in an environment that favours divefishing (you have to dive with a spear, or whatever, and harvest fish). A person may inherit genes that gift him or her with superior divefishing abilities. They may do nothing with what they've been gifted with, but that's only the human equation complicating the evolutionary process.

[FBM]

Inheritance isn't any different from inheriting 'superior' genes so far as I can see.

If I make an example of it, I'd put it like this: A population finds itself in an environment that favours divefishing (you have to dive with a spear, or whatever, and harvest fish). A person may inherit genes that gift him or her with superior divefishing abilities. They may do nothing with what they've been gifted with, but that's only the human equation complicating the evolutionary process.

Inheriting superior genes prevents the offspring from being inferior. Inheriting wealth doesn't.

[JimC]

Inheritance isn't any different from inheriting 'superior' genes so far as I can see.

If I make an example of it, I'd put it like this: A population finds itself in an environment that favours divefishing (you have to dive with a spear, or whatever, and harvest fish). A person may inherit genes that gift him or her with superior divefishing abilities. They may do nothing with what they've been gifted with, but that's only the human equation complicating the evolutionary process.

Inheriting superior genes prevents the offspring from being inferior. Inheriting wealth doesn't.

In fact, there is always a lingering suspicion that inheriting a lot of wealth from a hard-working, driven generation can often make the next generation lazy and decadent...

A continuing theme in novels, at least...

[Jason]

Inheritance isn't any different from inheriting 'superior' genes so far as I can see.

If I make an example of it, I'd put it like this: A population finds itself in an environment that favours divefishing (you have to dive with a spear, or whatever, and harvest fish). A person may inherit genes that gift him or her with superior divefishing abilities. They may do nothing with what they've been gifted with, but that's only the human equation complicating the evolutionary process.

Inheriting superior genes prevents the offspring from being inferior. Inheriting wealth doesn't.

I don't think it does. Inheriting superior genes does not guarantee success. Neither does inheriting wealth, as you pointed out. I really can't see the fault of evolution applied to economics.

[FBM]

Inheriting superior genes produces superior offspring, but the reproductive success of an individual is not dependent on that single variable. Inheriting money passes on nothing but material wealth. It is completely unconnected to the individual's physical or mental makeup or behavior.

[FBM]

Social Darwinism would let the poor suffer and the weak starve. But let's look at how the world really works. People feed the poor and give material support to the weak. That's real-life evidence that economies don't actually function in a "survival of the fittest" mode.

[Jason]

Irrespective of an environment in which wealth offers opportunities not available to someone without, I'd agree with you. It's 'fitness' we're talking about here, so whether they're stronger or smarter isn't all that important compared to wealth in the environment we've created for ourselves.

[Jason]

Social Darwinism would let the poor suffer and the weak starve. But let's look at how the world really works. People feed the poor and give material support to the weak. That's real-life evidence that economies don't actually function in a "survival of the fittest" mode.

Certainly. I don't deny that this happens. However, there poor. Are they genetically deficient? If they were smarter or stronger would they become rich?

Perhaps. But rarely. Even if it takes generations, eventually the one which inherits its wealth will come along.

[FBM]

Irrespective of an environment in which wealth offers opportunities not available to someone without, I'd agree with you. It's 'fitness' we're talking about here, so whether they're stronger or smarter isn't all that important compared to wealth in the environment we've created for ourselves.

Hmm. We may be arguing different points. What sort of fitness are you talking about? How does natural selection come into play in it?

[FBM]

Social Darwinism would let the poor suffer and the weak starve. But let's look at how the world really works. People feed the poor and give material support to the weak. That's real-life evidence that economies don't actually function in a "survival of the fittest" mode.

Certainly. I don't deny that this happens. However, there poor. Are they genetically deficient? If they were smarter or stronger would they become rich?

Perhaps. But rarely. Even if it takes generations, eventually the one which inherits its wealth will come along.

Then how is it connected to natural selection? What am I misunderstanding?

[Jason]

I'd really like to continue, but drunken 'intellectual' Făkünamę is gone for the time being. I'm supremely stoned Făkünamę.

[FBM]

Enjoy! Wish I could join you.

[Tyrannical]

Social Darwinism would let the poor suffer and the weak starve. But let's look at how the world really works. People feed the poor and give material support to the weak. That's real-life evidence that economies don't actually function in a "survival of the fittest" mode.

Certainly. I don't deny that this happens. However, there poor. Are they genetically deficient? If they were smarter or stronger would they become rich?

Perhaps. But rarely. Even if it takes generations, eventually the one which inherits its wealth will come along.

Then how is it connected to natural selection? What am I misunderstanding?

Behavior is heavily influenced by genetics.
Society influences genetics by rewarding (good food and shelter) or punishing (prison or execution) behavior, which in turn influences whose genes get passed to the next generation.

[FBM]

Social Darwinism would let the poor suffer and the weak starve. But let's look at how the world really works. People feed the poor and give material support to the weak. That's real-life evidence that economies don't actually function in a "survival of the fittest" mode.

Certainly. I don't deny that this happens. However, there poor. Are they genetically deficient? If they were smarter or stronger would they become rich?

Perhaps. But rarely. Even if it takes generations, eventually the one which inherits its wealth will come along.

Then how is it connected to natural selection? What am I misunderstanding?

Behavior is heavily influenced by genetics. Society influences genetics by rewarding (good food and shelter) or punishing (prison or execution) behavior, which in turn influences whose genes get passed to the next generation.

I don't see any diminished reproductive capacity among the poor or those who have been to jail. The poor tend to have more babies, not fewer. Also, it's quite rare for a person to be incarcerated for the entirety of his/her reproductive age. So rare as to have a negligible effect on the larger economy. Social Darwinism stands debunked by greater minds than my own, but apparently still commands the faith of those who wish it were true. I'm sorry, but you can't wish away the fallacies inherent in the premise. There is no known connection between economic welfare and natural selection. It's an over-simplistic bias that did not survive careful scrutiny.

Social Darwinism and the Theory of Evolution

Social Darwinism rests on two premises: there exists a constant struggle for survival in nature, and nature is a proper guide for the structuring of society. This is not a scientific idea at all, as it is not a statement about what is but rather a statement about what some people think "should" be.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection describes the propagation of hereditary traits due to the varying "success" of organisms in reproducing. Basing a moral philosophy on natural selection makes about as much sense as basing morality on the theory of gravitational success: rocks rolling down the furthest are the best rocks.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism