Noam Chomsky - on Social Darwinism

[@alexanderriccio3309]

For those reading any of the comment thread below, the term "social Darwinism" first appeared in 1877 in a book by Joseph Fisher titled, "The History of Landholding in Ireland." Also, Spencer famously used the expression "survival of the fittest" in his book "Principles of Biology" after reading Darwin's work. This phrase, and his support of laissez-faire capitalism are reasons why people label Spencer as a 'social Darwinist.' All of this information can be easily found, and verified, on the web

[@mtracy9]

"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas." -- Karl Marx

[@africanhistory]

truism

[@davidh2794]

I have taken a lot of evolutionary biology courses and one thing that professors repeatedly drum into your head is that survival of the fittest DOES NOT mean survival of the strongest, although it is often misinterpreted that way. I see a lot of comments on here with this erroneous notion. Please be careful about how you read and write things folks.

[@filrabat1965]

Strongest: Polar Bear. Smartest: Human. Fittest all around: Tartigrade, can survive a much wider temperature range than any mammal and even survive the vaccum of space (and probably other human-toxic environments besides).

[@mossbresnahan3072]

Physically strongest no, there's severely mentally retarded people with extreme human strength.

[@bozolazic]

@prschuster “We never cease to stand like curious children before the great Mystery into which we are born.” ― Albert Einstein “Our ignorance can be divided into problems and mysteries. When we face a problem, we may not know its solution, but we have insight, increasing knowledge, and an inkling of what we are looking for. When we face a mystery, however, we can only stare in wonder and bewilderment, not knowing what an explanation would even look like.” ― Noam Chomsky Peace.

[@CornerTalker]

He's right about one thing - it has little to do with capitalism. Most of the postings I see railing against capitalism are actually against government meddling.

[@unfad1ng]

What Chomsky fails to see is that he himself is in a position of relative power and thus his ideas can just as easily be described as ideas that benefit at least his own power

[@DennisKolenovic]

The self will propagate what can enrich the self - whatever is has associated it-self with. How many would-be geniuses have missed out on the path to be a Head of [whatever] at an MIT or Ox-Bridge or whatever because they missed out on a good start? This whole Marxist ideology is just opiate for the masses.

[@jeb31415]

The title should read "...on social Darwinism."

[@AnarchistCatGrrl]

Yeah but Noam Chomsky is pretty important too.

[@davedavidson9996]

I remember seeing Dr Vadana Shiva speak at Moravian U. She is an Indian activist and has a PhD in particle physics. During the Q&A someone asked about Darwinism and she said what it doesn't tell you is that successful species got there because of the ability to cooperate with one another . Same thing Chomsky is saying although he mentions some sources.

[@os287]

And how did the rich and powerful become rich and powerful in the first place?

[@keithhunt5328]

Because that's how evolution works. Animals live in dominance hierarchies.

[@syppy7416]

I just gotta mention this Natural selection is not a moral question. It’s like saying “if you believe in gravity why are you sad if someone falls off a building?”

[@filrabat1965]

That's the reason the word "simplistic" exists. You're confusing is and ought: Evolution the "is" and SD the "ought" (somebody's prescription for how humans ought to behave). Yes, humans are animals but we also transcend the other animals to a considerable (if still imperfect) degree. We have the ability to ask "If I don't want 'that' to happen to me, then why is it OK for 'that' to happen to someone else?". This is why (ideally, at least) we have laws, moral rules, etc. in the first place - to protect ourselves from non-defensive and non-punitive hurt, harm, and degradation of dignity.

[@syppy7416]

@@filrabat1965 my point exactly

[@TheFifthGreatApe]

Simple: 'Darwinism' is the understanding of Darwin's theory of Natural Selection that is at the basis of all the rich diversity of life on this planet. 'Social Darwinism' is when someone confuses the IS and OUGHT distinction. In other words its when someone says, "since nature IS Darwinistic, then we OUGHT to make society function as a literal analogy." (eg. 'survival of the fittest') Darwinism is important for understanding the natural world, but the basis of culture should be anti-Darwinian.

[@syppy7416]

"if you define yourself by the power to take life, the desire to dominate, to possess, then you have nothing" -Obi Wan Kenobi

[@flovv4580]

Great Quote

[@syppy7416]

@@flovv4580 and people say Star Wars isn't political also, I love this one meme of that scene, where after Maul angrily asks "then what do you have!?" Obi Wan says "both of my legs"

[@MS-il3ht]

Really? I'd think, you actually have all the things you just mentioned.

[@syppy7416]

@@MS-il3ht yeah, but you have nothing else other than that if that's how you define yourself and the thing is, what's the point of being stronger, smarter or faster if you only use them for your own gain?

[@MS-il3ht]

@@syppy7416 Well, I'd use them for the gain of people that are even stronger, smarter, faster than I am. And if they bring me down, so be it.

[@tekobari]

Why is this titled the way it is? Chomsky isn't talking about Darwinism, or natural selection. Please, people already mess up science as it is, without titling Chomsky's talk this way.

[@anthonymccarthy4164]

In the fifth edition of On the Origin of Species, Darwin explicitly said that "Survival of the Fittest" was the same thing as "Natural Selection". He was even more explicit in asserting that in The Descent of Man. I'm always amazed that self-appointed Darwin defenders have never read his most famous books.

[@anthonymccarthy4164]

It wasn't other authors who connected natural selection with survival of the fittest, Darwin did, as I said, in the fifth edition of Origin of Species, he further connected his theory to eugenics and Social Darwinism in The Descent of Man, endorsing, in the highest of terms, works by Galton, Haeckel, Spenser, Greg that are the early literature of eugenics and Social Darwinism, he also supported his son, George's eugenic speculations - no less an authority on the matter than his son Francis called that "eugenics". Galton didn't publish the term "eugenics" until the year after Darwin's death but he, Darwin's sons, especially Leonard, and every, single other eugenicist I've looked at cited Darwin's inspiration of their eugenics, indeed, on at least three occasions Leonard Darwin said that he was certain he was carrying on his father's work through his eugenics promotion. No one who has tried to distance Darwin from eugenics has the credibility of his own sons, his cousin Galton and others who knew the man, indeed, knew him as intimately as his own sons did. There is no credible case to be made that Darwin wasn't the inspiration of eugenics and one of its earliest supporters. Galton published his positively gushing endorsement of his book Hereditary Genius, which Galton counted as his first eugenics book. Darwin's own endorsement of that book makes it certain that he supported eugenics on the basis of its relation to natural selection, eugenics is based, absolutely, on natural selection, it would have no argument without that foundation.

[@tekobari]

It seems you're a True Believer. Well, I can agree with you on one thing, and that's that social Darwinism is immoral.

[@anthonymccarthy4164]

I'm a true blue believer in knowing what I'm talking about before I talk about it, which includes having read all of Darwin's books and most of the citations HE MADE which are relevant to those issues. I assume your hero meant what he said in those. Apparently you don't believe he meant what he said, in which case, he's not reliable. You don't get to have it both ways

[@tekobari]

He's not my hero, dude. He's a great scientist upon whom more science rests. And upon that, more science will rest. I suppose, however, you could say that the scientific method is my hero.

[@pslockett]

Chomsky's assessment of Spencer's "survival of the fittest" is based on the common caricature of Spencer, rather than the reality. Spencer commented that, in a genuinely free society, fitness would probably be defined by the ability to form social bonds by display kindness and compassion. Ironically, his point was quite similar to the one being attributed to Kropotkin and presented as an opposing argument.

[@JustinBurns]

I can prove my point with a simple thought exercise: There was a time when telegraph companies employed a large percentage of the population. These obsolete companies eventually went bankrupt as a result of newly emerging telephone startups. Imagine if our government had bailed-out these big telegraph companies to “save jobs”. Imagine if the government never let any company fail, just kept bailing them out and changing the laws to prevent new startups from competing against them, to "save jobs".

[@thecousinbellic]

Oh, the Government does do that. Only with the likes of Goldman Sachs. That's what "Too Big to fail" means. Telegraph companies simply didn't have the power the similarly obsolete oil companies do.

[@MrHaircut1]

I never equated femininity with empathy or logic. My point is that we only mother people (make them feel good, nurture them, take care of them, don't push them to become independent) where there should be mothering and fathering.

[@briannacowell4350]

Chomsky is a brilliant man in the way he looks at Social Darwin and communist population from a different angle. He does, however hit the nail on the head. The richer got richer and the poorer got poorer.

[@davidh2794]

If by "strong" you mean more suitably adapted to their environment, then yes.

[@justgivemethetruth]

Chomsky is great with facts, history, and the enlightenment of science … I'd like it if he had a solution to these problems that he so articulately explains.

[@BPDHANA]

Professor Chomsky is one of my favourite leftist intellectual! His argument and proposition is very well-put and highly articulate. Although, his political theory on post-9 11 world is still downright infantile, for instance in comparison with another intellectual such as christopher hitchens who has recognised "what happens as it is", but his critics on american foreign policy, capitalism and cold war are very striking and brilliantly written!

[@stoggafllik]

“wtf I heckin love science!!!11!1!! XDDDDD"

[@africanhistory]

Unfortunately the reality of the world outside of human control shows us that it is survival of those who are best able to adapt, or the God damn lucky bastards that did not get eaten by a lion after sleeping out in the open.

[@evilpandakillabzonattkoccu4879]

it's dangerous to confuse Darwinism with Social Darwinism. you end up throwing a lot of people who dont agree with Social Darwinism under the bus when you do that... in actuality, a Darwinist's views are on biology, not society. i'm a Darwinist (if that label really means anything) because i understand that the species on earth developed by means of natural selection as opposed to development by a creator. this does not reflect my social or political views, however. it is an insult to be associated with Social Darwinists simply because others dont understand the difference between it and Darwinism when assigning labels.

[@josephcoon5809]

You need to revisit what you think you understand about evolution. Mankind has long since departed from genetic evolution and has been evolving mnemetically for centuries.

[@evilpandakillabzonattkoccu4879]

@@josephcoon5809 ....I love Dawkins, Dennett and Harris as much as the next person but memetics is still widely considered a pseudoscience....its an analogy, not scientifically proven model (theory).

[@josephcoon5809]

@@evilpandakillabzonattkoccu4879 Mnemetics* Also, it’s the whole basis of the free market. Better ideas gather more resources. It’s not complicated.

[@josephcoon5809]

@@evilpandakillabzonattkoccu4879 It’s the reason why big screen TVs were $15,000 ($22,000 adjusted for inflation) in 1997, and two decades later they are arguably 10,000% higher in quality for 5% the cost.

[@joesphbegley3088]

Enlightened self interest.

[@hiraethum]

As an ecologist, I'm always pissed off by the way elites twist and oversimplify biological ideas to justify their means and ends. Competition is a strong force but in the strict definition, it results in those involved doing worse than they would have otherwise. Other powerful relationships that are often selected for are mutually benefical ones. As humans we have the choice to create a more cooperative context. I argue the only hope for us lies in systems that maximize mutual aid.

[@triyx]

Spencer, from the same book you quote: "It seems hard that widows and orphans should be left to struggle for life or death. Nevertheless, when regarded not separately, but in connection with the interests of universal humanity, these harsh fatalities are seen to be full of the highest beneficence"

[@wiecek13]

What if it is a combination of the two views? Altruistic mutual aid and rational self interest?

[@ishmaelforester9825]

Johnathan McClea Really the whole basis of rational self-interest was that 'altruistic mutual aid' would be a natural consequence of people acting thus rationally i.e. we come to understand it is ultimately in our individual interest to engage in altruistic mutual aid, if we are thinking and acting rationally, that is. The various benefits of a psychological order that we accrue through behaving in such a manner toward our fellow human beings are understood to outweigh the material sacrifices involved, and thus altruism is seen as ultimately beneficial to the individual. It is hardly rational simply to look after yourself whatever the cost to others: that is the irrational outlook of brain damaged psychopaths and desperate animals, not enlightened human beings.

[@11889music]

It is such a common misconception that to look at the world with Darwinian evolution in mind is to look at a giant, ruthless, never-ending competition. He mentions that cooperation, and symbiosis for that matter, are to be expected in a Darwinian understanding of the natural world. This is such a critical point for those who mistake "Social Darwinism" for Darwinian Evolution.

[@AceMaximum1998]

Lee Kuan Yew is a social Darwinist. Now look at Singapore.

[@BeMyFirst]

Park Chung Hee was a Hamilton-ist. Now look at South Korea. Also, 82 percent of housing in Singapore is controlled by the government (Housing and Development Board). Also, Singapore holds all the black money from Philippines, Vietnam, etc. This is not to forget that it is a major shipping port for all that past by say the straits of Malacca. Now what does any of this have to do with social darwinism?

[@Marquinoist]

Look at that tiny exception of 4 million people in a world of billions like Asia.

[@stephaniesyfrett5047]

🍸🍰🍮🍬🍭🍻🍶🍼🍼🍼🍼🍼🍼🍱🍹🎣🏏⛳️⚾️⚽️🎾🏈🏀🏉🛀🏻🏆🎽🎭🎼🎻🎻🎻🎯🎲🎲🎲🎲🎲👾👾👾👾👾+£¥€

[@essvee86]

Yeah look at them, decreased population.

[@steptb]

LKY was a pragmatist.

[@AsEasyAsEasyIs]

[INTERNET: In 1912, the First International Congress of Eugenics was held at the University of London. The president of the Congress was Major Leonard Darwin, son of Charles Darwin and one of the first English vice presidents was Sir Winston Churchill, later Prime Minister of England.]

[@Monadshavenowindows]

Hey, I have that same sweater! Prof. Chomsky must have shopped at SYMS.

[@albertwhitby3100]

This is a clever little tricky video... He is talking about social darwinism without going into the crux of the matter on the subject. Social Darwinism is based on white supremacy... He implies that but you have to read between the lines. OR maybe we can take an advanced view and considered that race is no longer the line dominate line of separation its actually class systems.

[@essvee86]

I think it's more of the latter. I think he's talking about any group who thinks they're more superior than the rest of the human race.

[@MrHaircut1]

" ...One proposed explanation is that people with different genes tend to seek out different environments that reinforce the effects of those genes.[6] A 1994 review in Behavior Genetics based on identical/fraternal twin studies found that heritability is as high as 0.80 in general cognitive ability but it also varies based on the trait, with .60 for verbal tests, .50 for spatial and speed-of-processing tests, and only .40 for memory tests.[5]"

[@carlosantuckwell]

Right on Noam. Before he got to Kropotkin, I was already thinking of mentioning him in this comment. Nikolai Kropotkin was a Russian anarchist who wrote the book Noam cites and another one called "Cooperation In Nature". The Russian anarchists also prophesied the draconian totalitarian future of Bolshevism, but still tried to work with it in the beginning - when Lenin ordered reprisals in the Civil War, Bakunin pleaded with him not to drag the name of communism into the mud like that.

[@chinggis_khagan]

What he means is that the ideologies that do best are not those that correspond best to reality. He made exactly your point anyway when he said that this 'has a Spencerian element to it'.

[@ImperialGuard9001]

"In the Descent of Man, Darwin already stressed the evolutionary function of cooperation, camaraderie, reciprocal support..." Thats basicaly what NS talked about in kameradschaft German Volk against the "alien" corrupt natures of Capitalism or Marxism-Leninism that for him were in league with Judaism.

[@bravetherainbow]

nazism isn't socialism, it's a grift and a horrendously destructive genocidal one at that.

[@abeedhal6519]

@@bravetherainbow nazism isn't anything considering nazi is just an empty slur. national socialism on the other hand is exactly what it#s name suggests.

[@theok391]

​@@bravetherainbow its socialism

[@Usefulmusic]

Is that your original phrase? Excellent. I interpret it as meaning that human societies must continually 'cultivate' for their collective good in order to prevent tendencies inherited from a brutal past taking over..

[@tnekkc]

@chocobofarmer2021 Yes, I am just too dumb to find any reason why I would want the gov to steal more of my money.

[@gamerknown]

Providing public healthcare is more expensive than not providing healthcare in terms of taxation, but provides better outcomes than if healthcare provision is left entirely to the private sector (a state of affairs not seen in any country in the world, by the way). The closest example would be either Bangladesh or Somalia, the former having 96% private provision. Scarcity is not ignored in nationalised service, in fact, services are rationalised to meet demand independent of wealth.

[@bobokittyFukk]

Social Darwinism is to Darwinism what Cultural Marxism is to Marxism. Also u could say Social Darwinism fails cos of collectivism vs survival of the best as top dogs usually choose their own kind vs possibly the "best" kind...that and the fact that the best is subjective. If you look at the elite today; its not greatness that characterizes them, its comradery and exclusion. Ur either in, or ur OUT. Im sure this could be proved by looking at who have lost and who have gained money during the "financial" crisis...which obviously was planned and is part of the "new world order"; aka Globalism. The illusion of no inside "trade" is the "everything".

[@lebronfitzgerald8129]

bobokittyFukk that’s a great excuse for not being financially successful

[@justinsane6867]

I meant "Lamarckism" both times. The point I'm making is that Spencer used Lamarckism as an *analogy* to explain his understanding of human social evolution. The idea being that we "inherit" knowledge from each other and that knowledge which is useful becomes important to us and that which is not useful disappears. Inheritance is a term in Lamarckism but Spencer meant it as the cultural transmission of knowledge like memes though he didn't use that term.

[@server1ok]

the way the world functions is not a beforehand set state We can change it, as well as the social structure, depending on how we view what Chomsky is adressing, and depending on what we think is important in life. I believe that we don't need overstimulation or excessive competition to become creative citizens, or to live a peaceful life. I also believe that we can not forcefully take power away from the rich, without constructing worse hierarchies

[@MrHaircut1]

...We've adopted this idea that morality and femininity are the same thing. It's not wrong to be a man. Men push each other to be men. That is our role in society. That means competition and not doing things for each other that we need to do for ourselves. It's not immoral, to me, to have people, who have caused their own situations of struggling and dependence on others, work for someone in a way that makes that person wealthy. I see it as a beneficial relationship for both parties...

[@bozolazic]

@prschuster Thanks for pointin' that out! I was a befuddled!

[@DripStopShop]

but that's just the planet. there's a lot more space out there to grow into. and it's not about domination, just growth, and as a species gets more and more mature their growth becomes increasingly dependent on replacing competition with collaboration, turning domination into unity.

[@AthosAmo]

You didn't understand my point about the platypus. I didn't say it was a duck or a beaver. My point is that one could assume that the platypus is a transitional form between ducks and beavers linking them very closely based on similarities, which is the same reasoning the establishment and its followers do for things like archaeopteryx which has a lot in common with dinosaurs and birds.

[@jhaduvala]

The "fittest" does not mean the strongest. It means the "most suitable". Survival of the fittest = of the most suitable.

[@Myutoobtxtoob]

Fine. And yes I am impressed, especially by his research. You don't seem to disagree with his research, just his conclusions.

[@AlternativaRed]

@scandapoodle I'm not confused by any means... you simply don't know about the history of fascism. I told you that the philosophical roots of Nazism and Italian fascism were born from Nietzsche, Stirner, and many other XIX century philosophers. All of them were strong darwinists. Darwin took inspiration from Malthus and Spencer for his work "On the Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection or THE PRESERVATION OF FAVOURED RACES IN THE STRUGGLE OF LIFE"

[@gamerknown]

@TMaw345 I don't make that assumption. I'm merely pointing out Hume's "Is/Ought" distinction. Rape and murder allowed us to survive as a species. Darwin unfortunately adopted Herbert Spencer's term "survival of the fittest" in the fifth edition of the Origin of Species, but modern biologists like Dawkins reject the term. The principle now is adaptation to the demands of the environment: including societies, which are an aspect of human environments and contra to individualism.

[@justinsane6867]

Richard Hofstadter member of the Young Communist League and Communist Party of the USA per Wikipedia. He was a PhD Columbia U history professor and total Marxist. He wrote "Social Darwinism in American Thought" which is where the term first appeared in print.

[@MrHaircut1]

So pointing out that my saying "Idiotic statement" is an ad hominem is disproving what I'm saying? Do you agree with this definition: An ad hominem is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it. The ad hominem is normally described as a logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.

[@kowalityjesus]

The preeminence of Arabic sources for Western philosophy can be seen in the fact that, when Giles of Rome criticizes the errors of the philosophers in ca. 1270, all the philosophers named are Arabic or wrote in Arabic. The works of philosophers of the thirteenth century, Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas, are saturated with citations of works by Arabs, and explicitly so. They call these authorities ‘peripatetici Arabici' and ‘philosophi Arabes' - the Arabic Aristotelians. -Charles Burnett

[@maskofsan1ty]

@SufferInJuly Colloquial - without strict attention to set forms. How did your search on 'scientific theory definition' go?

[@Jcolinsol]

No, not a company, we don't want to be pirates. We want a trust not a company.

[@jaredjones1752]

Social Darwinism is actually a noble creed. My only issue is that many of the people who espoused it were hypocrites and refused to address their own personal shortcomings.

[@demetrios4699]

Note to Chomsky: Power systems are themselves "part of the reality of the world". Alternate social, political, or economic arrangements would only succeed in reconstituting power under a nominally different rubric. Everywhere the strong and aggressive exist, so will there be domination of the weak and the timid. Such domination can assume, in varying degrees, a more or less sublimated character, though never is it eradicated, nor can it ever be. Ideological schemes that purport to effect this eradication by reducing or even eliminating competition for critical resources only succeed in amplifying the intensity with which the effects of natural inequalities among individuals and groups are felt.

[@unnamed7158]

8 years later do you think the strong are surviving after getting pushed out of Afghanistan or is it the Elon Musks (Huge company and private security) and George Bushes (Draft dodger) your logic breaks down and is a key factors preventing humans becoming multiplanetary as we would need to rely on genetic diversity to prevent unforseen diseases killing everyone.

[@Jester123ish]

On the other hand, that level of abstraction dehumanizes a whole class of people that are still people. Not everyone willingly sells their soul for personal gain.

[@catbuffalo]

People will often separate government from capitalism but the government is just another institution with an enormous amount of power. These same people are unable to think skeptically about any other institution.

[@cipher.u.justice]

Exactly. Funny how that's the top rated comment. It's interesting that he rejects Kropotkin's assessment on evolution under Darwinian conditions. I was under the impression that that idea was a significant foundation in anarchist theory -- that the nature of humans would be of mutual aid when not exposed to hierarchical culture via capitalism, etc.

[@jsscm02]

No, I do not "lie to myself," as you so elegantly put it. I just know what I'm talking about. Read Darwin's Descent of Man, Chapter 5 for the importance of sympathy and cooperation as evolutionary advantage.

[@raghushetty596]

Noam Chomsky is our star of inspiration . You don't have to be communist to admire his contribution to humanity. He is not anti Israel or other countries as such . He is highlighting our intricate and immoral actions against humanity. See him as a SUNSHINE. But remember Platonist Plotinus , I quote: "Where there no sunshine in thine eye, how could it perceive the SUN" ? Raghu Shetty , Surrey, London, UK

[@corcaighrebel]

What I wouldn't give for a weekend in Noam Chomsky's brain. Wonderful human being, has enriched my existence for certain!

[@D0W666]

@InvincibleIronyMan I think the word 'Darwinism' is used because his theory is still has holes in it. The 'theory of evolution' is a different thing, comparable yes, but not the same. 'Darwinism' is used because the scientific community will want to distance themselves from such a theory when it is widely accepted as being false.

[@MuscIeBomber2021]

He's not saying that Social Darwinism is unnatural, he's saying that it's not optimal. He's right.

[@MrHaircut1]

The owner makes money for himself or herself and his or her loved ones, and the worker in addition to making enough money to survive and maintain a condition that allows the opportunity for further progression, productivity, achievement, success and the very same wealth that the owner has obtained. It is not the moral responsibility of the owner to give the worker any more than that. They have been given enough. It is up to the worker to take advantage of this opportunity...

[@SufferInJuly]

Intelligence doesn't increase as it's merely the vessel in which knowledge is contained. Let us champion collectivism by whatever form, as WE expect to be paid commensurate with our abilities.

[@MrNeodarwinian]

Chomsky show he is not a biologists. It is the unity and diversity of life we study and competition and cooperation are part of the same organism and this is why anarchy has yet to work anywhere.

[@forbesfoofighters]

The thing which Kropotkin’s Darwinistic mutual aid fails to account for to my knowledge is the ethnically-nationalistic requirement for a system like this to prevent free loading and parasitism from racial out groups. Strong homogeneity would be required to maintain this type of communistic structure, which would in turn just devolve back into between group competition and take on the form of classical social-darwinism anyways.

[@Jader7777]

Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them.

[@Englishdosser86]

As long as you don`t believe it, then that`s fine. It sounds absolutely mental.

[@MrHaircut1]

@gamerunknown The theory of evolution came about by simply observing animals in nature. I'm not anti-empathy. Leaving people alone and not doing for them what they should do for themselves so they learn responsibility, self-reliance, and self-sufficiency is the result of my empathy for people's low quality of life.

[@squeezeflo]

@josedariosanchez I don't you think you understand the concept of "survival of the fittest." It means that those organisms that best "fit" or adapt to their environment will survive, succeed, and thrive. Survival of the fittest has us at a point where people, many of whom don't care about anyone else, are at the top.

[@DTK5689]

@coco7010 Scientists have not found a single uninterrupted sequence of fossils demonstrating evolution from one species to another. The best that anyone had been able to manage was to assemble isolated fossils from different strata of different ages which looked anatomically similar and to claim that they must be ancestors and descendants -- because no other rational explanation was possible.

[@theMosen]

1:58 : "The ideological concoctions that are beneficial to the rich and powerful, they'll tend to propagate, the one's that are harmful to the interests of the rich and powerful tend to be marginalized and suppressed. But that has nothing to do with the reality of the world, now that has to do with how power systems function." How is that not Social Darwinism? Since when does how power systems function have nothing to do with the reality of the world?

[@andrewandrew599]

His last statements are confusing: "... the [ideological concoctions] that are harmful to the interests of the rich and powerful will tend to be marginalized and suppressed. But that has nothing to do with the reality of the world. That has to do with how [the] power systems function." So is he saying that the power systems don't exist in reality? If they do not, how can he say these ideological concoctions are being suppressed and marginalized? Or is something missing afterward?

[@daveswager9206]

A question for JustinBurns - who owned the telegraph companies and who subsequently owned the telephone companies? Did Chomsky talk about rescuing and protecting technologies or was it private ownership interest?

[@wilkja02]

It is funny how his knowledge of language allows him to drone on endlessly whether or not he actually knows what he is talking about.

[@Alpinex105]

Not really. Scientific theories have for many years influenced political theory, policies and government. Social Darwinism and Darwinism do share many similarities, but the environment/level or area of study is what changes. They share concepts like preservation, optimization, survival, selection ect. Although it may not be scientific, they do share similarities. I think we have to be honest when we discuss how the sciences influence our society, for better or worse.

[@ColossalCollapse]

with the aid of the policy designers-it is cooperative on one level, But only cooperative amongst the powerful and rich!

[@WarriorOfWriters]

that's because of the pace at which evolution happens, wild evolution is prevented by natural selection. The platypus is neither duck, nor beaver, it's a marsupial. It's also one of two of the only mammal species that lays eggs. Species are isolated by migratory problems; such as mountain ranges, rivers and oceans. It's not racist.

[@gamerknown]

If taxation is a form of violence, so are rent and wage labour. Sen calls this an "entitlement problem": in the liberal bourgeois conception of property, once the legal title to land has been obtained, one can dispose of it as one wills, depriving one's neighbours of the use of the land. Property in this sense is the only exclusive "right". Wage labour entails not receiving the full product of one's labour due to a lack of control of the means of production.

[@Jester123ish]

What you need though is the view that recognizes that the apparent evil involved is a collective result of lack of foresight and ignorance. Knowing accurately what you are dealing with is the first step to dealing with it effectively.

[@nobodady1]

To say the most adaptable survive is merely to say that those who are able to survive survive. It really doesn't say anything. What Darwin did was explain species as a process --- speciation, The species were not designed perfectly in some timeless realm, but were born of one another, and in a process which is not inherently or permanently successful for trials. That is, it is a messy process.

[@AthosAmo]

I never said it was limited to physical strength, so don't play semantics.

[@plainlake]

Well Isaac Newton believed in the occult, demonism and alchemy, that does not make me think any less of his laws of motion. But Darwin himself insisted that social policy should not simply be guided by concepts of struggle and selection in nature.

[@MrHaircut1]

... projections of the future of society. I want a world of personal responsibility, where success, achievement (which I see as progress) aren't punished, but rewarded and able to flourish. You, believing in a Utopia where everyone is equal and lazy and somehow happy and pleasant and there is no incentive or motivation for this progress, are the one preventing progression.

[@pslockett]

@triyx I never said otherwise. It is possible to point out that one part of a piece of commentary is wrong without having to disagree with every aspect of it. Maybe that last comment of Chomsky's gives some indication of why people lie and mislead about what Spencer said in order to marginalise his ideas.

[@gamerknown]

@MrHaircut1 Great, thanks for copying and pasting from wikipedia. Can you tell me what statistical test was utilised to determine the heritability measure? Were the results statistically significant? Were there any anomalies? Was it the Stanford Binet test used? (the most common one and one Stephen J Gould actually devotes a chapter to). Were these studies conducted on identical twins raised in separate environments, so as to partially negate environmental factors (IQ may differ by country).

[@creativejustice1298]

Is evolutionary psychology social Darwinism?

[@DSBrekus]

I don't see myself as terrible, few people do, even the terrible ones. I don't think I'm terrible because I've overcome some of the worse aspects of human nature through my upbringing and my own moral thinking and education. My 'philosophy' is that most people tend to be selfish and shortsighted and are capable of terrible things when put in certain situations. I think this because of the findings of psychology, the history of mankind, and my own observations. Also, I'm atheist.

[@bianodias2000]

I am proud to tell I help publish Kropotkins Mutual Aid in Brazil. Everybody should read it. The reason it is not popular in US was due to the Red Terror, but he was an Anarchist.

[@kowalityjesus]

certainly it can be evidenced to show that "Aryans" (the word from which "Iran" is drawn) have spread all across Europe/Russia, Middle East, and Indian subcontinent. Just look at the languages included in the category "Indo-Aryan language group." Its crazy but so under-known today...

[@dsindc]

who nearly collapsed after *laundry day* which was pure hell. I'd argue that we're much freer in chosing how we live, make a living, and spend our free time. The luxury of playing on something like the internet, or simply having that kind of time would have been unthinkable. I have witnessed political demonstrations from the right, the left and everything else, so I question your conclusion. You wrote *As human population explodes, the value of individual human life erodes.* (cont 1 last time)

[@BeaveHolio]

The fact that I have, does not doom anyone to death. Food is more available than ever, the fact that there are starving people is because of barriers to free trade and rich nations subsidizing their own industries. Africans starve because we dump food aid on them and force their farmers out of business or subsidize our farmers because of some fetish we have for the farm life. Free trade had brought higher wages to people abroad and increased wealth for people at home, this trend will continue.

[@TheAmazingMorse]

@toetapper04 I disagree. Darwin's work profoundly effects man's view of himself. That many things were done with a misunderstanding of what Darwin's discoveries really showed us does not mean that we should dismiss his contribution to what it means to be human. We have still only scratched the surface.

[@MichaelRMcCoy]

Another though exercise: Unlike the telegraph companies, the late '08 - '09 near-bankrupt US auto makers weren't an obsolete concept, but victims of a variety of factors -- mismanagement and an economy crash (plunging sales) as a result of legalized bankster robbery. In the final analysis, US automakers are stable, some showing very strong growth -- and every dime, with competitive interest, was repaid to the "lender", which was, essentially, the American taxpayer. Over 8 million US jobs saved.

[@DripStopShop]

isnt social darwinism just our attempt at completely getting on board with darwinian evolution? evolution favors growth, so we should grow to the best of our abilities, which means replacing competition with cooperation.

[@haavardsunnset]

Agreed, and a nice clarification to your rethorical question

[@Gufberg]

@coco7010 I don't mean to 'just jump in' to your discussion. But i need a clarification? Do you believe that ancient cultures per se were oppressive, patriarchial and generally morally and intellectually inferior to society today?

[@gamerknown]

@MrHaircut1 "Reality is easily observable", yes an luckily people are willing to investigate and theorise about reality, allowing us access to the theory of evolution, the beginning of the universe and to videos on youtube. I don't think people are too concerned about their theories being "nonsense". Empathy can be observed. What evolutionary purpose do you think it serves? The reason I brought up Harris' book is that it provides an illustration of a society without empathy (lifespan avg: 40).

[@chinggis_khagan]

WW2 was not fought against Hitler, it wasn't even simply fought against the Nazis, it was fought against Germany and her allies. Even German people who were not decision makers or soldiers. The Iraq war was also not fought against Saddam Hussain alone or even primarily. Wars impact most everybody living in the near vicinity and beyond, really really badly. Now, I agree that intent is important, but consequences are far more important.