Social Darwinism

Prof. Richard Bulliet
History W3903 section 001
Session 16: Social Darwinism
HISTORY OF THE WORLD SINCE 1500CE

[@easyengrave1649]

Thank you for sharing these lectures Columbia!

[@lidiatorelli1224]

Thank you Richard . Your lectures are fantastic!!!!

[@PotjehovaRakija]

21:50 - 27:00 Herbert Specer's survival of the fittest and Lamarckism

[@bulgingbattery2050]

Some people are smarter, taller, healthier, more attractive, etc.. etc.. This is because of nature and genetics, and is not some byproduct of human intervention.

[@robertanderson9375]

Yes, it is why Eugenics was a flawed idea

[@Nightman-eb8mj]

@@robertanderson9375 How is it flawed? We shouldn't just "end" other "lesser" people, but what @bulgingbattery2050 said is completely true. It's a natural fact that we are not born equal. Even in simple terms of health and immune systems we are also not equal. isn't it a right thing to say that for a country, or community to survive and progress it's better that their people are healthier?

[@thomasjones7115]

... Once in 1983 I had a conversation with my Grandmother who challenged me on the scientific fact that the earth was round ... as she believed the earth was square .... she could read and write and worked as a secretary for twenty years for a new car dealership in a sprawling urban area .... I never pressed her on her belief but now in retrospect it blows me away.

[@c4call]

I believe that the Earth is round but that is because I was born into a world that generally believes there this round and anyone who believes your this flat or square is ridiculed. For me, the Earth being round is a belief and not a proven fact. When I do in outer space, it will be a proven fact. For all I know, you may be an astronaut. But most likely comments statistically comment you are not. And statistically, most likely, you and your personal life are not affected by whether the Earth is round or flat. So it is childish and stupid to ridicule your grandmother or anyone else who has not observed around Earth for thinking that it may very well be flat. Because we are going through a time in history right now that is not at all unique, in the fact that trust in authorities of the scientific and political variety is dramatically disappearing, in part because they are stealing so miserably at making our lives better outside of the engineering and practical sciences. In terms of social stability, or world is falling apart. So it is no wonder at all to me that in an increasing number of people are starting to doubt even that the Earth is round, when our scientists can't even agree on how many genders there are.

[@c4call]

Sorry, that was talk to text, but I think you get the gist

[@BluJean6692]

This is critically important.

[@ThomasDeLello]

Does Columbia University still have slate chalk blackboards...? They were obsolete in the 1970's because of dry ease markers.

[@stevemahoney708]

if you're put off by the "ums", just watch this lecture at 1.5x. or 2x if you're really smart. this guy has things to says. Maybe you don't agree with them, but maybe you do :D

[@alejandroprida7342]

while i did enjoy the lecture, professor Bulliet spends most of it talking about social darwinism in the context of genetic science rather than its implications on society at large

[@maikeruasmr8591]

Disagreeing with Social Darwinism isn't just leftist, it should be common sense.

[@fallingfloor6924]

Social Darwinism is not bad. For example an American leftist. They believe in abortions and reducing birthrate to reduce carbon emissions. Naturally, them and their ideas die out with no children to pass it along to. Instead you must groom children into the ideology.

[@depiction3435]

If you're a moron

[@Nightman-eb8mj]

What's there to disagree about it. Doesn't common sense serve to prove it? For example, how do you explain the business world? Are you ok with paying more for the lesser quality product because you feel bad for the producer?

[@vamsikrishna4562]

​@@Nightman-eb8mj social Darwinism is used to justify genocides. We no longer root for survival anymore. We are improving the quality of survival. Better we recognize the flaws and improve it by giving everyone a chance. Not judging them.

[@Poppi_Weez]

wow, the privilege of Ivy League knowledge for free & ppl still complain, smdh

[@ladytempest7273]

Agreed, you don't necessarily have to like how he speaks, but people would sell their house to sit in his class.

[@driteroj]

@@ladytempest7273 tell me someone who sold their house to sit in his class

[@forbesfoofighters]

Imagine selling your house to sit there and be indoctrinated

[@BluJean6692]

And it's inevitably either someone who can barely articulate their disagreement or "I didn't finish it..."

[@paulnesselroade5252]

Spencer's philosophy had almost nothing to do with Darwinism? Really? Did Darwin ever disavow Spencer? Not that I'm aware of. And what about this little quote from Darwin (and I'm not quote-mining here - this is clearly Darwin's picture of the future), "“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races." - [Descent of Man] I won't continue the quote because it is simply too offensive. You simply can't draw these hard lines between Darwin, Darwinism, and Social Darwinism, and Eugenics. Perhaps it can be claimed that there is a tighter connection between Darwin himself and eugenics than between Darwin himself and what came to be called social Darwinism, but that is not the same thing as to say that Social Darwinism had almost nothing to do with Darwin or Darwinism. You Just can't excise Spencer that neatly. If Darwin showed us our maker - you can't lament Spencer for applying the implications of that realization to the social order.

[@ciencias3344]

Thanks!

[@tombouie]

Well Done & request an update (ex: Trumpism)

[@kaininjathundermmandopoke5167]

I don't like Social Darwinists as evil.

[@99penergydrinks8]

The people talking while this lecturer is speaking, are so effing disrespectful!!!!!!

[@aishamalik6427]

Thank you for sharing the lecture 👍

[@immanuelmcswagger]

I was Here

[@plenarchist]

Corrections. Darwin adopted "survival of the fittest" by the 5th ed of OoS. SotF doesn't mean "natural selection." Spencer used Lamarckism as a *corollary* for social evolution. Spencerism can be described as "cultural Lamarkism." Cultural evolution - not biological. Spencerism is "nurture over nature" while so-called Darwinism is "nature over nurture." Two entirely different views. Spencerism has been forgotten. Spencer was NOT a racist and NOT a eugenicist. He was a true humanitarian.

[@dazz5849]

He literally said we should not help the disadvantaged because they are unfit and don't deserve reproducing. He was a supremacist, and he definitelly inspired the american eugenicists who in turn influenced the nazis. And you are an ignorant scumbag.

[@NYFL2156]

Instead of using the word pernicious this professor should have been more direct and less eloquent and just plain said "socially damaging or hurtful or social evil or corrupt.

[@pawbard]

“Social Darwinism is a really dumb idea” - last sentence. The whole lecture is a summary of the negative view for the last century. Nothing else to see here folks.

[@iceyred6668]

Theologian L(0.16) Chaptet'r //nd.D

[@oliversaid3213]

9:12 :D

[@Nightman-eb8mj]

So... all we have are opinions and facts that breeding works... Oh, and you know "it's all stupid ides" because it is, ok?

[@niitro9284]

social darwinism is the way to go!

[@woulfhound]

Is that a serious comment?

[@niitro9284]

@@woulfhound Yes. And you should know my grandfather was considered a wolf-man. He even barked at the moon.

[@fullbirdcorporal]

This guy should consider writing his lecture on paper, along with visual media to reiterate his thoughts, and have someone INTERESTING, that doesn't need to gulp coffee, or repeat the word 'uh' as a sort of mantra. A great case for "The Great Courses."

[@Beforeitsgone00]

Shut up

[@steve905]

this is first year stuff

[@iAmTheSingularity]

Yes! Did you go to Hogwarts too?

[@iceyred6668]

stero lineare's D //nd.D

[@FaustsKanaal]

Leftist propagandist lecture. Completely American perspective as well.

[@GilesMartinMagnatum]

Gresham College has a more academic approach on the same subject.

[@Obilio222]

I couldn’t make it all the way through this, it was so poorly done. Then it occurred to me... the school can’t just appeal to common sense that social Darwinism is a bad idea because if everyone is really equal, then his audience is wasting a LOT of money to say that they attended a prestigious school. Prestige only works if some people are more “equal” than others.

[@dazz5849]

This is not about everyone being equal in the sense of having equal capacities, obviously. Look no further, you're clearly way behing the curve here.

[@Obilio222]

@@dazz5849 , I am sorry. I don’t understand the context of your comment. If it refers to the lecture - I haven’t seen the part that I did watch in two years. If it is a response to my comment then I do not understand what you are getting at. “Not about … having equal capacities, obviously”. Money and test scores are obvious - nothing else is here. Your last sentence is gibberish to me.

[@okemostratton]

way to many uuuuuuuuuuhs

[@sam_k8868]

Okemostratton Well no one is FORCING you to listen...

[@loco12345987]

he needs a public speaking class, if he could cut out all the "uhh"s it would cut the lecture by 25%

[@Adrian-qi5ii]

Eugenics is right.

[@reieldagix3780]

Adrián Social Darwinism is the implention of NATURAL selection into human society. Eugenics isn't natural.

[@Adrian-qi5ii]

@@reieldagix3780 Of course, eugenics is an artificial selection that tries to reproduce the type of natural selection prior to the industrial revolution.

[@dazz5849]

Subhumans like you woudn't last in a world led by eugenicists.

[@ComradeAgopian]

Americans , go figure .

[@jonathaneidering5401]

You cant really blame the social darwinists. Even if they were wrong on the idea that some races are less evolved, there is nothing intrincially wrong killing or mistreating other races. Morality is just a result of a random habitable mutation that happend to increase survivability. Killing an "innocent" (whatever that means) is equally morally insignificant as helping the poor. This goes against everthing of the human experence of a moralcode. The fact that you as a darwinian evolutionist cant say it is wrong to kill innocent people is just a big hint that you are on the wrong track in life. Also, it is only the micro-evolution which has been proved in science. the other four. Macroevolution, common ancestery, Darwinian mechanism and abiogenesis are all diffrent theories which somehow are included in the "theory of evolution".

[@andrijadelic7422]

But honestly western Europe colonized the world because of ther technological superiority. All empires rise like that Back in Roman Empire people had a perception that they are the best civilization in the world.

[@XxfreyaxXx]

No early colonization was done to acquire resources, new territory, and used to create religious societies (like salem, mass.). later colonization (19th century africa), was done to stimulate their economies caused by depressions. Europeans brought guns, ships, and diseases which became technological and biological advantages which allowed colonization to happen faster.

[@fullbirdcorporal]

This guy must have tenure. His speaking style sucks, halting, not interesting. Columbia is $50,000/year to listen to this guy???

[@ronraygun4098]

No one is listening to your channel, kind of puts things into perspective as to how terrible of a lecturer you must be.

[@Nightman-eb8mj]

Makes you think, doesn't it...