5 ms·
Social Darwinism, really? I thought that went out of style with eugenics.
by kaonashi 14y ago
Social Darwinism, really? I thought that went out of style with eugenics.
- philwelch 14y agoStylishness is not equivalent to truth.
- mbetter 14y agoIn science, they are quite highly correlated.
- anonymoushn 14y agoThis hasn't been true historically. Almost all of the times we have been confident that we understood something, we have been wrong.
- gruseom 14y agoThat's a powerful argument for the GP.
- roguecoder 14y agoThat is because almost all the time we are wrong, whether we were confident or not. However, we were generally less-wrong that were were before. I recommend Asimov's article on the matter: http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
- philwelch 14y agoThere are also step functions when dogma comes into the question. Copernicus and Galileo were both right about heliocentrism, but when heliocentrism was politically incorrect, the scientific consensus was wrong.
- maratd 14y agoMental masturbation isn't equivalent to it either. The idea that because you have more money in your bank account that makes you more fit ... is absurd. For every other species, we evaluate fitness based on the number of descendants. Not for humans? Why? A welfare mamma can pop out half a dozen kids. How many kids do you have?
- jlgreco 14y agoGenetics don't have to be involved for traits to be passed on between generations. There is more to a phenotype than just the genotype. It is not a stretch to think that natural selection could apply pressure to traits that are passed on through culture and exposure to ideas.
- dllthomas 14y agoThis seems to be a nonsequitor. "Social Darwinism" isn't a single coherent movement, but those who have espoused it in various forms have only occasionally been specifically concerned with the mechanism as far as I can tell. The grandparent just said "evolution" and spoke of adaptation.
- jlgreco 14y agoYes, that does seem to be what has happened here.
- sliverstorm 14y agoI don't believe the comment you are replying to is Social Darwinism. As I understand it, that particular view set is actually a belief/value system, while the comment you reply to is merely an observation that assuming variety, there will always be a bottom rung.
- drivebyacct2 14y agoThe comment directly implies that some people are born predisposed to being poor on a genetic level, which is... absurd isn't even close to the right word.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- Mz 14y agoGee, I kind of hate to say this, but my expensive genetic disorder is why I am deeply in debt and homeless. It is not due to lack of intelligence, ineptitude, etc. It is simply expensive to treat. So I have difficulty with the idea that our genes in no way impact this outcome. I was STAR student, a national scholarship winner, etc ad nauseum. In fact, I am in financial trouble because I figured out how to get well when that is supposedly impossible. It all came out of my pocket.
- drivebyacct2 14y agoInteresting. I didn't mean to discount that possibility and my strong reaction to the GP's implication was in the opposite direction as my comment looks in retrospect. I think health issues are a huge cause of poverty for families that were uninsured or didn't have sufficient coverage and I could definitely understand that happening with congenital cases. I'm sorry I came across so un-understanding, I was reading the parent-parent comment as "people are born lazy" which I found myself annoyed at. There are a lot of "poor people get what they deserve/are lazy" comments here that are dressed up to seem nicer (that frustrate me) and sadly I managed to (to you at least) come off even more sourly because I didn't express myself properly. Apologies.
- yummyfajitas 14y agoEugenics didn't go out of style. It's used quite successfully to prevent horrible genetic diseases. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dor_Yeshorim http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dor_Yeshorim
- Produce 14y agoIt's ironic that it's the Jews who embraced using eugenics on themselves!