4 ms·

> There has always been reward for merit and suffering for lack of merit. But conflating merit with economical value is very recent invention. > Nothing “anti

> There has always been reward for merit and suffering for lack of merit. But conflating merit with economical value is very recent invention. > Nothing “anti human” about social Darwinism It didn't arise until rise of capitalism and bourgeoise (lack of) morality. For most of human history, and among countless cultures, social Darwinism wasn't the case. Peak ideology, btw.

lotsofpulp 6mo ago
What is the definition of “social Darwinism”? I am under the impression that for most of human history, the ability and willingness to inflict violence was what determined the social hierarchy. Would that not be the reason that almost all tribes were patriarchal? It seems to be a very, very recent phenomenon that simply selling goods and services can elevate one in the hierarchy, due to the advent of legal systems and policing (e.g. women’s rights).
- defrost 6mo ago
  The social Darwinists that ran with nature red in tooth and claw and took survival of the best fitted to mean the physically fittest and most aggressively dominant win are the ones responsible for your impressions. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism They're very much a fork from the Alfred Russel Wallace / Charles Darwin theory of natural selection.
- wolvesechoes 6mo ago
  > I am under the impression that for most of human history, the ability and willingness to inflict violence was what determined the social hierarchy. As most things people today believe, this is not really true, at least not in such universal way as usually implied. > Would that not be the reason that almost all tribes were patriarchal? There is no data to assert that.
  - lotsofpulp 6mo ago
    >As most things people today believe, this is not really true, at least not in such universal way as usually implied. Might makes right is a rule of nature, is it not? Native Americans didn't choose to be moved onto reservations, enslaved people didn't choose to be enslaved, and colonized cultures did not choose to be colonized. And the ones making those choices always had the upper hand. >There is no data to assert that. What data could there be? It's not like the male leaders are going to write governing documents that state women will have fewer rights than men because we believe they will not be able to put up a sufficient fight. But you put the facts together that it was nearly ubiquitous around the world, and women are physically weaker than men, and women would not choose to have fewer rights, then what other conclusion can be had?
    - wolvesechoes 6mo ago
      > Might makes right is a rule of nature, is it not? Of nature, maybe. Of human social arrangements, not really - otherwise elites would never feel the need of justifying themselves, yet they always do. > Native Americans didn't choose to be moved onto reservations, enslaved people didn't choose to be enslaved, and colonized cultures did not choose to be colonized. And the ones making those choices always had the upper hand. You went from social hierarchy to interaction between societies and cultures. Slaves were almost always sourced from outside the group, and by nature of slavery they were not part of social. > But you put the facts together that it was nearly ubiquitous around the world This is exactly the data we don't have. We simply don't know social arrangements of most tribes or cultures in human history. Moreover, there is a huge gap between assertion that most societies in history had male leaders and rulers, and assertion that lack of merit always led to being left behind. > what other conclusion can be had? Using your spectacular reasoning one can similarly argue that it has to be necessary that males in all cultures live in polygamous relationships, because nature made sperm cheap, and optimal breeding strategy is to breed with as many females as possible. And yet, for some reason, monogamy exists in patriarchal societies. Who could have thought?!
      - lotsofpulp 6mo ago

lotsofpulp 6mo ago

What is the definition of “social Darwinism”? I am under the impression that for most of human history, the ability and willingness to inflict violence was what determined the social hierarchy. Would that not be the reason that almost all tribes were patriarchal? It seems to be a very, very recent phenomenon that simply selling goods and services can elevate one in the hierarchy, due to the advent of legal systems and policing (e.g. women’s rights).

defrost 6mo ago
The social Darwinists that ran with nature red in tooth and claw and took survival of the best fitted to mean the physically fittest and most aggressively dominant win are the ones responsible for your impressions. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism They're very much a fork from the Alfred Russel Wallace / Charles Darwin theory of natural selection.
wolvesechoes 6mo ago
> I am under the impression that for most of human history, the ability and willingness to inflict violence was what determined the social hierarchy. As most things people today believe, this is not really true, at least not in such universal way as usually implied. > Would that not be the reason that almost all tribes were patriarchal? There is no data to assert that.
- lotsofpulp 6mo ago
  >As most things people today believe, this is not really true, at least not in such universal way as usually implied. Might makes right is a rule of nature, is it not? Native Americans didn't choose to be moved onto reservations, enslaved people didn't choose to be enslaved, and colonized cultures did not choose to be colonized. And the ones making those choices always had the upper hand. >There is no data to assert that. What data could there be? It's not like the male leaders are going to write governing documents that state women will have fewer rights than men because we believe they will not be able to put up a sufficient fight. But you put the facts together that it was nearly ubiquitous around the world, and women are physically weaker than men, and women would not choose to have fewer rights, then what other conclusion can be had?
  - wolvesechoes 6mo ago
    > Might makes right is a rule of nature, is it not? Of nature, maybe. Of human social arrangements, not really - otherwise elites would never feel the need of justifying themselves, yet they always do. > Native Americans didn't choose to be moved onto reservations, enslaved people didn't choose to be enslaved, and colonized cultures did not choose to be colonized. And the ones making those choices always had the upper hand. You went from social hierarchy to interaction between societies and cultures. Slaves were almost always sourced from outside the group, and by nature of slavery they were not part of social. > But you put the facts together that it was nearly ubiquitous around the world This is exactly the data we don't have. We simply don't know social arrangements of most tribes or cultures in human history. Moreover, there is a huge gap between assertion that most societies in history had male leaders and rulers, and assertion that lack of merit always led to being left behind. > what other conclusion can be had? Using your spectacular reasoning one can similarly argue that it has to be necessary that males in all cultures live in polygamous relationships, because nature made sperm cheap, and optimal breeding strategy is to breed with as many females as possible. And yet, for some reason, monogamy exists in patriarchal societies. Who could have thought?!
    - lotsofpulp 6mo ago