Cut out the Literally Hitler Hysteria

I know it is not pure Darwinism but Economic Darwinism is in usage to-day and therefore has a place.
It's why everyone wants money. It is perceived you need to be rich to survive, hence the fear of the drain on your resources by the demands of the poor.
A very good article

Exactly, suzied, evolution isn't an explanation for social behaviour, although 'theory' in a scientific context is fact, until something which contradicts it comes along.

The Nazis (and others) used the concept of 'survival' to suit their philosophy of conflict. Darwin never intended it to be used in that way. The Nazis also used other scientific terms to justify their beliefs and then popularised it all to make it sound as though there was some rational explanation for their actions. This is already happening on some websites and is dangerous.

Yes evolution is accepted as the way the world evolved, but the concept of survival of the fittest when used in socio/political terms should be viewed with a high degree of scepticism.

I'd go so far as to say that the concept used in those terms should be utterly dismissed.

thatbags Genuine question. What do you think 'darwinian survival' actually means in the context of the article you posted?

Also, your explanation of scientific theory is spot on. Thank you.

But evolution as an explanation for social behaviour is not a fact, has no evidence. Evolution as an explanation for physical characteristics of species has some evidence, but it is still a theory. So superiority of one race above another and consequently as justification for discrimination and claimed as fact , such as by white supremacists is not scientific fact, just twisted to suit their beliefs.

Correction (clicked too soon)...I meant "the characteristics of members of a species will which tend to survive".

@thatbags

Darwin's theory of evolution isn't about the superiority of one particular species - and certainly not of race, which is a highly dubious concept anyway. It's not about conflict, but the species most adapted to an environment which will tend to survive.

Darwin's theory was hijacked by political ideologues and eugenists in the late nineteenth/early twentieth centuries to justify theories of racial superiority. I think it was the last chapter of 'Origin of Species' which touched on the social implications of evolution, but Darwin himself would not have recognised what became 'Social Darwinism'.

All science is theory accepted as fact until a new fact/theory comes along.

Yes evolution is accepted as the way the world evolved, but the concept of survival of the fittest when used in socio/political terms should be viewed with a high degree of scepticism.

Homo sapiens can be considered a successful species from its own viewpoint. But there are many species on this planet that would not agree.

As for civilisation - hmm

I think it's worth remembering that, also because of science, the survival of indiviual human beings who might not survive in a "law of the jungle/survival of the fittest" environment, is improved many times over.

And this improvement is continuing as we speak all over the world.

Human civilisation is fantastic.

BTW, Obama has said that the future will be OK. There's a man who believes in his country.

Evolution is fact. This is known because of massive amounts of evidence in support of the theory and no scientific evidence against it. Theory is really a misnomer. And it certainly isn't only a hypothesis because the hypothesis has been tested thousands of times and has never come up with a negative result.

Of course it doesn't justify racism. I don't think the term "darwinian survival" was used in the article in a way that intended to promote racism. I can see why some would interpret it that way though.

Darwinism is an hypothesis - not scientific fact. The theory of evolution is a theory -many of the explanations for human behaviour lack any real support. Using it as a justification for discrimination / racism / whatever is just another smokescreen , confirmation bias for a specific viewpoint. Of course a person may resent another person if they suspect thy are a threat to their livelihood. Doesn't matter where they come from. I guess the milkmen and bread men back in the day resented the corner shop owner from Pakistan who was doing them out of a job.

piffle is a much underused word.

I have made it my goal to use it more, I am aiming for at least 6 piffles a week!

The article!

Pompous piffle - the arrive I mean.

My understanding of Darwinism is " the survival of the fittest" , which means that we should not take care of the weak. elderly , disabled etc unless it is to our survival advantage. I thought as a society we had evolved beyond that. Apparently not. It's still all about me me me. I thought Hitler also used Darwinism as an excuse for his master race rubbish. Again, sadly we don't seem to have progressed much.

Post truth indeed.

He didn't need to give examples of any nationalities. He just needed to say that a shopkeeper (origin irrelevant) would be concerned if anybody tried to set up in competition, especially if the new shop resulted in over-supply.

In any case, the logic of his argument is faulty. This is exactly the kind of warped argument and misapplication of a scientific theory, which became mainstream in Nazi rhetoric and was swallowed wholesale.

Thanks for clearing that up dapnedill

It is utterly depressing isn't it. This isn't just about people voting for another party, this is about people choosing to vote for a man who is racist and misogynistic. People who vote for Trump either are racist or they tolerate racists. The article minimises this. Behaviour breeds behaviour which is why we are seeing a rise in racist and sexist behaviour on both sides of the pond, something else the article minimises.

I'm at loss as to how anyone can think it's good unless their need to laugh at young liberal people is so great that they don't care who ends up in power.

I must get around to reading MK, it has sat on the bookshelf for many decades, untouched, unloved.
Probably I should not comment until I have read it, by which time this thread will have disappeared and there will be a new President of the USA post-Trump.

I found the article so depressing

He didn't single out three. He gave three examples.

@Lumpy

That's correct. Unless something's been uncovered recently, Hitler never gave orders for the Final Solution. Those words were Heydrich's. Hitler apologists use the fact that he never gave any specific orders to exonerate him.

It would appear that Mr Maitra doesn't understand Darwin. Darwin's theory is about the survival of the fittest. If another retailer can do the task more efficiently, he/she will survive. It's never been about hating (or doing harm) to a creature of the same species.

And, yes, it is racism if the Punjabi shopkeeper only singles out competition from three nationalities.

I'm horrified that this kind of thinking is becoming normalised. Mr Maitra should do some homework on the Nazis' use of language, control of the media and brainwashing before he dismisses any similarities. The Germans who voted for Hitler (who never won a majority in a free election) were just normal people too.

Just got around to reading the article in the OP, it's very good.