23 Sep '08 15:53>
how about ghost?
Originally posted by geepamoogleBiological evolution requires a few things, most notably that the progenitor passes on its genes to its progeny with the possibility of mutation. Some mutations will increase the progeny's contribution to the makeup of the next generation (through more durable organisms, organisms that create more children, organisms that can monopolize and use more resources, etc...) and therefore become more dominant over time. This is the intelligent reading of Darwin's ideas that you and I and most other reasonable people adopt, and I think it can be applied to ideas and rules as well (as per Dawkin's "meme" hypothesis, for instance).
From wikipedia, for whatever it is worth...
Social Darwinism is a theory that competition among all individuals, groups, nations or ideas drives social evolution in human societies.
On the basis of this definition, I can accept it as an explanation for why and how societies and their rules change over time, with the caveat that frequently societies here may be more to it than meets the eye, but I don't personally know anything of the matter.
Originally posted by PBE6You make a good point there PBE6. Following the this progression of thought with social Darwinism does lead to a society which does not act in a manner we find morally acceptable, one which does not respect the people within it as having value outside what they can do for society as a whole, and the society which pursues this as a goal will soon become a horrid thing.
Social Darwinists took this idea and applied it to social programs like welfare, hopsitalization of the insane, etc... and concluded that by helping the "weak" and "undesirable" persist (seemingly in defiance of Natural Law), humanity was setting itself down a path of "regression" as the "strong" elements would no longer weed out the "weak". Eugenics was one o ...[text shortened]... the individual rights - and replaced it with a gruesomely twisted socialist ideal.