Any Actually Good Arguments For Social Darwinism?

[xSilverPhinx]

I'm not a racist. The way I see it there, are no good biologically based arguments for racial superiority, and what's a biological advantage or disadvantage is circumstance/context sensitive, that it, it's a mix of genetic makeup  and environment factors (with the first being fixed whereas the second can and is always changing.) Extended evolution, such as the evolution of technology which make up for biological deficiencies in certain contexts, are based on other factors.

That's why any argument for any fixed and inherent advantages or superiority (racism) are always missing something and nazi-type justifications are outright ridiculous, biologically.

Have any of you read Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel or watched the documentary? (Part 1) Or something similar? IMO the social/geographical aspect makes more sense than biologically based arguments, which probably play a smaller role than those who want to think otherwise would have it.

[The Magic Pudding]

I'm aware of Jared Diamond, I've read this wiki

Does anyone argue this stuff?

I've heard unconvincing objections to his conclusions about the demise of Easter Island...

[fyv0h]

That's why any argument for any fixed and inherent advantages or superiority (racism) are always missing something and nazi-type justifications are outright ridiculous, biologically

I think you nailed it here. Unfortunately, being from the south, I hear the argument all that time about racial superiority. "Obama can't run the country. When have you ever seen a system prevail with black leadership?" Really? Egypt was a failure? All those African tribes that flourished until the Catholic church butted in, all failures? Any advantages that a group may have are area-specific. Skin tone, high rate of sickle-cell, it all benefits specific groups in a specific scenario. Any lasting effect becomes superficial.

[Will]

Social Darwinism is an idea who's time has come and thankfully gone largely because we now understand in no uncertain terms that there's no objectively superior or inferior race. In fact, the term race is likely to fall out of fashion in the coming decades because it's largely becoming irrelevant as racism dies off and as our species has become more and more global.

Eugenics, on the other hand, could end up being a serious issue going forward. Involuntary eugenics will likely always been seen as inherently unethical, but what about voluntary eugenics? What if people representing a significant percentage of the population voluntarily chose not to reproduce due to what they consider to be genetic problems? I have to admit that the thought has cross my mind. I was born with a severe circulatory defect and any offspring I conceive have about a 5% chance of inheriting my defect. While I am the sum of my parts and my defect is only one part, it's a significant part. With adoption being a viable option for raising children, I've given serious thought to not fathering biological children. Would I be wrong to not father children in order to prevent my defect from being carried on to the next generation? What if 10 people do what I do? What if 1000 do what I do? Is it still wrong if it's voluntary?

And what about genetic engineering? The concept of creating better people has been around for a long time, but for perhaps the first time in history, we have the tools to start applying our science and engineering to pursue this idea. We may reach a point when the Earth is no longer habitable for humans and Darwinian evolution can't keep up. And what about space? Should we engineer people, that is, kinda-people, who are better suited to space travel and colonization of other worlds? Should we pursue intentional speciation?

Lotsa questions!

[xSilverPhinx]

I personally don't see anything wrong with voluntary eugenics, though there is still the option of fathering children with a screening process to select the embryos without the defect you want to avoid in your children.

It could all lead to the kind of situation seen in the film Gattaca, in which those who are able to pay for designer babies will have children with less and less defects, such as the genetic propensity for health problems, and on the flip side a better selection of genes for desired traits. Those who are unable to pay will not.

It's rather pointless to base the future on speculations, but it is one possibility.

[Sweetdeath]

I always thought it was incredibly selfish for people who have HIGH chances of genetic mutations to breed.  My friend's entire family on her mum's side has ALL had breast cancer.  My friend had her breasts removed at 19 after she found a lump thst would become cancerous.


I am very PRO-ADOPTION, especially with overpopulation    real concern of mine.
Also, I am all for genetic engineering.