Noam Chomsky - on Social Darwinism 

truism

Yeah but Noam Chomsky is pretty important too.

Strongest: Polar Bear. Smartest: Human. Fittest all around: Tartigrade, can survive a much wider temperature range than any mammal and even survive the vaccum of space (and probably other human-toxic environments besides).

Physically strongest no, there's severely mentally retarded people with extreme human strength.

The self will propagate what can enrich the self - whatever is has associated it-self with. How many would-be geniuses have missed out on the path to be a Head of [whatever] at an MIT or Ox-Bridge or whatever because they missed out on a good start? This whole Marxist ideology is just opiate for the masses.

Because that's how evolution works. Animals live in dominance hierarchies.

In the fifth edition of On the Origin of Species, Darwin explicitly said that "Survival of the Fittest" was the same thing as "Natural Selection". He was even more explicit in asserting that in The Descent of Man. I'm always amazed that self-appointed Darwin defenders have never read his most famous books.

It wasn't other authors who connected natural selection with survival of the fittest, Darwin did, as I said, in the fifth edition of Origin of Species, he further connected his theory to eugenics and Social Darwinism in The Descent of Man, endorsing, in the highest of terms, works by Galton, Haeckel, Spenser, Greg that are the early literature of eugenics and Social Darwinism, he also supported his son, George's eugenic speculations - no less an authority on the matter than his son Francis called that "eugenics". Galton didn't publish the term "eugenics" until the year after Darwin's death but he, Darwin's sons, especially Leonard, and every, single other eugenicist I've looked at cited Darwin's inspiration of their eugenics, indeed, on at least three occasions Leonard Darwin said that he was certain he was carrying on his father's work through his eugenics promotion. No one who has tried to distance Darwin from eugenics has the credibility of his own sons, his cousin Galton and others who knew the man, indeed, knew him as intimately as his own sons did. There is no credible case to be made that Darwin wasn't the inspiration of eugenics and one of its earliest supporters. Galton published his positively gushing endorsement of his book Hereditary Genius, which Galton counted as his first eugenics book. Darwin's own endorsement of that book makes it certain that he supported eugenics on the basis of its relation to natural selection, eugenics is based, absolutely, on natural selection, it would have no argument without that foundation.

It seems you're a True Believer. Well, I can agree with you on one thing, and that's that social Darwinism is immoral.

I'm a true blue believer in knowing what I'm talking about before I talk about it, which includes having read all of Darwin's books and most of the citations HE MADE which are relevant to those issues. I assume your hero meant what he said in those. Apparently you don't believe he meant what he said, in which case, he's not reliable. You don't get to have it both ways

He's not my hero, dude. He's a great scientist upon whom more science rests. And upon that, more science will rest. I suppose, however, you could say that the scientific method is my hero.

Great Quote

@@flovv4580 and people say Star Wars isn't political also, I love this one meme of that scene, where after Maul angrily asks "then what do you have!?" Obi Wan says "both of my legs"

Really? I'd think, you actually have all the things you just mentioned.

@@MS-il3ht yeah, but you have nothing else other than that if that's how you define yourself and the thing is, what's the point of being stronger, smarter or faster if you only use them for your own gain?

@@syppy7416 Well, I'd use them for the gain of people that are even stronger, smarter, faster than I am. And if they bring me down, so be it.

If by "strong" you mean more suitably adapted to their environment, then yes.

I think it's more of the latter. I think he's talking about any group who thinks they're more superior than the rest of the human race.

That's the reason the word "simplistic" exists. You're confusing is and ought: Evolution the "is" and SD the "ought" (somebody's prescription for how humans ought to behave). Yes, humans are animals but we also transcend the other animals to a considerable (if still imperfect) degree. We have the ability to ask "If I don't want 'that' to happen to me, then why is it OK for 'that' to happen to someone else?". This is why (ideally, at least) we have laws, moral rules, etc. in the first place - to protect ourselves from non-defensive and non-punitive hurt, harm, and degradation of dignity.

@@filrabat1965 my point exactly

Oh, the Government does do that. Only with the likes of Goldman Sachs. That's what "Too Big to fail" means. Telegraph companies simply didn't have the power the similarly obsolete oil companies do.

You need to revisit what you think you understand about evolution. Mankind has long since departed from genetic evolution and has been evolving mnemetically for centuries.

@@josephcoon5809 ....I love Dawkins, Dennett and Harris as much as the next person but memetics is still widely considered a pseudoscience....its an analogy, not scientifically proven model (theory).

@@evilpandakillabzonattkoccu4879 Mnemetics* Also, it’s the whole basis of the free market. Better ideas gather more resources. It’s not complicated.

@@evilpandakillabzonattkoccu4879 It’s the reason why big screen TVs were $15,000 ($22,000 adjusted for inflation) in 1997, and two decades later they are arguably 10,000% higher in quality for 5% the cost.

“wtf I heckin love science!!!11!1!! XDDDDD"

Johnathan McClea Really the whole basis of rational self-interest was that 'altruistic mutual aid' would be a natural consequence of people acting thus rationally i.e. we come to understand it is ultimately in our individual interest to engage in altruistic mutual aid, if we are thinking and acting rationally, that is. The various benefits of a psychological order that we accrue through behaving in such a manner toward our fellow human beings are understood to outweigh the material sacrifices involved, and thus altruism is seen as ultimately beneficial to the individual. It is hardly rational simply to look after yourself whatever the cost to others: that is the irrational outlook of brain damaged psychopaths and desperate animals, not enlightened human beings.

Park Chung Hee was a Hamilton-ist. Now look at South Korea. Also, 82 percent of housing in Singapore is controlled by the government (Housing and Development Board). Also, Singapore holds all the black money from Philippines, Vietnam, etc. This is not to forget that it is a major shipping port for all that past by say the straits of Malacca. Now what does any of this have to do with social darwinism?

Look at that tiny exception of 4 million people in a world of billions like Asia.

🍸🍰🍮🍬🍭🍻🍶🍼🍼🍼🍼🍼🍼🍱🍹🎣🏏⛳️⚾️⚽️🎾🏈🏀🏉🛀🏻🏆🎽🎭🎼🎻🎻🎻🎯🎲🎲🎲🎲🎲👾👾👾👾👾+£¥€

Yeah look at them, decreased population.

LKY was a pragmatist.

nazism isn't socialism, it's a grift and a horrendously destructive genocidal one at that.

@@bravetherainbow nazism isn't anything considering nazi is just an empty slur. national socialism on the other hand is exactly what it#s name suggests.

​@@bravetherainbow its socialism

bobokittyFukk that’s a great excuse for not being financially successful