784
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2024
784 points (99.9% liked)
196
16780 readers
2653 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
In case there are seriously any "~~social Darwinists~~" eugenicists here:
https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/evolution-today/social-darwinism
https://www.northwestern.edu/onebook/the-reluctant-mr-darwin/essays/darwin-morality.html
https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2013/may/09/evolutionary-theory-gone-wrong-darwin
From your first article
"Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is entirely focused on an explanation of life's biological diversity. It is a scientific theory meant to explain observations about species. Yet some have used the theory to justify a particular view of human social, political, or economic conditions. All such ideas have one fundamental flaw: They use a purely scientific theory for a completely unscientific purpose. In doing so they misrepresent and misappropriate Darwin's original ideas"
So what is this post trying to do?
I think the post is pointing out that nature doesn't work the way social darwinists think it does. Although symbiosis between different species, as shown here, isn't the strongest argument they could have chosen. Personally I would have gone with (non-kin) altruism.