The purpose of this thread is to discuss the merits of social darwinism as it relates to, 1. Quality of life 2. Quantity of life 3. Material wealth The logic behind social darwinism is really simple, everyone and everything that is not you, is the enemy. It's you vs every male and female on planet earth. It's you vs every animal, every living entity, every non living entity, essential self vs all. The logical errors of social darwinism is that often people apply it in the wrong way. If a person has a narrow sense of self, it is their physical body vs everything else in the universe, with their body as the center of their universe. If a person has a broad sense of self, then it will be humans vs universe. To conquer and control the environment, and this requires a group self. What is an individual? How did the concept of individual artificially narrow the self? An individual by classical definition is just a body, in the scientific world however individuality is impossible and therefore cannot exist. All living things are dependent on other living things to exist, at least when it comes to mammals. In order for you as a mammal to exist, you had to rely on your mother to give you milk. A true individual/social darwinist would not have children because the child would be consider a leech on their natural resources. A true social darwinist, if they do have a child, would sell the child for profit. So, lets discuss the logic of social darwinism as a system, using examples. In the example above of the mother who abandon's her child, it's rational for her to do this in the moment, but that child, and these lost children in the future may go on to make the environment much worse for women in the future, as these motherless males would never have learned anything but survival of the fittest. How would the actions of a social darwinist mother, influence the longterm future of this mother?
It may seem logical to those who feel the need to quantify, or make distinctions of seperate entities in the universe. Think of things this way: A living organism cannot live outside its natural habitat. A fish will die out of water, a human will die out of oxygen. Every living thing on this planet is here because it fits (presently and temporarily) in a niche of its environment. The environment is composed of the matter and interactions between that matter in the immediate location of the organism in question. Obviously the environment stretches out as far as the universe goes, so we are all part of the same environment ultimately--therefore we all affect each other and everything else in this universe. When we first banded together as primates, we subconsciously learned the lesson that we are all connected--that we have a choice in our survival and that our actions can benefit or harm others and vice versa. As humans, we are just starting to learn that our actions are all intertwined. Our body does not end at the tips of our fingers, for if it truly did, then we could survive anywhere and we would have completely free choice. But we can't and we don't. You need the air around you to live. Your choices are bound by the situations you make them in. Whether man knows it or not, he is not one "against the universe." He is simply one with the universe.
Oddly enough, I have to agree with RoyLennigan and the conclusion he drew. Though I'm sure Roy means something more spiritual than material when he said : "He is simply one with the universe.", this statement (and I speak only materially) is correct. Actually, it's not that simple. You're grossly over-simplifying here TT. If it were that simple, there would be no societies to speak of. The fact that there are indeed societies implies that there are survival benefits to group-arrangements. In fact, it's more often than not the case with humans that those who behave along the point of view you've outlined actually decrease their survival potential. The thesis should be revised to read: Everyone besides yourself is secondary to yourself.
"He is simply one with the universe." I meant it on both levels. Spiritually, all motivation comes from the same source. But physically, we are part of the universe because we are composed of seemingly unquantifiable pieces of matter/energy moving around in an aether of more matter/energy. There is no empty space in the universe--it is all filled with energy. And so every tiny movement, every miniscule change is felt throughout the entire universe.
Yes, natural selection isn't just survival of the fittest person, but survival of the fittest survival strategy, which often includes aspects of cooperation and sharing.
