Natural Selection Means The Animals Who Have Weaker Genetic

Social Darwinism was a slight distortion of Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, which stated that species change over time because those with heritable traits that help survival are the one’s that reproduce. “Social Darwinists,” like Sumner, applied Darwin’s theory onto the human race, and then used it to justify his views in his article. He claimed that those in society who are powerful are innately better than those who are not, and their superiority is proof of this (Class notes

Social Darwinism is a theory that individuals, peoples, and groups are subject to darwinian laws of natural selection. Another way to describe social darwinism is survival of the fittest. The strongest and the smartest will survive. It is now largely discredited, it was advocated in the late 19th and early 20th century by Herbert Spencer and others. It was used to justify political conservation, imperialism, to discourage intervention and reform and racism. This theory was used to support the laissez faire capitalism and political conservatism.

Social Darwinism is based off of Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection. He uses the concept of survival of the fittest. This was used to justify class distinctions and to explain the reason for poverty. Modern science declared that the failure to advance in society was due to the lack of self reliance and determination. They acted down on people who needed government aid. Even during the depression people still believed the notion that the poor were responsible for their fate. The idea of natural superiority was around since the Civil War. So much so, we thought it was okay to own human beings.

In 1859, Charles Darwin published his most famous work, On the Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection (Encarta 96). This book explained Darwin's theory of natural selection, a process not unlike separating the wheat from the chaff, where the least fit are eliminated, and only the fittest survive. An extension of this theory known as Social Darwinism emerged in the late 19th century. "Social Darwinists believed that people, like animals and plants, compete for survival and, by extension, success in life" (Encarta 96). Under this theory, the individuals who acquire the power and wealth are deemed the fittest, while those of lower economic and social levels are considered the least fit (Griffin

Natural selection is the process in which heritable traits that make it more likely for organisms to survive and successfully reproduce become more common in a population over successive generations. Each of us individuals is specifically shaped and formed by our own genetic pattern. We inherit this pattern half from are mother and half from are father. The cause of this is the proximate cause that led it’s phenotype to ultimate causes. Much of we know today about evolution derives from the late great pioneer, Charles Darwin. Charles Darwin was an english naturalist that even from an early age was very interested in outdoor pursuits. Early in his prep career his father tried sending him to the University of Edinburg to pursue his medical

Social Darwinism is a quasi-philosophical, quasi-religious, quasi-sociological view that came from the mind of Herbert Spencer, an English philosopher in the 19th century. It did not achieve wide acceptance in England or Europe, but flourished in this country, as is true of many ideologies, religions, and philosophies. A good summary of Social Darwinism is by Johnson:

These people wanted an economic market that was free from outside regulation. They contended that the system itself, like nature, had inherent systems of checks and balances. Because the stronger and more cunning fox survives, he passes on his positive traits and furthers the entire species genetically. Similarly, the stronger and more successful businessman weeds out his unskilled competitors. This allows the entire system to progress and provides positive examples for future generations to follow. This justification through “scientific law” promoted acceptance because science was held in high regard at the time. When lectures, publications, and even private conversations tackled the controversial issue of business regulation, people cited the principles of Social Darwinism time and time again. By providing firm scientific principles that could be used as evidence on popular issues, Social Darwinism consumed discussions and spread wildly.

Darwin proposed this idea of Natural selection in 1859 with the publication of his book The Origin of Species . This theory caused great change in many aspects of the Western society, mainly in the way society viewed the creation of life. In the heavily religious society of the 1800s Darwin’s theory contradicted all previous beliefs held by the churches, thus posing a threat to the established social and political order . This contradiction was evident in the details of Darwin’s theories which helped support evolution, this was done by stating that nature selected the best adapted varieties to survive and reproduce . A theory which greatly differed from the previously instituted belief that God was the creator of all life, which was the reason sparking mass upheaval from the churches, as well as the people.

In the years following World War I, the Social Darwinist movement lost some of its momentum due to the unpopularity of Germany 's Neo-Darwinism. Support for an individualistic and nationalistic based Social Darwinism died and was replaced by the state-enforced Social Darwinism of eugenics. Despite the widespread Christian attack on Darwinian tenets, Christians did not fight the eugenics movement in an effective way. Eventually, even legislatures controlled by Christians fell to the false promises of eugenics. Despite poignant criticism of eugenics among scientists in the United States, more than 30,000 individuals were forcibly sterilized. In an ironic twist of fate, the Nazis Party 's adoption of American Eugenics programs led to the virtual extinction of Social Darwinism in the United States.

Furthermore, the denizens of society are tied to the rules of Social Darwinism, as they are subject to the same fashion of natural selection as animals in the wild. Instances demonstrating Social Darwinism, the notion that humans are subject to the same fashion of natural selection as animals in the wild while living in society

I like the explanation you provided for natural selection. You did a good job of capturing how natural selection works and how it relates to behavior. Especially when it came to innate behavior. I never really thought about how behavior you've learned is different than behavior you inherited. I also agree that evolutionary traits are beneficial because these are the traits that have had success in the past, and they keep getting passed down. Hopefully we will eventually be the perfect race if all the good traits get passed down, but I doubt that will ever

Charles Darwin broached the theory of natural selection in his book the Origin of Species, which has been considered the basis of evolutionary biology to this day. Natural selection is when populations of a species evolve over the course of many generations. Darwin believed that species were not created separately, but instead, species were derived from one another. In other words, the evolution of species creates many variations among creatures, and this is because all of those species came from a common ancestor, and characteristics changed to increase the species chance of survival.

The first advocate of the social Darwinism theory had a major impact on the American society as a whole, starting from economic bases, to the big business minds of the time. In the United States, Spencer gained considerable support among intellectuals and some businessmen, including steel manufacturer Andrew Carnegie, who served as Spencer’s host during his visit to the United States in 1883. The most prominent American social Darwinist of the 1880s was William Graham Sumner, who on several occasions told audiences that there was no alternative to the “survival of the fittest” theory. Critics of social Darwinism seized on these comments to argue that Sumner advocated a “dog-eat-dog” philosophy of human behavior that justified oppressive social policies. Some later historians have argued that Sumner’s critics took his statements out of context and misrepresented his views.

Darwin and Evolution are inextricably linked in the minds of most people who have had the opportunity to study them in basic biology. However, Darwin's theories of selection and survival of the fittest have been applied to moral, economic, political, and other cultural aspects of society. Dennett briefly touched on some of the political and social ramifications of Darwin's theories in the final chapter of Darwin's Dangerous Idea. Other philosophers and thinkers have also adapted Darwin's evolutionary ideas, in order to apply them in a societal or cultural context. One great example of this adaptation of the biological concept of evolution, is the appearance of Social Darwinism during the 19th century.

The concept of Darwinism is more mundanely known as "survival of the fittest." That means that the animals that are best suited for survival, which is best adapted to the society in which they live will be the ones that survive. Those that do not have skills and abilities which will allow them to live and thrive will die out. Consequently the next generation will be more comprised of far more creatures that have the more appropriate characteristics. Some have suggested that the ideas of Darwin can be transposed from the animal kingdom and applied to human behaviors as well. Social Darwinism states that "society advances where its fittest members are allowed to assert their fitness with the least hindrance, and that the unfit should not be prevented from dying out" (Heeney 1). In order for society to progress and evolve, the adept must be allowed to flourish and the poor and destitute be allowed to flounder until they cease to exist. Thus the reason that people are poor and others are wealthy is not because of personal ambition, but because the poor are less suited to the financial and social environment in which we live.