Social Darwinism By Way of Rigged Game

Social Darwinism By Way of Rigged Game

The Theory of Evolution has always been of intrigue. Darwin touched the nerve of debate with his theory and yet his theory is widely accepted in the scientific community, to the point that his conclusive proof has been reified into that of the social sciences, or that of Social Darwinsim. The debate could go to lengths of explaining what is of nature in terms of natural selection if you generally accept the natural setting for that which Charles Darwin studied, that of a natural setting, versus that natural selection being that of a social setting. One is a state of nature, the other is a state of man. And this is where the argument can go in any direction with regard to ideology, however my point is to compare what is meant by Darwinism in the social sense versus that of the intended arena, nature.

Setting nature aside in terms of the observation of Darwin, examine the meaning of Social Darwinsim. There are some that will go down the path of Aristotle and say that man is a social animal and forms clans, governments, laws and order, and that others can go onto discuss religious hierarchical order or the reason for man to be governed. All could be accepted in the meaning of Social Darwinism. But don’t let me to get too into that. That is not my intention.

Like a caribou, or bear, a tiger, or a groundhog, man has his place on the planet as well. You could say that man is a political animal, but looking at the given constituency here, I question that notion. I do not agree that Social Darwinism intends for man or woman to be governed in a sense that it changes that very existence or social being. I contend that that is unnatural and not of the theory.

Like the caribou, we must learn to display our nature to survive the changing times and seasons. We must withstand a great deal or some of us won’t make it, as can be seen. Like the bear, we must learn how to fish for our survival and to fight for everything we can while teaching our young how to survive and this includes socially. This is of nature. I do not believe that man, in comparison to the caribou or the bear is much different. The tiger must adap via natural selection, to the point of blending in with it’s natural setting in order to survive. This is natural selection at it’s best. And the groundhog must know when to call it a winter in order to survive.

So natural selection and the theory Darwin proved is about survival and how the strong survive in the natural setting. The question is does Social Darwinism require that man be ruled in order to survive, ruled in a political sense, or in some cases controlled?

I would say that goes against nature itself and that there are some who believe that a few rule mankind for their very existence, however I will argue that this goes against the rules of nature. Others can coerce or manipulate. We see that with complex taxation laws to the point that we require professionals. Laws in general are very complex and in our society you pretty much are expected to spend thousands in order to decipher these laws if brought into court.

But you have to take into account a government that has been corrupted and bankrupted and ask yourself how this is of natural selection? Socialized profits? How is this natural selection? It seems that rules of Social Darwisnism for the few or elite class change as needed. Or is this just a means for others to maintain their existence or stature in society?
I think it really comes down to this and how others justify their own existence, no matter to what expense to society.

I do see a difference between Social Darwinism which I accept as the person and their brain, their family, their community, and their domain. I do not see the society as anything different than that of a herd of caribou. I do not see any differentiation between the aggression of man or tiger or intelligent design of that of the tiger or man. I do take exception at the manipulation and control of others to form an unnatural selection. Have and have nots.

The social disparities and erosion of the middle class is rapidly being seen. In the 90’s it was drastically becoming apparent. Today we are seeing an entire class of people in tent cities because of a few predatory lenders. This is unnatural. The corporations and the transnationals and the government are changing the playing field and people are getting caught up. Others are taking 7 figure bonuses along the way.

Either way, human nature will go on, as will Social Darwinism. It just comes down to what viewpoint you take as to what “natural” is anymore. What is real and what is natural I ask? Hard to tell. Keeps changing. When people lose their own ability to make their own decisions or use their own brain, with decisions that will strap society with debt to the brink of bankruptcy, how is this not impending slavery? How is this natural? Again, others believe in their authority to control society and accept this as their role in the social order. Royalty and the Church are good examples of this belief.

It just seems that this is no longer a natural order, and therefore it is difficult for Social Darwinism to even play out. And for this, I believe this is the plan, to eliminate the competition that man would bring to survival mode in any given society. But if we allow any given society to be ruled via coercion, intimidation, fear, or any other means that would allow desired ends of a few, then what does it say of us? To believe the media and accept it as truth, as most do, maybe there are others that really believed we are to be ruled, as opposed to self governance. But I also believe that Social Darwinism requires the society to stand up for it’s own survival, and that is a paradigm change if it happens. You can expect others to cast their dominance over society in order to maintain their own survival, but if this is not a true natural progression, then survival mode is in store for the people, because that is how it works naturally. The strong get stronger and the weak get weaker. I think people need to understand this more than ever as the principle still applies, only it would be better for others to get weaker for the survival of society than for a few to weaken the many in order to justify their survival.

Make sense?