---

Subject: Social Darwinism

Back around 1895 there was this idea that people who got rich did so
through natural forces.  Darwin was all the rage, and his ideas were
understood as "survival of the fittest,"  where those creatures who
were stronger than other creatures would be able to kill the lesser
creatures off.  Thus the rich and powerful had a natural right to do
anything at all to those who couldn't defend themselves.

The notion that Darwin's theory was about the strong against the weak
was inaccurate.  Darwin actually talked about the flexibility to adapt
to change rather than the ability to destroy.  Those creatures who
could survive by adaptation, he theorized, would dominate those who
were unable to change.  Nevertheless, the Social Darwinists were able
to convince many of their time to support the rich and ridicule the
poor, because this was nature's way of thinning the herd.

The rich today should only hope that this "survival of the fittest"
philosophy is wrong, because if destruction is the way of nature, then
there are many depressed, downtrodden people out there who might take
them seriously and kill them.  When a small group of smug billionaires
pretend that they got there by superior brute force it will be easy to
prove them wrong.  The vast majority, if pushed to be destructive,
will make short work of them.

Nelson

I thought of that while watching Mittens in the Saturday debate.
Mittens is all about "the merit society."

Of course, Mittens thinks that way because he's a billionaire,
and it figures that if he got rich, it's because he has the most "merit."

The fact that he was born rich had nothing to do with his success.

  Share|

Send e-mail to Bart

  Back to Bartcop.com

---

 

Send e-mail to Bart

  Back to Bartcop.com