How does one interpet Descent of Man
Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron
tuco wrote:Have not read the book but it says on the page: we must bear ... so I do not see how it could be interpreted as advocating elimination. btw I do not agree with the notion that affects of the weak surviving and propagating are bad.
Darwin Descent of Man wrote:Natural Selection as affecting Civilised Nations.—In the last and present chapters I have considered the advancement of man from a former semi-human condition to his present state as a barbarian. But some remarks on the agency of natural selection on civilised nations may be here worth adding. This subject has been ably discussed by Mr. W. R. Greg,10 and previously by Mr. Wallace and Mr. Galton.11. Most of my remarks are taken from these three authors.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind;
Calilasseia wrote:Ah, it's this old chestnut again. Except that, of course, since the full text is online here among other places, it's easy to check whether the familiar tiresome creationist assertions are something other than the products of creationists' rectal passages. We start with the opening sentences, viz:Darwin Descent of Man wrote:Natural Selection as affecting Civilised Nations.—In the last and present chapters I have considered the advancement of man from a former semi-human condition to his present state as a barbarian. But some remarks on the agency of natural selection on civilised nations may be here worth adding. This subject has been ably discussed by Mr. W. R. Greg,10 and previously by Mr. Wallace and Mr. Galton.11. Most of my remarks are taken from these three authors.
So Darwin immediately opens the account by referring to three other authors, to whom he attributes the majority of the subsequent text. In short, many of the ideas he's presenting are explicitly stated as arising from someone else. That's the first reason creationist assertions on this subject are bullshit.
We move on to that remaining text, viz:The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind;
Well that blows the assertions out of the water, doesn't it? Let's take a look at those two bolded sentences again:
Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature.
but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil.
In short, Darwin explicitly states, with those two sentences, that intentional application of a ruthless selection process to our fellow humans, would come with a terrible cost. This is about as anti-eugenic a stance as one could wish for.
Furthermore, Darwin goes on, from those words, in later passages, to explain how we humans have put in place, either by accident or design, our own alternative selection processes, and delivered some interesting observations on the workings thereof.
Indeed, I'm minded to note at this juncture, that neoliberal right wing politicians, implementing policies deliberately aimed at increasing the impoverishment and destitution of the poor, sick and disabled, are making Darwin's remarks above about the cost to our ethical and intellectual character, as a species, of implementing such measures, depressingly prophetic.
Indeed, it is not "interpretation" at all. It is reading the whole thing to understand it; rather than cherry picking minable misquotes.Thomas Eshuis wrote:Those are the exact same points I made to my interlocutor, so I'm happy to see, it's not just my idiosyncratic interpetation of that text.
Greyman wrote:Indeed, it is not "interpretation" at all. It is reading the whole thing to understand it; rather than cherry picking minable misquotes.Thomas Eshuis wrote:Those are the exact same points I made to my interlocutor, so I'm happy to see, it's not just my idiosyncratic interpetation of that text.
Good question. Now you're asking right questions. I simply accept that simply because whatever behind with evolution will never be good unless evolution is removed from its foundation. Since evolution is racist from its core, then whoever practices on it must be racist and since it's about reproductive health, it's eugenics too.
That's all. But it certainly began evil and I'm sure it's bad till now. Somehow.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:He just admitted he has no rational basis to accuse PP of supporting eugenics.
So when I asked him why he believes something he has no rational basis for, his reply is this:Good question. Now you're asking right questions. I simply accept that simply because whatever behind with evolution will never be good unless evolution is removed from its foundation. Since evolution is racist from its core, then whoever practices on it must be racist and since it's about reproductive health, it's eugenics too.
That's all. But it certainly began evil and I'm sure it's bad till now. Somehow.
:picardL
Calilasseia wrote:Thomas Eshuis wrote:He just admitted he has no rational basis to accuse PP of supporting eugenics.
So when I asked him why he believes something he has no rational basis for, his reply is this:Good question. Now you're asking right questions. I simply accept that simply because whatever behind with evolution will never be good unless evolution is removed from its foundation. Since evolution is racist from its core, then whoever practices on it must be racist and since it's about reproductive health, it's eugenics too.
That's all. But it certainly began evil and I'm sure it's bad till now. Somehow.
:picardL
Where do you find idiots of this calibre? And why isn't this specimen in a cage at the zoo with a sign on the bars saying "Do not feed or tease the occupants of this cage"?
Return to Evolution & Natural Selection
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest