Only the Fit can survive in the Conservative Republican America when applied in real life to the US. NOT everyone is capable of making it. How in the world would one be able to really achieve the American dream and "make it big" and rich and opportunities and all this without factoring in who really does make it.
Not everyone has looks, brains, charm, (even health or the right color or gender) and also a back up of wealth and education and a fall back of stable upper middle class mummy and daddy..
That's not "teaching a man to fish" that's just Social Darwinism, if you are too slow and don't look right: tough $hit! next!
2006-09-19 05:40:40 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Well, for a start I think you are juxtaposing to items that can’t be directly compared. The first, disbelief in the macro-evolutionary system, is an intellectual ascent. But the second is not. Even assuming all the points you make about the conservative approach to be true, conservative belief could still have nothing to do with survival of the fittest.
Actually, if I understand the position you’re attacking correctly, it holds that most people are more or less equal, with equal chances at success, and that they succeed or fail based on their effort, and application. I don’t believe this to be true, but none the less that is the position you are arguing with.
That said, even if you see that ideology leading to a situation where only the fittest survive, they do not. The practical implication of their ideology and the ideology itself may be far removed. Their ideology, then, is not self contradictory in denying macro-evolution. If anything, it contradicts reality, not itself.
But, further, I don’t think the connection your question implies between macro-evolution and a survival of the fittest mentality is valid. I’m out of time to answer this, but I think it’s perfectly possible to believe in survival of the fittest and still deny macro-evolution. Macro-evolution holds the doctrine of survival of the fittest, but uses it in a much larger theory. It is perfectly legitimate to accept survival of the fittest and reject, say, the divergence of species, which would in turn mean you don’t believe in evolution. The two are not equivalent concepts. Does that make sense?
2006-09-19 09:59:27 · answer #1 · answered by Joseph 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Social Darwinism mostly ignores the fact that evolution applies to societies as well as species. And that includes humans, as well as bees and ants. It can arise that assisting one of limited means can be of benefit to the society, even though some individuals may reap less than the full value of their effort -- in other words, charity can be a good thing. The trade-off between societal advantage and individual advantage is the stuff of politics, and attempting sweeping generalizations about how it should be done is undoubtedly futile.
2006-09-19 12:47:19 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
IAlmost every American has an opportunity to become a productive member of society (sans those with mental and physical disabilities). The question is do we educate and train these people to get jobs or do take from those that are working to pay them to be unproductive?
It is not about being rich or "making it big", it is about holding a job and feeling self worth.
2006-09-19 13:15:51 · answer #3 · answered by mymadsky 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
WOW, you just touched a nerve.
I never thought of it that way.
Agree with you totally.
Now, let's see how they're going to explain that one. But my suspicion is that either they didn't get the question or went back to the same one -way rhetorics that don't make sense.
2006-09-19 12:46:20 · answer #4 · answered by Jmyooooh 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
When you get into the real world and out of your social work education at Liberal U, let's talk again.
2006-09-19 13:19:00 · answer #5 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Your point is... that's not social Darwinism, that has been around for thousands of years. Darwin hasn't even been dead for 200 years. Stop drinkin the kool-aid. Personally, i do not know really any rich conservatives, just rich liberals.
EDIT: Oh, and conservatives believe in federally funded programs, just not as many as there currently are.
2006-09-19 12:45:12 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 5⤋
The people with the money/power make the rules....up as they go along to get more money/power. Unless voted out of course.
2006-09-19 12:48:07 · answer #7 · answered by notme 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
nicely put
I give your question a thumbs up
]and my own personal "hooray!"
2006-09-19 12:48:10 · answer #8 · answered by Mr.happy 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
That's a pretty brilliant point...
2006-09-19 12:44:56 · answer #9 · answered by Mark M 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
excellent question, one I've often wondered about myself!
2006-09-19 12:44:54 · answer #10 · answered by answer faerie, V.T., A. M. 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋