Social Darwinism

Social Darwinism

by Marco M. Pardi

All comments are welcome and will receive a reply.

In a galaxy long ago and far away a boy experienced primary and secondary school under the tutelage of cloistered Ursuline nuns and monks of the Brothers of the Holy Cross. Among the lessons they imparted to him the one which recurred most often was: The most meaningful and long lasting lessons are those which arise from excruciatingly painful mistakes. No pain, no gain?

Later, as a grown man, he looked back at life through that principle and decided he must have learned a great deal. And chief among that learning was the realization that there are no mistakes and there is no justification for claiming credit.

As with other discoveries, it didn’t take long for someone to borrow a principle from biology and attempt to apply it to sociology. But it was actually Thomas Henry Huxley who coined the term Darwinism, and Emilie Gautier who originally used the phrase social Darwinism. Herbert Spencer originated the phrase Survival of the fittest. Darwin himself would have rejected the latter two phrases, especially since fittest came to be measured as closer to the White Race and the cultural and economic characteristics thereof. In fact, Darwin’s concept of fit was purely biological: Fitness was measured by reproductive capability and environmental adaptation, not individual strength or the size of one’s bank account. Nonetheless, social Darwinism was quite popular throughout the latter 19 century and early 20^th, falling from grace only after the exposure of the horrendous Nazi eugenics (eu – good; genics – genetic structure).

Although social Darwinism is now rarely mentioned in intelligent company, the feelings still prevail in some subcultures and even in some Western religions. Social and economic success is viewed by some as proof of “God’s” approval, much the same as military success in slaughtering another population meant “God was on our side”. And, it lives on in some forms of entertainment such as the “Darwin Awards”, publicizing stupid acts which end in disaster for the participants.

But what about those lessons? I recall bridling at authority figures seeking to control my behavior and saying, “Let me make my own mistakes”. Yet as a parent I certainly wanted to prevent negative outcomes for my child, but I also saw undue protection, insulation from reality, as a negative form of parenting. How could I distinguish between a behavior that could result in a sore bottom from falling versus a behavior which could result in a broken neck? When do I agree to remove the training wheels from the bicycle? At what point do I assert my experience based judgment and intervene? And how well could I defend my assertion of caution if I had only presumptions of danger, not factual experience of negative results?

Somewhat later I observed a form of threat that was immediately effective. While working in a Sexually Transmitted Infections public health clinic in a very rough part of a huge city part of my duties included translating for the physicians working there and for the patients. As patients checked in they were given a number so as to protect their privacy. Usually, I would step into the waiting room and call out three numbers so these individuals could come forward for me to draw blood from them. But one afternoon our Vietnamese physician, a rather severe looking man, stepped into the waiting room with me and called out three numbers. No one moved. He called again, and received only surly looks. The physician then turned to me and loudly said, “Rett dem die. Rett dem aww die” and turned back into the examining rooms. I was almost knocked down by the three bodies rushing in after us. Later, in that and other similar clinics in the early years of HIV I sat with patients and explained to them that their HIV positive results meant they could engage in only safe sex or they would transmit an incurable, non-treatable and almost certainly fatal disease to someone. I signed that counseling session into their medical records. And, I saw them return again and again to be treated for gonorrhea, a certain indicator they had engaged in unsafe sex. I doubt any of them told their partner of their disease status before engaging in sexual contact.

I’ve also read of judges ordering young reckless drivers to spend a number of hours in a hospital emergency room and/or the morgue. Recalling the hour in the Air Force doing required – for all personnel – viewing of such films as Slaughter on the Highways, a particularly graphic film, I can’t say it had much if any effect on how I drove my sports car. My main concern was repair costs, not safety.

So I began to wonder. Just what does it take to get someone to understand the potential seriousness of their choices? Do I have rights and responsibilities, and how far do they extend? I recall thinking, Let the stupid go on killing themselves. A kind of social Darwinism. I remember the saying that, in democracies, people get the government they deserve. The 2016 presidential election was a clear example of what happens when otherwise intelligent people decide to sit out an election and hand off the choice to “the other guy”. It’s like assuming your sexual partner has been forthright with you, or that the driver of the car you are in is mindful of highway safety. You become collateral damage.

But does that really sink in? We’ve come to the point on this planet where we are reaching the incurable, even un-treatable level of damage to our ecosystem. The incomprehensible greed of a numerically tiny portion of the American population is abusing (I’ll spare you the metaphor) all life as we know it on this planet. I’m aware that, following my lengthy rants about the environment, some readers of my columns have found other things to do. I will say, however, I have challenged officials from the White House on down to the local level to answer my question of: Why should I not seek their indictment on charges of Reckless Endangerment. Were I to print the responses I’ve received I could paper the inside of my house.

But I’m speaking not only for my daughter and my grandchildren but for all life on this planet, including humans too stupid to act on their own behalf. “Rett dem die” is a social Darwinist fantasy. If it were only them I could entertain the notion. But our dishonest partners in this life and the glibly careless, thrill seeking drivers of our economic rape of life on this planet are killing more than themselves.

Over these past few years I admit to having thoughts of just keeping quiet, letting ignorance and stupidity cull the herd. I’ve thought that only a major cataclysm, if even that, will change any behaviors. Unfortunately, like the lights coming up on a stage, the full awareness of all that would be harmed by a cataclysm brought on the by the ignorance or stupidity of a few simply overwhelms any resolve I may have had to remain quiet.

There are those who endeavor to still my voice and the voices and efforts of others like me, but we will force them out onto the field under their true colors: Greed, Avarice, and Gluttony. MAGA. Make America Gag Again. Maybe this time we’ll actually vomit out these toxins.