Social Darwinism: The Disturbing Ideology That Fueled a Genocide скачать в хорошем качестве

Social Darwinism: The Disturbing Ideology That Fueled a Genocide

Social Darwinism is not a scientific theory. It is an attempt to take Darwin’s theory of evolution and use it to justify hierarchies in human societies. Charles Darwin developed a theory of evolution that explained how species change over time in nature. He observed diversity within species, noting that these variations were often genetic. Since resources are limited, not every organism survives to reproduce. Those with traits better suited to the environment are more likely to survive and pass on their traits. Over generations, these traits become more common—this is natural selection. Become a member of this channel for the price of a cup of coffee to get EARLY ACCESS to new content:    / @thatswhytv   Importantly, Darwin wasn’t making moral judgments about which traits were “better.” He saw evolution as adaptation, not progress. What’s beneficial in one environment—say, growing fur in a cold climate—might be a liability in another. Evolution wasn’t a ladder toward perfection, but a branching tree of responses to circumstance. But then… some people took Darwin’s ideas way further. Enter: Social Darwinism. This wasn’t Darwin’s doing. One of the first people to distort Darwin’s ideas was British philosopher Herbert Spencer, who coined the phrase “survival of the fittest”—not Darwin. Spencer believed society naturally improves when the strong succeed and the weak are left behind. Helping the poor or disabled, he claimed, interfered with natural progress. It’s brutal logic—but it was seductive, especially to powerful people looking to justify inequality. Why were the rich rich? Why did empires conquer entire nations? To Social Darwinists, the answer was simple: they were fitter. How did it work in the real world? Think of Social Darwinism as a lens—a worldview. If you looked through it, inequality wasn’t just inevitable, it was deserved. The rich were biologically superior. The poor? Maybe they didn’t work hard enough. Maybe they just weren’t cut out for survival in modern society. In empire and race, Social Darwinism was used to argue that some races were more "advanced" than others. This became a moral excuse for colonialism, slavery, and pillaging foreign lands. In politics, it inspired thinkers like William Graham Sumner, who opposed the early welfare state. Why? Because helping the weak, in their view, held back evolution. Education, healthcare, disability support—all of it was seen as unnatural. Here’s the thing. Social Darwinism was useful—if you were in power. If you were a 19th-century industrialist, it told you your success wasn’t exploitation—it was evolution. If you were an imperialist dividing up Africa, it offered a “scientific” excuse. It justified injustice with the language of nature. But it didn’t stop there. Darwin’s own half-cousin, Sir Francis Galton, took things further. He pioneered eugenics—the idea that humans could be improved by controlling who was allowed to reproduce. In practice, this meant forced sterilizations, racist immigration policies, and even broader opposition to welfare, which was seen as helping the “unfit” survive. A certain Austrian man—yes, that one—took inspiration from America’s early eugenics laws. He built on them, turning Social Darwinism into the horrifying racial ideology of the Nazis. That led directly to the Holocaust, the mass murder of millions of Jews, Roma, disabled people, and others deemed “undesirable.” After World War II, the horrors of eugenics and genocide discredited Social Darwinism. It fell out of fashion—publicly, at least. But here’s the scary part: echoes still remain. Even today, you’ll hear arguments that helping the poor or disabled weakens society, that support creates “dependence.” These ideas often wear a new disguise—“efficiency,” “meritocracy,” “personal responsibility”—but the logic is familiar. It’s still that old survival-of-the-fittest myth, dressed in modern clothes. So—what can we learn from Social Darwinism? It’s a warning. Even well-intentioned science can be misused. Even objective theories can be weaponized to justify cruelty. And whenever someone starts talking about who “deserves” to survive or thrive—especially when backed by science—we should all start asking hard questions. Sources: https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/... Made using Adobe Express