(no subject)

Date: 12/2/13 20:29 (UTC)
Absolutely! Darwin, however, defined "profitable to itself" very broadly, while Victorian gentlemen, like Darwin's friend Herbert Spencer, took a very narrow definition to heart.

Therein lies the rub. Spencer coined the terms "evolution" (which Darwin thought inaccurate but catchy) and "survival of the fittest" (which Darwin didn't like). Why didn't Chuck like the latter? Because in common vernacular, "fittest" refers to physically and mentally fit, not fit to a new ecological niche.

So, for Darwin, a barnacle that invades a crab, sheds its limbs, and does nothing more than sponge the nutrients off his host while simultaneously neutering the crab and forcing it to breed more parasite crabs is a "fit" specimen. To guys like Spencer, the barnacle's action too much resembled a poor person sponging off the rich. Oh, did I mention Spencer likely coined the term "social Darwinism," which Charles really, really didn't like?

Worse, Darwin's own cousin Galton (he had a bunch, even married one) even coined the term "eugenics," thankfully after Darwin had died.
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
(will be screened if not validated)
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

Credits & Style Info

Talk Politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods


MONTHLY TOPIC:

Failed States

DAILY QUOTE:
"Someone's selling Greenland now?" (asthfghl)
"Yes get your bids in quick!" (oportet)
"Let me get my Bid Coins and I'll be there in a minute." (asthfghl)

June 2025

M T W T F S S
       1
2 345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30