An Argument against Social Darwinism

Social Darwinism is a theory which equates human social organization with natural selection. “Survival of the fittest” is the mantra of social Darwinism which is a justification of social stratification, and exploitation of the weak by the powerful. Many rich and powerful people these days, believe wholeheartedly in it as can be seen in the documentary by Jamie Johnson called “Born Rich.” Many wealthy people believe in social Darwinism to such an extent that they feel justified in exploiting those who are weaker and feel that all forms of greed are “good” regardless of who suffers. Many con artists have justified defrauding others by pointing out that its always been a world where the strongest have survived. Using the natural world as a philosophical foundation that underlies their belief that they are doing the right thing by being greedy, selfish and ultimately sociopathic people have, started wars, gotten unfair laws passed, and basically have used all their mental capacity to accumulate wealth and power at the expense of everyone else. Social Darwinism combined with scientific materialism (which is a form of nihilism in my opinion), is a deadly brew for our species and our planet.

One of the main proponents of social Darwinism was Ayan Rand. Arguably she was a simplistic social philosopher and a social Darwinist to her core. She did her best to use scientific materialism which she coined objectivism, and the notion that greed is good, to nullify any natural morality her acolytes had. Many of her followers trained themselves to negate any natural feelings of empathy or compassion because, according to her, those emotions are a source of weakness in a world ruled by the law of “survival of the strongest.” Ayan Rand herself had a very sad childhood in Russia where her middle class family had lost two businesses to the Bolshevik revolution. Her hatred of collectivism blossomed into a general hatred of humanity according to twobiographies. Here is a great article from Slate.com which summarizes the sad story of her life and the underpinnings of her philosophy.

According to these biographies she viewed sociopaths as heroes. This can clearly be seen in her diary entry about the serial killer in the early 1930's named William Edward Hickman, whom she labeled a “genuinely beautiful soul” . She saw his lack of morality as a sign of ultimate strength and thus noble, despite his tendency to kidnap, kill and dismember little girls. He was caught and executed. Her only lament of his fate was that he “was not strong enough.”

Many of the worlds most powerful people believe in the notion that only the strongest survive and so therefore only the strongest deserve to win in the game of life. They believe that morality is a human construct which weighs down the movers and shakers of the world, who, if they pursue their own greedy motivations as far as possible, will raise up society with their capitalist ventures. They believe that greed is good, and compassion, generosity, and a sense of obligation to a greater good is weakness. Social Darwinism seems to be a convenient mental view or belief system which negates morality and justifies harming others simply because “might makes right.”

Is social Darwinism true? As a theory does it hold up to scrutiny? Does the notion that the natural world works through the law of survival of the fittest really conform to the actual evidence. I would say it doesn't. If a lion runs after a herd of gazelles, they only kill the ones who are not going fast enough. So, in order to survive you only have to run just fast enough to escape, you don't have to be the fastest gazelle in the bunch. If a lion is chasing a herd of gazelles, does the lion kill all of the gazelles except the strongest individual? No, the lion only kills the slowest. If all were killed except the strongest individuals then that species would most likely go extinct due to lack of genetic diversity.

Its been shown time and again that when a species is reduced to a small enough number whereby their genetic diversity becomes too limited, then that species is usually doomed after only a few generations. For example, even though they had survived when 95% of their fellow tigers didn't, their offspring down the road have succumb to more illness and genetic defects because of the lack of genetic diversity due to in breeding. Siberian tigers are an example of a species where only the strongest survived and because of that they will likely may become extinct due to lack of genetic diversity.

So, in a situation where a Lion catches the slowest gazelle and all the rest escape then the majority of gazelles will live another day and reproduce regardless of whether they are the strongest or not. Because most of the gazelles survive, genetic diversity is maintained and the resiliency of the community to illness and disease is preserved. Mother nature doesn't want just the strongest to survive, she wants as many as possible to survive so that diversity and vitality is preserved and thus equilibrium is maintained. Mother Earth strives for harmony in ecosystems and this is achieved through balance. If a new species of animal were to evolve or be planted here on Earth which were as strong and dangerous of a species as anything the imagination could dream up, then wouldn't it just wipe out its own food supply and eventually parish itself? Given that the natural world stays in balance through a process where generally only the weakest die, how can one claim that only the strongest deserve to survive? Many wealthy and powerful people feel justified in harming others because they have convinced themselves that they are chosen by nature to win and only the winners count in a world where survival of the fittest is supposedly the rule of nature.

However it doesn't take much contemplation to realize that its not a world like that. Instead of being a world which is governed by the rule of “survival of the fittest” its actually a world governed by the natural law of survival of the just fit enough. It may not seem like a big distinction, but it is. In a world where the law of survival is to be just fit enough, most of the community can still exist and interact and live their lives as a part of a greater whole. The interconnectedness of the species in an ecosystem is dependent on each population to be not too big and not too small. The balance is maintained by the natural law of survival of the just fit enough not the erroneous notion of survival of the fittest. Whenever a situation arises in nature where only the strongest of a species survive, then that species is likely doomed. This is not opinion, this is observable fact.

This pattern holds true for human economies as well. Capitalism, for example works best when there is a lot of competition, or in other words, a good diversity of businesses makes for a robust and vital economy which benefits everyone, not just the “winners.” The weakest businesses may fail but the majority survive, grow and adapt to changes. However, because of the fundamental structure of capitalism where money is used to make more money, eventually the largest businesses prevail and force the others to get bought out or fail. Eventually a few large businesses cause the failure of all other smaller ones by mergers and often unfair business practices. Once a monopoly is established , that sector of the economy becomes more and more exploitative of the population and eventually saps consumers to the point where they become too poor to buy the very goods that the monopoly produces. The system will eventually fail when survival of the fittest is the rule. Band-aids such as expansion of consumer debt can stave off the inevitable by loaning back some of the money taken from the consumers so they can continue to consume, but eventually the populace can no longer afford all the debt and interest and can no longer continue buying those goods. Eventually the system collapses. This has happened many times throughout history. A business that becomes too strong will eventually fail for the very reason that a species which becomes too strong, fails. Survival of the fittest eventually causes the system to become unbalanced and it collapses. Being too strong is just as bad for a species, and a business as being too weak. This is why in ecosystems you will not usually see a native species that is out of balance with the rest of the ecosystem because it is too strong. There are many examples of invasive species that are too strong for the non native ecosystem they were placed in and eventually because they were too strong they cause the ecosystem to become unbalanced. Because those species also depend on that ecosystem they themselves often fail. This is why survival of the just strong enough is a viable foundation for an ecosystem while survival of the strongest is not.

So social Darwinism is a fundamentally flawed theory which does not really work in the long run because it destroys diversity, and balance and eventually causes systemic collapse. Many wealthy and powerful people cling to social Darwinism because it allows them to feel they are doing the right thing when in fact they are not. They see basic human traits such as compassion, empathy, generosity and they see social conventions of morality and ethics as nothing more than weaknesses. This erroneous belief that greed is good, leads them to do many heinous acts, such as starting needless wars, or torturing those who oppose them. Social Darwinism is as fundamentally false as the notion of the divine right of kings.

So if greed isn't really good after all and I think its fair to say that spiritual masters of all times agree that it isn't, does this mean that compassion, generosity, loyalty, ethics and morality are not weaknesses? Yes! In fact compassion, generosity, ethics, loyalty, and morality are very likely ancient survival traits and here's how. During times when food, and resources were scarce, or when dangers were prevalent many animals evolved to band together in groups. This proved to be a powerful survival strategy. A pack of wolves is much more likely to survive than a single wolf. Humans are social creatures not by chance, but because that is what worked. Our ability to communicate and share ideas would not have come into play if we had not evolved the survival strategy of banding together in groups. Those traits that increased group cohesiveness were the traits needed for survival for most of the time that humans have been on Earth. Those who exhibited ruthless greed and had no compassion or sense of morality were most likely banished from the tribe or killed. Being ostracized from the group put them at a serious disadvantage in a hostile world, not to mention the fact that they would have been much less likely to reproduce. Those who exhibited loyalty, generosity, compassion, and morality were respected and protected by the group. This is true even today. This is why most people have the capacity to feel compassion, and why most people have a default tendency to do whats right, especially when their actions are being observed by others. The reason why sociopaths only comprise approximately 5% of the population is likely because those traits were actually a weakness and individuals who had those traits were weeded out of the gene pool. Their lack of compassion, loyalty, ethics and morality in actuality made them the weakest of their group and likely got them killed young because of it.

In the past, sociopathic traits were actually an evolutionary weakness but today is that still true? Today the community of humans has become so large that sociopaths are rarely ostracized or killed, and because they can retain a certain degree of anonymity they can predate on other humans for quite some time before being arrested, and put in jail. Does this mean being a cold hearted predator is a strength now? In the long run it isn't. For instance, a contractor who cheats and fools people may make more money than their ethical competitors but in the long run they will ruin their own reputation and will have to move to a different city or state. Martin Schkreli who famously raised the price of several life saving drugs to astronomical levels after acquiring their patents was recently put in jail because he made no pretense about his lack of compassion or ethics.   He is facing decades in jail for fraud and will be universally reviled for a long time to come. Did ruthlessness and a lack of morality serve him well? In the short run, perhaps, but in the long run, it didn't.

On a larger scale, a fascist government may seem strong to some, but eventually the world rises up against them an wipes them out. Its clear that both on an individual level as well as a collective level a lack of compassion, morality and ethics is not a strength after all. Ayn Rand was completely wrong, and given that she died alone and miserable its seems clear that even she was not served by her own philosophy.

So even from a purely selfish point of view, having compassion for others, being generous and kind to others, living by a high moral standard are all signs of our strength as a human and not our weakness.