Your whole incomprehensible screed is based on this fine bit of question begging. There is no so-called dilemma. Second, the "olden days" you cite, are not so old, since those same conditions can be observed in substantial parts of Africa, South America and the middle east.
And this fine bit of nonsense Even at out lowest ebb we still have ties of blood, and ties of marriage: two things which are quite as incompatible with a universal competition to survive
But the aetiology of many species includes just those sorts of social evolution that enhance the survival of the species. Your fallacious and unexamined underlying assumption is that the only kind of competition allowable under evolution is mano a mano fight to the death between individuals. But that is nowhere stated at all, and the evolution of social cooperation is an intimately connect, highly fruitful and important field of investigation.
One even sees this kind of cooperation in what is probably the most brutally competitive of mammals, lions. Male lions frequently band together (commonly in pairs and very rarely trios) to hold territory and maintain breeding rights.
typo: aetiology should read ethology.
Actually I was quoting someone. Is there some way that it could have been made more explicit, so that you would have noticed that David Stove was the author?
Second, the "olden days" you cite, are not so old, since those same conditions can be observed in substantial parts of Africa, South America and the middle east.
So, in your view, Darwinism is not true in, say, Norway, but Darwinism is still going on in parts of, say, South America. What city in South America would you say we can find Dariwinism going on?
Let's have another little reading from David Stove.
Huxley naturally realized that, as examples of Darwinian competition for life among humans, hypothetical ancient fights between Hobbesian bachelors were not nearly good enough. What was desperately needed was some reed examples, drawn from contemporary or at least recent history. Nothing less would be sufficient to reconcile Darwinism with the obvious facts of human life. Accordingly, Huxley made several attempts to supply such an example. But the result in every case was merely embarrassing.One attempt was as follows. Huxley draws attention to the fierce competition for colonies and markets which was going on, at the time he wrote, among the major western nations. He says, in effect, 'There! That's pretty Darwinian, you must admit.' The reader, for his part, scarcely knows where to look, and wonders, very excusably, what species of organism it can possibly be, of which Britain, France, and Germany are members.
A second attempt at a real and contemporary example was the following. Huxley says that there is, after all, still a little bit of Darwinian struggle for life in Britain around 1890. It exists among the poorest five per cent of the nation. And the reason, he says, (remembering his Darwin and Malthus), is that in those lower depths of British society, the pressure of population on food supply is still maximal.
Yet Huxley knew perfectly well, (and in other writings showed that he knew), that the denizens of 'darkest England' were absorbed around 1890, not in a competition for life, but (whatever they may have thought) in a competition for early death through alcohol. Was that Darwinian? But even supposing he had been right, what a pitiable harvest of examples, to support a theory about the whole species Homo sapiens. Five per cent of Britons around 1890, indeed! Such a 'confirmation' is more likely to strengthen doubts about Darwinism than to weaken them.
David Stove, Darwinian Fairytales