Don’t put the blame of all the evils of society on a scientist who merely put together a theory to describe a process that was noticed at least back in Greek times.
In a scientific context, “survival of the fittest” means only that an organism that survives can reproduce. Any sort of “master race” consideration has nothing to do with survival of the fittest, and everything to do with a human idea of what the ideal human is. In the evolutionary sense, people who kill off babies for selfish reasons are working against survival of the fittest. You don’t leave a maximum of offspring when you kill them all. You also enhance your own survival (and thus your fitness) by assisting others to survive. Altruism is a survival trait; selfishness is not.
It is evil people who decide that they should have control over who lives and who dies. Even if they blabber about a master race or whatever, they aren’t working within any scientific context. They are acting according to their own evil nature. Unfortunately, sociopathy is one of those anti-survival traits that, for some reason, has not yet eliminated itself from the gene pool.
Surely you did not read in any of my remarks that Demicritis, Epicurus, or the Roman poet/philosopher and devote of Epicurus Lucretius as the progenitors of Darwinism. These philosophers did not notice a process, as you described. The atomist view was born from Demicritus, then Epicurus, and was profoundly described in Lucretius"s great poem De rerum Natura (On the Nature of Things) as a philosophical view they used to explain their perception of the world. It was, and to this day remains a theory. Chemistry and biology as formal studies had not yet been born. I will discuss that with you if you wish. My reference to the evils of infanticide, abortion, and involuntary euthanasia did not begin to cover all evils. That is and entire treatise. If you read what I said you will note that the euthanasia movement in Europe began after 1859's publication of Darwins book. It, along with Malthus and Neitzche created the foundational worldview which Haeckel seized upon to promulgate in the law, in society, and in education the acceptance (at first), then the advancement, and finally the proliferation of infanticide, abortion, and euthanasia. I will not rewrite my statement quoting Ernst Haeckel. You can go back and reread it if you wish.
In a scientific context, “survival of the fittest” means only that an organism that survives can reproduce. Any sort of “master race” consideration has nothing to do with survival of the fittest, and everything to do with a human idea of what the ideal human is. In the evolutionary sense, people who kill off babies for selfish reasons are working against survival of the fittest. You don’t leave a maximum of offspring when you kill them all. You also enhance your own survival (and thus your fitness) by assisting others to survive. Altruism is a survival trait; selfishness is not.
I will simply quote Adolf Hitler in his book Mein Kampf(1924(pp.239-240, "If nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such cases all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.
But such a preservation goes hand-in-glove with the inexorable law that it is the strongest and the best who must triumph and that they have the right to endure. He who would live must fight. He who does not wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist."
Hitler, like other Darwinists, illegitimately personifies nature by attributing will to it (nature does not 'wish'). The main point is that there are those who deserve life and those who do not deserve life. Euthanasia, genocide, eugenics, involuntary termination of life all were his tools, and as he said himself, were a derivitive of survival of the fittest. Ideas have consequences.
You say those who kill babies "for selfish reasons" are working against survival of the fittest. This comment, of course, is self-serving nonsense. The strong, in your world deserve to live, the weak deserve to die. To hasten their death means more more more nutrients, more environment, more resources for the deserving. This should expiate your concerns as a Darwinist.
selfish reasons are working against survival of the fittest. You don’t leave a maximum of offspring when you kill them all. You also enhance your own survival (and thus your fitness) by assisting others to survive. Altruism is a survival trait; selfishness is not.
This paragraph is interesting. Here you as a Darwinist propound that the weak should survive to attain to maximal numbers of offspring. But Darwin said the weak do not survive. Then you swerve into what is impossible in a Darwinian materialist universe...PURPOSE...altruism. You claim altruism is a survival trait. So, the person who tends to the terminally ill infant, attention which will never attain to biologcal success as Darwinist describe (to reproduce) is a survival trait. Like the man attending a woman who was just mauled by Smilodon (saber tooth tiger) out of altruism, and who puts his life in jeopardy, has attained a survival skill when the big cat kills him. I am afraid you need to rethink your position on this entire paragraph if you wish to be a consistent Darwinist.
It is evil people who decide that they should have control over who lives and who dies.How in a Darwinist, materialist universe does evil enter into world. Evil people, evils of society....in a materialist universe these abstract, invarient, entities do not exist. Conditions are simply conditions as they are. There is no purpose in that universe. It is only in the theistic universe that we can come to understand things like evil. Of course you do know what evil is because knowledge of evil is part of our nature...our synderesis, if you will. I feel sure you do not acknowlege the Moral Law and Lawgiver. We can leave that for another time.
I am intrigued by two of your statements. I will juxtapose the two statements.
Post #3 you say;
I've read the entire AVMA on euthanizing animals. Inhuman methods are not authorized, the goal is for the animal to die without suffering. Apparently it does't matter if human beings suffer. What kind of society is it that has more concern for animals than for humans.
Your second statement in this post; It is evil people who decide that they should have control over who lives and who dies.
In the first you seem to say that animals are killed humanly and people are not killed humanly (society cares more for animals than people). Is this to say you desire people be killed humanly? That seems to be what you are saying. If so, would it be you who desire control over others lives.
Even if they blabber about a master race or whatever, they aren’t working within any scientific context. They are acting according to their own evil nature. Unfortunately, sociopathy is one of those anti-survival traits that, for some reason, has not yet eliminated itself from the gene pool....."blabber about a master race"...."aren't working in any scientific context"...Well you might take some time to look at Ernst Haeckels writings. He was the preemeninent biologist of his day, as I said in my first post to you. I suppose you overlooked that. "Master Race"....I do not believe those words were uttered by me. And this one I really like by someone as humane as yourself...."Unfortunately, sociopathy is one of those anti-survival traits that, for some reason, has not yet eliminated itself from the gene pool".
Sociopath....gee, that seems to be a diagnosis...and even without examining the patient. And this is an especially nice touch....."eliminated from the gene-pool". That would be referencing those who disagree with your worldview. Some things never change.