A misnomer called Social Darwinism

The term “ Social Darwinism “ has been used to describe scenarios where laissez-faire economic systems allow only the “ fittest to survive “. The term is one of the stupidest misnomers ever invented, of course. Darwinism and the survival of the fittest in the biological context refer to the survival value of traits. And it is based on a mechanism of genetic inheritance, and a complex and slow process of natural selection of genetic variations that help cope with the natural environment better. The basic characteristic of this mechanism is that individuals with genetic constitution that helps cope with the environment better will pass on these positive traits to their off-springs.

“ Social Darwinism “, as opposed to a system of socialism, for example, refers to a scenario where no one who is economically unviable is allowed to persist, that is, no welfare system is allowed to come to the aid of “ weak “ individuals. Of course, there are huge problems with this point of view. Is a person who is “ economically unviable “ now likely to remain “ economically unviable “ always ? It also has relevance for contemporary debates about poverty. If a man is starving, or if a penniless man has malaria, and he will die if food or treatment don’t reach him, he is clearly economically unviable. If a well-to-do person helps him by giving him food and medicine, he becomes economically viable. He can even become a contributor to overall prosperity because of division of labor. In other words, the person who helps the starving guy does not necessarily harm his own economic interests. The analysis can be extended to a person who is not exactly destitute, but has fallen on bad days. Then the concept of “ Social Darwinism “ becomes even more untenable. The basic failure is one of comprehending the dynamic nature of economic viability.

There is another problem with “ Social Darwinism “ as a way of ordering human society. “ Social Darwinism “, in its purest manifestation, would lead to an elimination of the public school system and of subsidized education. Since school education is a significant component that decides what kind of jobs an individual gets, the presence or absence of a public education system will have a huge impact on the allocation of labor and talent that the society ends up with. And in the absence of a publicly funded education system, mostly kids from rich families will end up getting the better jobs. This labor and talent allocation may or may not suffice to keep economic prosperity going. Even if it does, it calls into question the internal consistency of the system since it can and will lead to “ elimination “ of individuals who are economically more viable while several who are economically less viable will survive. This may be a sustainable system if resources are plentiful and economic management is a trivial science. However, till now, mankind hasn’t enjoyed that kind of economic security. So, in practice, “ Social Darwinism “, if taken to its logical conclusion while allowing for inheritance and parent-funded ( but no public ) education, can and most probably will lead to a process of obsolescence wherein mankind’s survival itself may be imperiled. And, the other problem is that in that kind of scenario, full employment or a universal security net would be easily affordable. Persisting with “ Social Darwinist “ methods in that kind of society is equivalent to unadulterated sadism.

The term “ Social Darwinism “ should be banished from intelligent discourse. If “ Social Darwinism “ is used to refer to individuals alone with no reference to off-springs, then the Darwinist part makes no sense, apart from a resemblance to the ability of organisms to cope with their environments. If it does refer to things like inheritance, parent-funded education and the absence of publicly funded education, then also, the Darwinian part makes no sense. In the latter case, it simply means - if my dad is a winner, and I don’t piss him off, I am a winner if inheritance taxes are low enough. Or if my dad has connections in the right places, I become a winner. One may be able to call that Social Nepotism, not Social Darwinism.