Darwinism vs. Social Darwinism part 1 | US History | Khan Academy
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 06. 2016
- Courses on Khan Academy are always 100% free. Start practicing-and saving your progress-now: www.khanacademy.org/humanitie...
KA's US history Fellow Kim and Biology Fellow Emily discuss how evolution works and how sociologists in the Gilded Age misunderstood its application to human society.
Watch the next lesson: www.khanacademy.org/humanitie...
Missed the previous lesson? www.khanacademy.org/humanitie...
US history on Khan Academy: From a mosquito-ridden backwater to the world's last remaining superpower, the United States of America is a nation with a rich history and a noble goal: government of the people, by the people, for the people. Its citizens' struggle to achieve that goal is a dramatic story stretching over hundreds of years.
About Khan Academy: Khan Academy offers practice exercises, instructional videos, and a personalized learning dashboard that empower learners to study at their own pace in and outside of the classroom. We tackle math, science, computer programming, history, art history, economics, and more. Our math missions guide learners from kindergarten to calculus using state-of-the-art, adaptive technology that identifies strengths and learning gaps. We've also partnered with institutions like NASA, The Museum of Modern Art, The California Academy of Sciences, and MIT to offer specialized content.
For free. For everyone. Forever. #YouCanLearnAnything
Subscribe to Khan Academy’s US History channel: / channel
Subscribe to Khan Academy: czcams.com/users/subscription_... - Jak na to + styl
Darwin spoke about "Social Darwinism" in his infamous book "The Descent of Man" in which he spoke about "savage races" and let's not lie, Social Darwinism and Scientific Racism was used by the Nazis in Germany, as well as it was the basis for eugenics in countries like the US, yes the US: I SAID IT.
Late reply but ya, the Lebensborn program in WW2 was exactly to counter the "savage" races in population. Essentially Aryan baby farms based on bad "science".
Darwinism is the Truth stop being a p*ssy and embrace it does who succeed are those that dont let others f*ck with them, protect what is theirs while statisfying their own primordial neccessities. Pure and Simple. We humans have evolved from a common ancestor alongside animals, we are still mammals and it makes absolute sense that the rule of the jungle also apply for us
@@karonga629 Mr. "S.M.A.R.T.": Social Darwinism and Darwin's Theory of Evolution are two distinct things.
@@karonga629 Darwin was a racist tough guy .
@@lameiraangelo
The are the same , social darwinism comes from the darwinism
What tablet are you using to write with? It's seems so natural like a Wacom screen tablet .but I'm not sure. Pray tell. thank you.
Wow I was way off. I thought social darwinism was when you reward people based off their capability, but think I got it mixed up with a meritocracy. I'm still confused why they call it "social" darwinism if it's just a bad interpretation of biological evolution.
Because it's a misapplication of a scientific theory. It compares human social development in a civilization to animal physical development in a wilderness environment. The rules for thriving in any society that's even arguably a 'civilization' are radically different from the wilderness. Whereas strength, backbone, fighting ability, animal cunning (comparable to human "street smarts") are the absolutely only way for animals to gain resources (animal equiv of "wealth") and mates; *we humans have switched the context* . In our realm, you don't need to be a tough guy / bully to a better app, weapons, or come up with new ideas improving human society. Weakness is simply not an obstacle to thinking up new ideas.
I believe it’s “Social Darwinism” because a basis they judged people on was their social class, whether they were poor or rich, ideal person to the social form of that time, and so on
super helpful and fun to watch!! tysm for uploading this!
Love the crossover.
What is this gold nova 2??
Wow, that's pretty cool!
What about pokemon evolution
Do you believe logic is the same as emotions, or fact is the same as fiction?......or is it just a difference between degrees on that same scale?
The distinction between culture and nature is completely arbitrary if evolution is true therefore darwinism is "social darwinism" as all darwinism is inherently social. If culture is nature then hierarchical structures are natural. If hierarchical structures are natural then any preferred selection intra-hierarchically, even imposed selection is natural, as anyone imposing is still in the bounds of nature. For the evolutionist everything is natural, any distinction between culture and nature is unfounded and arbitrary, at most a theoretical distinction. The distinction is silly and based on a binary that has no bearing on evolutionary grounds, anyone holding on to the distinction is doing so in pseudo moralism or philosophical illiteracy, most often both.
Hierarchies occur both naturally and unnaturally.
Culture isn't instinct. It's learned, right. So our need to create culture may be nature, but the type of culture you create is completely in grasps of human will. Plus you can force things into a culture that is unnatural to humans.
For the record, there's only 2 genders. Binary seems to be an over used word by progressive & post modern pseudo intellectuals. May I offer up dichotomy as a synonym.
Evolution is wrong then
@@loki-of-asgard7877culture is genetic. Your behaviors are pre-determined by the traits of your parents. Blank slatism is a myth
And the common ancestor of humans is a human. Thank u ^^
i love the beatles!
this is wrong, the evolutionary pressure in each environment is magitudally different. that why ashkenazi jews are smart because they went through tougher artificial selection and persecution which made their surviving population smarter. the environmental evolutionary pressure is different and each area evolves at a different pace. harsher environments evolve its inhabitants at a faster rate.
Take a drink each time they say "beetles"
This was so confusing. Normally I like Khan Academy but this video didn't help me at all. :(
Basically people used Darwinism theory of Natural selection to justify their racist behaviors. The same way people have used the Bible or Quran to justify slavery, homophobia and racism
@@angelperez7725 buddy Quran taught to free slavery, and muhamad made a black leader in Arabia who was the first to climb the kabaa. Don’t even mention the Bible and Quran in the same context when it comes to racism, don’t.
@@howtodoit4204 yet the prophet of Islam bought and sold black slaves
@@howtodoit4204 and yes people do use the Quran to justify bad behavior fyi
@@angelperez7725 he bought and freed all kinds of slaves buddy not just black slaves. They were Arab and white slaves too but they were not treated as the Spanish and Europeans treated the black slaves and justified with their filthy bible.
im trying to write notes and do this for school but this is very confusing can someone clear this up for me..
racism
@@matthewmayberry6410 It is what it is. Just because something is racist doesn’t mean it’s wrong.
A comment concerning word choice:
@ 7:50 the statement " . . . It's [natural selection] more-or-less entirely by *chance* " and @ 8:13 "The variation would have occurred *randomly* to start with . . ." (both quotes emphasis mine)
The Four Fundamental Laws of Interaction (gravitation, electromagnetism, the weak interaction, and the strong interaction) show us that while random processes occur (such as the decay of an atomic nucleus) do occur at the smallest scale of nature, the large-scale comes together more-or-less deterministically (we know where in orbit Pluto will be 200yrs from now).
The word 'stochastic' better captures how a process such as evolution can make sense in light of *Levinthal's* *Paradox* .
This paradox shows us that for a protein folds to occur in a short amount of time and have high accuracy in their consistency of fold patterns means that a random process will not sufficiently explain the data. Calling Protein Folds a stochastic process is a clearer scientific description of what occurs. I would then add that such clarity be applied to the statements @ 7:50 and @ 8:13 so that we don't misinform the audience.
hbk711x
If you look up the Monte Carlo Method you will find a practical example where we can manipulate Random Number Generation to solve complicated Integrals i.e. human *agents* using *randomness* as a means to an *ordered* end.
I think that is quite an elegant way of creating and it shows a sophisticated creator.
John Neumann, while decoherence does happen, we know thanks to quantum physics that the universe is inherently probabilistic and therefore to some degree random.
"if you define yourself by the power to take life, the desire to dominate, to possess, then you have nothing" -Obi Wan Kenobi
Manchild
Actually it WAS Darwinism! Darwin believed in a hierarchy of races and WAS racist! Most Victorian upper class/aristocracy were. They didnt believe in the Declaration of Independence - All Men Created Equal. They were Aristo-Platonists and believed in "natural" hierarchy/domination - and yes they did believe in it leading to progress.
All men are created equal. “Men” in this statement excludes “asians, indians, Native American, aborigines, africans”
Have you read On the Origin of Species? According to Darwin the diverse populations of man, races if you will, are far more similar than they are different. I know this because I have actually read it.
@@deltaveedesignconsulting7697 reading garbage won't take you anywhere
@@rainyday6790 and what have you ultimately learned and what skills have you developed so far in life.
@@rainyday6790 and what have you ultimately learned and what skills have you developed so far in life.
lol why is this in an interview sort of format
To facilitate suspension of disbelief in the audience. This is part of their political programme.
Only at higher thinking institutions could this lecture fly...
Listening to these two air heads, it is evident that Americans are rapidly devolving
What do you mean?
So a mutation that results in something that benefits a species is called adaptation and we do evolve based on our environment. That is not to say all mutations are product of environmental factors. It can be spontaneous too.
African-American? Aren't we discussing race, haplogroups, and so on?
aristotle313 Im french living in France but she says I’m Anglo Saxon ?
@Somethin_else If the Facts say Nazism Then i am fanatically anti Facts and Science
Can someone name me a single eugenicist or social Darwinist that wasn't also a Darwinist or believer in and promoter of (Darwin's*) evolutionary philosophies (such as the philosophy that all living organisms share a single-celled common ancestor which hasn't been identified cause then people can actually evaluate that claim and philosophy)?
* = Darwin wasn't the one who came up with these philosophies, but his modifications to the philosophies of Pagan religious Mother Nature-worshippers and philosophers became popular just before social Darwinism and eugenics became popular, so they aren't really Darwin's evolutionary philosophies (but his versions or modifications would be included in my usage of the term "evolutionary philosophies" to refer to all of them including the way of thinking that can be described as philosophical naturalism, which is not a requirement for evolutionary philosophies but it can be included in their promotion of their philosophies, and often is)
You can put a "vs" in there as often as you want but you can't seperate the 2 sets of philosophies from those being involved in selling them. Believing in (neo-)Darwinism (or better described as evolutionary philosophies) is a prerequisite for social Darwinism and eugenics.
Not that the latter is a necessary result of the former, but it is a follow-through based on the same way of thinking about reality.
Perhaps another interesting question would be...
Can anyone name me a single evolutionist* living around the time that social Darwinism and eugenics were popular that didn't also promote these philosophies and ideologies involved in social Darwinism and eugenics (so the other way around as my first question)?
* = before complaining about my use of the word "evolutionist", please do try either googling it or typing that word in a database such as NCBI or PubMed
The last question might be easier to find an answer to. It's a genuine question, not just rhetorical, I am looking for specific names here.
Uenbg in answer to your question . Me .
Theodosius Dobzhansky and JBS Haldane were both against eugenics: europepmc.org/backend/ptpmcrender.fcgi?accid=PMC2973346&blobtype=pdf; www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329770-800-reaping-the-whirlwind-of-nazi-eugenics/
Theodosius Dobzhansky is also an excellent example of an evolutionary biologist who was strongly religious, as outlined in his essay 'Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution', indicating that philosophical naturalism isn't a requirement to acknowledge the evidence that supports evolution (note that philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism are two very different things).
@@thylacoleonkennedy7 You are misrepresenting him. @Uenbg is asking for eugenicists or Social Darwinists that didn't subscribe to Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection, not vice versa. Every eugenicist and Social Darwinist is a Darwinist, but not every Darwinist is a Social Darwinist or an eugenicist.
Throws pooh at darwin*
This is such a important topic and how come such lame video is put out by khan academy. ??
hello
So I want to know the natural selection in humans
If I had to guess, it's creativity and abstract thinking (i.e. imagining "Hey! If I tie a sharp stone to a stick and throw it, I can bring down a lion or water buffalo". No way even a whole tribe can bring down either creature completely unarmed!! But ideas are independent of physical strength. Also, just because on has a mental shortcoming in one realm of thought does not deter them from having strong advantages in another real of thinking. There is a physical aspect too...humans are the animal world's champion throwers...and long-distance runners too (pitifully slow in short distance, champion at long distance). It's a whole buffet table of traits interacting with each other, to the point that a short coming in one area doesn't necessarily doom the person from having offspring.
@@thelonestarpelican9343 how does science measure human long/short distance running abilities? And isn’t the other way around in terms of distance by objective obvious simple observations?
I knew this was a radical position, and since Darwin created evolution, I always thought Social Darwinism means complete abandonment of any social contract and letting nature and the survival of the fittest decide who carries on their genes and who gets used as target practice, instead of society and unnatural ideas of fairness and justice controlling human evolution, letting nature decide who is "good" and who is "bad", similar to Nietzsche's philosophy. Guess I had it completely upside down.😂
Or they did, I mean how would anyone accept Darwin's name in a justification of completely unnatural and fabricated social hierarchies, unless they justify them by saying that their ancestors just were the first race of humans who had collectively organized into the hierarchical system in order to conquer nature and were therefore justified to rule over nature and it's beasts, by virtue of being the first/fittest. This is something we do even now, with the exception of other humans(except prisoners).
We still capture and imprison wild animals and chimpanzees, just to watch them being stupid and captured, and to degrade these frightening beasts by feeding them behind their cells for sadistic pleasure I theorize.
You were right the first time, most social darwinists go with that interpretation
You obviously have not read Darwin. If you had you would know that he did not make it up. On the Origin of Species describes nature that you can go out and observe for yourself. Don't let people tell you what to believe. Most of those so called men of god are nothing more than con-artists.
Read it yourself.
I do not believe Darwin. I have read it, and observed for myself on extensive nature walks, the analogs of evidence he describes in great detail. I do not have to rely on blind faith, as you do in conmen.
Hierarchies occur naturally and intentionally. They can be both good or bad. That all depends on the type of hierarchy you speak of. One thing is clear is that hierarchies are necessary for human survival because we are social creatures who need to work together for society to function. Hierarchy based on a meritocracy is ideal for fairness & equal opportunity in my opinion. We should also be aware of the element of intelligence in human beings that separates us from all other species. This means that not all our actions will be based on survival. What motivates humans to do things is intention and that changes from person to person. I mean what motivates a person when all their basic needs are met? This is where complexity enters the equation and context matters.
she drew the graph as the common misconception that black people are less evolved... I agree when they said there is no such thing as more or less evolved... BECAUSE YOU EXIST AT THE SAME TIME!!
Neanderthals and Sapiens also existed at the same time.
elephants and dolphins are basicly teh same as the evolved at the same time - don't be a Spieciest about it
so are cockroaches are humans? Except cockroaches existed way before and will exist way after sapiens...
I agree with you that there are no '' more evolved '' species than others because evolution has no direction. Not because they exist at the same time. In any case one can argue the superiority and inferiority of any living being taking into account its physiological capacities.
Things live until they don't...
I think it's eye of the beholder. Those less civilized had keen other abilities.
Anyone here doing HIST229 at Otago? Lol
The British were horrible. The British wanted to think that the Irish were "less evolved" but because they had a lot of integration with the Scottish and English, they couldn't pull that off. The British were very racist against Native Americans, Aboriginal Australians, and Indians and wanted to do the same with the Irish but "couldn't" because of their linked heritage. It didn't stop the British from trying to starve the Irish to death in the 19th century, where many from that country immigrated to America in massive numbers to the point that there are more people of Irish ancestry in the United States than in Ireland itself.
third
first like
What do they mean when they say that a bacteria has been evolving for as long and as much as a human being? Aren't there organisms which preserved pretty much the same DNA since millions of years ago? Also, the number of genes is significantly bigger in an "evolved" organism, isn't it?
They mean that we have been evolving the same amount of time. The bacteria shared a common anchestor with us, so if you go back to that point and look at where we are now we have been evolving the same amount of time. The number of genes in a human is indeed bigger then in a bacteria but these ladies are making a point for not calling that more ''evolved''.
I don't see how that's not more evolved... Also, I don't see how that makes sense. Let's say we have species A which evolves into species B and C. Now species B and C will continue to replicate, but so will the unevolved species A. They don't just disappear. So if B continues to evolve into D and E and C evolves into F, Species A, B, C, D, E, F may still exist to this day, unless natural selection kicks in. And the hierarchy is quite obvious. Say F is humans, A is the common ancestor, and B is bacteria. How can we say that F is just as evolved as B?
Ted Chirvasiu
Species is just a something that is made up. So the line between when species A becomes species B is blurry. So you can't count the amount of species that where between the common ancestor and the bacteria and the human. So maybe there have been more species between A and bacteria then between A and humans. If a species comes directly out of another species I quess you could call that more evolved but I would like to add that the new species does not have to be better then the old one (it's more likely to be worse at surviving).
Patrick Veldhuis Yeah, good point. However I think that even though the line is blurry between immediate successors and ancestors, looking at the big picture you can see that one species may have suffered more drastic changes than another. Comparing a dog to an Euglena and say they are just as evolved (which is pretty much what the ladies are stating) it's a bit much I think... Though I agree that trying to tell whether a dog is more evolved than a cat, or a Dalmatian than a German Shepard may be tricky or irrelevant.
The key here is to abandon the word evolved and use adapted instead. Everything that's living right now is as much as evolved as other species... because we're all here, present time, which means adapted to our environment. Now, you can say that some species are older than others because they're here "almost unchanged" for more time, like bacteria, roaches etc... So, there's no such thing as "more evolved" or "less evolved" we are more adapted to certain environments and conditions for survival and reproduction.
Ok so you have adopted only part of the meaning of "evolved", its not just "time" but advantage or effective adaptation to an environment or action.
You may say be a bacteria has in time been around say as long as a human, but the bacteria say stays the same and the human gathered new traits. The former has not evolved that latter has. (not saying one is better but getting the language right).
Also it the difference that counts. Those small difference, even on gene = life or death. If you knock out or introduce.
If you knock out or introduce errors into the of humans you get features seen in other races. Eg mongolism, mental development issues.
a black man and a white man are more similar genetically than a white man and a white woman.
So to talk about two races is as stupid as to suggest male and female are two races.
Darwin was as racist as they come. His son was also a famous racist. Both got a little prominence because Great Britain needed to justify its non-human behavior to itself. It decided to call their own actions civilized and its victims the inferior species that would naturally disappear. So they created the Darwin Myth as well as some fossil hoax.
"Darwin was as Racist as they come"
You seriously believe this?
@@theqwertyqwistle6972 I've read his books so I know for a fact he was racist. I guarantee you haven't.
Not only does Darwin believe in white supremacy, he offers a biological explanation for it, namely that white people are further evolved. He writes that the “western nations of Europe … now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors and stand at the summit of civilization” (178). Darwin imagines that Europeans are more advanced versions of the rest of the world. As previously mentioned, this purported superiority justified to Darwin the domination of inferior races by Europeans. As white Europeans “exterminate and replace” the world’s “savage races,” and as great apes go extinct, Darwin says that the gap between civilized man and his closest evolutionary ancestor will widen. The gap will eventually be between civilized man “and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla” (201). Read that last line again if you missed it: Darwin’s theory claims that Africans and Australians are more closely related to apes than Europeans are. The spectrum of organisms is a hierarchy here, with white Europeans at the top and apes at the bottom. In Darwin’s theory, colored people fall somewhere in between. Modern human is essentially restricted only to white Europeans, with all other races viewed as somehow sub-human.
PS.:In the future only issue an opinion once you have knowledge of the subject.
First of all, no need for ad hominem attacks.
Second of all, he wasn't talking about Race as we perceive it now but as in variation in characteristics. The "widening of the gap" referred to inherited characteristics. He used the same terminology when talking about plants.
I have read the book, although i do admit that it was many years ago. But knowing Darwin was an out spoken Abolitionist, it's hard to see him as having the belief that whole races are to be exterminated.
And finally, i believe conversing with you could be exciting and fruitful but if all you have for me are attacks on my intellectual or an abrasive need to "win" an "argument" (that no one is having), i certainly wouldn't want to engage further.
The impact of Evolution, Natural Selection and Social Darwinism are fascinating and important to have (so we don't fuel the disgusting belief that is "scientific" racism) but whether that conversation is to be had is down to how you respond.
Have a Wonderful Day and God Bless.
@@VelhaGuardaTricolor So after doing some digging from my old, beaten copy, the passages you cite are (in the context of the book) predictions on society, less so actual beliefs.
I think a more accurate term for Darwin would quassi imperliast and accutely colonial.
(ignore the spelling errors; english is not my first language)
@@VelhaGuardaTricolor If we would truley brand any one a racist, it'd be the likes if Galton or (as a more recent example) Eysenck or Watson; expressed eugenicists.
My belief is that as long as the science doesn't express those views, it should be looked outside of the scientists opinions. No one invents Science, you discover it.
But the examples i have listed have those abhorrent beliefs ingrained into their work (or it's either stolen all together as with Watson, from Franklin)
Just my simplistic moral belief.
I think I have lost neurons watching this video. This video is a lie
Wow that’s offensive
White? Excuse me?!?! I demand you refer to me as Northern-European American!! Oh wait, I never lived in Europe...
Sounds like the basis for racial supremacy hmmm
How are lawyers and laws interrupting evolution?
3 years later I have your answer. She said interpreting.
Google, Aquilla Fleetwood, Night Signs, to see Christ in the stars! Hence, the Northern Cross, near the North star!
Full of indoctrination
Ask Darwin how to heal a broken heart .
I dislike it when English people write a book about ideas most people conceptually already figured out (or that they have stolen) and name it after themselves. We have probably not even originated from what we call monkeys today, but something more mysterious that we would call very human, but looks somewhat like a monkey, probably to the same extent that we resemble these ancient beings. The ideas proposed in his book are otherwise rather obscene and causes much antagonism from religious folk, therefore Darwin's ideas were most likely wrong.
Religious folks! Lol, it’s a reliable source, great!!! 👍
Lies
delusional 👎