Noam Chomsky - on Social Darwinism
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 07. 2011
- It was Herbert Spencer who first coined the term "survival of the fittest" but that is not the optimum way a society should function.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Renegade Inc. provides its members with the content and connections that help navigate the ‘new normal’. Finding the people who are thinking differently about the world means we offer an alternative perspective on business, leadership, economics, education and the arts.
Support us by subscribing here bit.ly/1db4xVQ
- Become a Renegade Inc. member at our website here: www.RenegadeInc.com
- Follow us on Twitter at / renegadeecon
- Find us on Facebook at / reneconomist
"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas." -- Karl Marx
truism
For those reading any of the comment thread below, the term "social Darwinism" first appeared in 1877 in a book by Joseph Fisher titled, "The History of Landholding in Ireland." Also, Spencer famously used the expression "survival of the fittest" in his book "Principles of Biology" after reading Darwin's work. This phrase, and his support of laissez-faire capitalism are reasons why people label Spencer as a 'social Darwinist.' All of this information can be easily found, and verified, on the web
What Chomsky fails to see is that he himself is in a position of relative power and thus his ideas can just as easily be described as ideas that benefit at least his own power
The self will propagate what can enrich the self - whatever is has associated it-self with. How many would-be geniuses have missed out on the path to be a Head of [whatever] at an MIT or Ox-Bridge or whatever because they missed out on a good start? This whole Marxist ideology is just opiate for the masses.
The title should read "...on social Darwinism."
Yeah but Noam Chomsky is pretty important too.
I have taken a lot of evolutionary biology courses and one thing that professors repeatedly drum into your head is that survival of the fittest DOES NOT mean survival of the strongest, although it is often misinterpreted that way. I see a lot of comments on here with this erroneous notion. Please be careful about how you read and write things folks.
Strongest: Polar Bear. Smartest: Human. Fittest all around: Tartigrade, can survive a much wider temperature range than any mammal and even survive the vaccum of space (and probably other human-toxic environments besides).
Physically strongest no, there's severely mentally retarded people with extreme human strength.
@prschuster “We never cease to stand like curious children before the great Mystery into which we are born.”
― Albert Einstein
“Our ignorance can be divided into problems and mysteries. When we face a problem, we may not know its solution, but we have insight, increasing knowledge, and an inkling of what we are looking for. When we face a mystery, however, we can only stare in wonder and bewilderment, not knowing what an explanation would even look like.”
― Noam Chomsky
Peace.
He's right about one thing - it has little to do with capitalism. Most of the postings I see railing against capitalism are actually against government meddling.
And how did the rich and powerful become rich and powerful in the first place?
Because that's how evolution works. Animals live in dominance hierarchies.
I remember seeing Dr Vadana Shiva speak at Moravian U. She is an Indian activist and has a PhD in particle physics. During the Q&A someone asked about Darwinism and she said what it doesn't tell you is that successful species got there because of the ability to cooperate with one another . Same thing Chomsky is saying although he mentions some sources.
Hey, I have that same sweater! Prof. Chomsky must have shopped at SYMS.
Thank you.
recorded (aored?) when? (taken from) where / at what occasion ? pls add to description
Why is this titled the way it is? Chomsky isn't talking about Darwinism, or natural selection. Please, people already mess up science as it is, without titling Chomsky's talk this way.
In the fifth edition of On the Origin of Species, Darwin explicitly said that "Survival of the Fittest" was the same thing as "Natural Selection". He was even more explicit in asserting that in The Descent of Man. I'm always amazed that self-appointed Darwin defenders have never read his most famous books.
It wasn't other authors who connected natural selection with survival of the fittest, Darwin did, as I said, in the fifth edition of Origin of Species, he further connected his theory to eugenics and Social Darwinism in The Descent of Man, endorsing, in the highest of terms, works by Galton, Haeckel, Spenser, Greg that are the early literature of eugenics and Social Darwinism, he also supported his son, George's eugenic speculations - no less an authority on the matter than his son Francis called that "eugenics". Galton didn't publish the term "eugenics" until the year after Darwin's death but he, Darwin's sons, especially Leonard, and every, single other eugenicist I've looked at cited Darwin's inspiration of their eugenics, indeed, on at least three occasions Leonard Darwin said that he was certain he was carrying on his father's work through his eugenics promotion. No one who has tried to distance Darwin from eugenics has the credibility of his own sons, his cousin Galton and others who knew the man, indeed, knew him as intimately as his own sons did. There is no credible case to be made that Darwin wasn't the inspiration of eugenics and one of its earliest supporters. Galton published his positively gushing endorsement of his book Hereditary Genius, which Galton counted as his first eugenics book. Darwin's own endorsement of that book makes it certain that he supported eugenics on the basis of its relation to natural selection, eugenics is based, absolutely, on natural selection, it would have no argument without that foundation.
It seems you're a True Believer. Well, I can agree with you on one thing, and that's that social Darwinism is immoral.
I'm a true blue believer in knowing what I'm talking about before I talk about it, which includes having read all of Darwin's books and most of the citations HE MADE which are relevant to those issues. I assume your hero meant what he said in those. Apparently you don't believe he meant what he said, in which case, he's not reliable. You don't get to have it both ways
He's not my hero, dude. He's a great scientist upon whom more science rests. And upon that, more science will rest. I suppose, however, you could say that the scientific method is my hero.
I can prove my point with a simple thought exercise: There was a time when telegraph companies employed a large percentage of the population. These obsolete companies eventually went bankrupt as a result of newly emerging telephone startups. Imagine if our government had bailed-out these big telegraph companies to “save jobs”. Imagine if the government never let any company fail, just kept bailing them out and changing the laws to prevent new startups from competing against them, to "save jobs".
Oh, the Government does do that. Only with the likes of Goldman Sachs. That's what "Too Big to fail" means.
Telegraph companies simply didn't have the power the similarly obsolete oil companies do.
Unfortunately the reality of the world outside of human control shows us that it is survival of those who are best able to adapt, or the God damn lucky bastards that did not get eaten by a lion after sleeping out in the open.
i always have to put the volume to max when i listen to him
What if it is a combination of the two views? Altruistic mutual aid and rational self interest?
Johnathan McClea Really the whole basis of rational self-interest was that 'altruistic mutual aid' would be a natural consequence of people acting thus rationally i.e. we come to understand it is ultimately in our individual interest to engage in altruistic mutual aid, if we are thinking and acting rationally, that is. The various benefits of a psychological order that we accrue through behaving in such a manner toward our fellow human beings are understood to outweigh the material sacrifices involved, and thus altruism is seen as ultimately beneficial to the individual. It is hardly rational simply to look after yourself whatever the cost to others: that is the irrational outlook of brain damaged psychopaths and desperate animals, not enlightened human beings.
Chomsky is a brilliant man in the way he looks at Social Darwin and communist population from a different angle. He does, however hit the nail on the head. The richer got richer and the poorer got poorer.
If by "strong" you mean more suitably adapted to their environment, then yes.
Agreed, and a nice clarification to your rethorical question
Is that your original phrase? Excellent.
I interpret it as meaning that human societies must continually 'cultivate' for their collective good in order to prevent tendencies inherited from a brutal past taking over..
This is a clever little tricky video... He is talking about social darwinism without going into the crux of the matter on the subject. Social Darwinism is based on white supremacy... He implies that but you have to read between the lines. OR maybe we can take an advanced view and considered that race is no longer the line dominate line of separation its actually class systems.
I think it's more of the latter. I think he's talking about any group who thinks they're more superior than the rest of the human race.
Professor Chomsky is one of my favourite leftist intellectual! His argument and proposition is very well-put and highly articulate. Although, his political theory on post-9 11 world is still downright infantile, for instance in comparison with another intellectual such as christopher hitchens who has recognised "what happens as it is", but his critics on american foreign policy, capitalism and cold war are very striking and brilliantly written!
“wtf I heckin love science!!!11!1!! XDDDDD"
Good point.
Thanks Jon, I'll lend him an ear.
it's dangerous to confuse Darwinism with Social Darwinism. you end up throwing a lot of people who dont agree with Social Darwinism under the bus when you do that... in actuality, a Darwinist's views are on biology, not society. i'm a Darwinist (if that label really means anything) because i understand that the species on earth developed by means of natural selection as opposed to development by a creator. this does not reflect my social or political views, however. it is an insult to be associated with Social Darwinists simply because others dont understand the difference between it and Darwinism when assigning labels.
You need to revisit what you think you understand about evolution.
Mankind has long since departed from genetic evolution and has been evolving mnemetically for centuries.
@@josephcoon5809 ....I love Dawkins, Dennett and Harris as much as the next person but memetics is still widely considered a pseudoscience....its an analogy, not scientifically proven model (theory).
@@evilpandakillabzonattkoccu4879 Mnemetics*
Also, it’s the whole basis of the free market. Better ideas gather more resources. It’s not complicated.
@@evilpandakillabzonattkoccu4879 It’s the reason why big screen TVs were $15,000 ($22,000 adjusted for inflation) in 1997, and two decades later they are arguably 10,000% higher in quality for 5% the cost.
"if you define yourself by the power to take life, the desire to dominate, to possess, then you have nothing" -Obi Wan Kenobi
Great Quote
@@flovv4580 and people say Star Wars isn't political
also, I love this one meme of that scene, where after Maul angrily asks "then what do you have!?" Obi Wan says "both of my legs"
Really? I'd think, you actually have all the things you just mentioned.
@@MS-il3ht yeah, but you have nothing else other than that if that's how you define yourself
and the thing is, what's the point of being stronger, smarter or faster if you only use them for your own gain?
@@syppy7416 Well, I'd use them for the gain of people that are even stronger, smarter, faster than I am. And if they bring me down, so be it.
Finally you get it!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well said.
@chocobofarmer2021
Yes, I am just too dumb to find any reason why I would want the gov to steal more of my money.
As an ecologist, I'm always pissed off by the way elites twist and oversimplify biological ideas to justify their means and ends. Competition is a strong force but in the strict definition, it results in those involved doing worse than they would have otherwise. Other powerful relationships that are often selected for are mutually benefical ones. As humans we have the choice to create a more cooperative context. I argue the only hope for us lies in systems that maximize mutual aid.
@SufferInJuly Colloquial - without strict attention to set forms.
How did your search on 'scientific theory definition' go?
Chomsky is great with facts, history, and the enlightenment of science … I'd like it if he had a solution to these problems that he so articulately explains.
Right on Noam. Before he got to Kropotkin, I was already thinking of mentioning him in this comment.
Nikolai Kropotkin was a Russian anarchist who wrote the book Noam cites and another one called "Cooperation In Nature".
The Russian anarchists also prophesied the draconian totalitarian future of Bolshevism, but still tried to work with it in the beginning - when Lenin ordered reprisals in the Civil War, Bakunin pleaded with him not to drag the name of communism into the mud like that.
Lee Kuan Yew is a social Darwinist. Now look at Singapore.
Park Chung Hee was a Hamilton-ist. Now look at South Korea.
Also, 82 percent of housing in Singapore is controlled by the government (Housing and Development Board). Also, Singapore holds all the black money from Philippines, Vietnam, etc. This is not to forget that it is a major shipping port for all that past by say the straits of Malacca. Now what does any of this have to do with social darwinism?
Look at that tiny exception of 4 million people in a world of billions like Asia.
🍸🍰🍮🍬🍭🍻🍶🍼🍼🍼🍼🍼🍼🍱🍹🎣🏏⛳️⚾️⚽️🎾🏈🏀🏉🛀🏻🏆🎽🎭🎼🎻🎻🎻🎯🎲🎲🎲🎲🎲👾👾👾👾👾+£¥€
Yeah look at them, decreased population.
LKY was a pragmatist.
@MrHaircut1
Great, thanks for copying and pasting from wikipedia. Can you tell me what statistical test was utilised to determine the heritability measure? Were the results statistically significant? Were there any anomalies? Was it the Stanford Binet test used? (the most common one and one Stephen J Gould actually devotes a chapter to). Were these studies conducted on identical twins raised in separate environments, so as to partially negate environmental factors (IQ may differ by country).
@maskofsan1ty : Colloquial means local or regional.
Simple:
'Darwinism' is the understanding of Darwin's theory of Natural Selection that is at the basis of all the rich diversity of life on this planet.
'Social Darwinism' is when someone confuses the IS and OUGHT distinction.
In other words its when someone says, "since nature IS Darwinistic, then we OUGHT to make society function as a literal analogy." (eg. 'survival of the fittest')
Darwinism is important for understanding the natural world, but the basis of culture should be anti-Darwinian.
"In the Descent of Man, Darwin already stressed the evolutionary function of cooperation, camaraderie, reciprocal support..." Thats basicaly what NS talked about in kameradschaft German Volk against the "alien" corrupt natures of Capitalism or Marxism-Leninism that for him were in league with Judaism.
nazism isn't socialism, it's a grift and a horrendously destructive genocidal one at that.
@@bravetherainbow nazism isn't anything considering nazi is just an empty slur. national socialism on the other hand is exactly what it#s name suggests.
@@bravetherainbow its socialism
@WalangDiyos Why change the record when the music still needs to be heard?
@AsEasyAsEasyIs How you define the metaphysical world? What do you mean by that?
Social Darwinism is to Darwinism what Cultural Marxism is to Marxism.
Also u could say Social Darwinism fails cos of collectivism vs survival of the best as top dogs usually choose their own kind vs possibly the "best" kind...that and the fact that the best is subjective.
If you look at the elite today; its not greatness that characterizes them, its comradery and exclusion. Ur either in, or ur OUT. Im sure this could be proved by looking at who have lost and who have gained money during the "financial" crisis...which obviously was planned and is part of the "new world order"; aka Globalism.
The illusion of no inside "trade" is the "everything".
bobokittyFukk that’s a great excuse for not being financially successful
@maskofsan1ty Have you considered the concept of linguistic development?
poetry.
@ssoswaldo Well said - you've nailed it.
@MrHaircut1
Got a cite for that?
I never equated femininity with empathy or logic. My point is that we only mother people (make them feel good, nurture them, take care of them, don't push them to become independent) where there should be mothering and fathering.
@prschuster Thanks for pointin' that out! I was a befuddled!
Spencer, from the same book you quote: "It seems hard that widows and orphans should be left to struggle for life or death. Nevertheless, when regarded not separately, but in connection with the interests of universal humanity, these harsh fatalities are seen to be full of the highest beneficence"
@RenegadeEconomist Commenting, as I am, more than 3 months after you posted this, I assume this has been addressed already. And if it has, I apologize, but, why the deceptive title? Why did you omit the word "Social" when deciding on the title for this video?
What I wouldn't give for a weekend in Noam Chomsky's brain. Wonderful human being, has enriched my existence for certain!
@Pigroota Would one care to expand that?
@coco7010 I don't mean to 'just jump in' to your discussion. But i need a clarification? Do you believe that ancient cultures per se were oppressive, patriarchial and generally morally and intellectually inferior to society today?
This guy is brillant
Great video, thank you very much , note to self(nts) watched all of it 1:47
@maskofsan1ty : Colloquialisms are listed as such. I offered no eye-dialectal definitions.
Enlightened self interest.
Please clarify.
@pslockett i've read the chapter, it's not out of context. Besides, these propositions themselves are so amoral, i can't think of any context that justifies them.
A question for JustinBurns - who owned the telegraph companies and who subsequently owned the telephone companies? Did Chomsky talk about rescuing and protecting technologies or was it private ownership interest?
How is 'some actions' different from 'actions' as far as the accusation is considered?
@oldstock1607 You've seen the light?
I just bought "Mutual Aide." Kropotkin is next on my reading list!
It is such a common misconception that to look at the world with Darwinian evolution in mind is to look at a giant, ruthless, never-ending competition. He mentions that cooperation, and symbiosis for that matter, are to be expected in a Darwinian understanding of the natural world. This is such a critical point for those who mistake "Social Darwinism" for Darwinian Evolution.
SILENCE IS LOUD.
@raynoobkac describe religion?
@pringenb We, 'conscience of the society', a philosophic non-profit that do free lance research on Reason,would like to share a blog that handles the theme of whether Darwinism is the ultimate law of Survival. Please get back to us for details.
...If so, what are your premises for this claim?
[INTERNET: In 1912, the First International Congress of Eugenics was held at the University of London. The president of the Congress was Major Leonard Darwin, son of Charles Darwin and one of the first English vice presidents was Sir Winston Churchill, later Prime Minister of England.]
What you need though is the view that recognizes that the apparent evil involved is a collective result of lack of foresight and ignorance. Knowing accurately what you are dealing with is the first step to dealing with it effectively.
What he means is that the ideologies that do best are not those that correspond best to reality. He made exactly your point anyway when he said that this 'has a Spencerian element to it'.
Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them.
with the aid of the policy designers-it is cooperative on one level, But only cooperative amongst the powerful and rich!
" ...One proposed explanation is that people with different genes tend to seek out different environments that reinforce the effects of those genes.[6]
A 1994 review in Behavior Genetics based on identical/fraternal twin studies found that heritability is as high as 0.80 in general cognitive ability but it also varies based on the trait, with .60 for verbal tests, .50 for spatial and speed-of-processing tests, and only .40 for memory tests.[5]"
I just gotta mention this
Natural selection is not a moral question.
It’s like saying “if you believe in gravity why are you sad if someone falls off a building?”
That's the reason the word "simplistic" exists. You're confusing is and ought: Evolution the "is" and SD the "ought" (somebody's prescription for how humans ought to behave).
Yes, humans are animals but we also transcend the other animals to a considerable (if still imperfect) degree. We have the ability to ask "If I don't want 'that' to happen to me, then why is it OK for 'that' to happen to someone else?". This is why (ideally, at least) we have laws, moral rules, etc. in the first place - to protect ourselves from non-defensive and non-punitive hurt, harm, and degradation of dignity.
@@filrabat1965 my point exactly
oh dear, title fail
@MrHaircut1
"Reality is easily observable", yes an luckily people are willing to investigate and theorise about reality, allowing us access to the theory of evolution, the beginning of the universe and to videos on youtube. I don't think people are too concerned about their theories being "nonsense". Empathy can be observed. What evolutionary purpose do you think it serves? The reason I brought up Harris' book is that it provides an illustration of a society without empathy (lifespan avg: 40).
@pslockett "Social Statics, or The Conditions essential to Happiness specified, and the First of them Developed is an 1851 book by the British polymath and economist Herbert Spencer. In it he uses the term "fitness" in applying his ideas of Lamarckian evolution to society, saying for example that "It is clear that any being whose constitution is to be moulded into fitness for new conditions of existence must be placed under those conditions." Market worship plus some words about Charity. Hooray.
@MrHaircut1
I'm afraid it's actually the intelligent people with good genes (to step inside your paradigm) that question rather than accept. Where do you think fire, the wheel, philosophy, medicine, literature, agriculture, the theory of evolution, economics and the internet came from? Accepting orthodoxy?
@tnekkc
You are btw... What is wrong about learning how the power system functions..?
What Trick? I need to know what you mean.
@gulbirk Because the video was titled Chomsky on Darwinism, and should have been titled Chomsky on SOCIAL Darwinism.
The "fittest" does not mean the strongest. It means the "most suitable". Survival of the fittest = of the most suitable.
Of course and that is why so many are lining up to hear your intelligent world views.
what is the difference?
but that's just the planet. there's a lot more space out there to grow into. and it's not about domination, just growth, and as a species gets more and more mature their growth becomes increasingly dependent on replacing competition with collaboration, turning domination into unity.
I meant "Lamarckism" both times. The point I'm making is that Spencer used Lamarckism as an *analogy* to explain his understanding of human social evolution. The idea being that we "inherit" knowledge from each other and that knowledge which is useful becomes important to us and that which is not useful disappears. Inheritance is a term in Lamarckism but Spencer meant it as the cultural transmission of knowledge like memes though he didn't use that term.
@AsEasyAsEasyIs So if I understand right metaphysical world is a fancy expression for the concept unknown?
Right
Providing public healthcare is more expensive than not providing healthcare in terms of taxation, but provides better outcomes than if healthcare provision is left entirely to the private sector (a state of affairs not seen in any country in the world, by the way). The closest example would be either Bangladesh or Somalia, the former having 96% private provision. Scarcity is not ignored in nationalised service, in fact, services are rationalised to meet demand independent of wealth.
...our priorities straight about what we should teach our children. (Another testament to the view of less social programs and government intervention iin people's lives - the public school system.) Returning to my previous point... My objective is to communicate, so any theories or schools of thought involved in my ideology are those that are generally and widely known and accepted among the population, so to provide agreed upon premises to work from in my objective of communication...
Social Darwinism is a moving target as far as definition goes but it goes hand in hand with facist tendencies, today it would define the big tech companies, social engineering think tanks, big banks, the law society and government as the blunt instrument of enforcement to drive the power of the former. The root of Social Darwinism however lies in the left side of the brain..
I've only ever heard Pinker talking about Darwinian cooperation. I gotta look into this Kropotkin fellow.
@AsEasyAsEasyIs the Germ Theory of Disease is a theory, but I don't hear you complaining about that.
Chomsky's assessment of Spencer's "survival of the fittest" is based on the common caricature of Spencer, rather than the reality. Spencer commented that, in a genuinely free society, fitness would probably be defined by the ability to form social bonds by display kindness and compassion. Ironically, his point was quite similar to the one being attributed to Kropotkin and presented as an opposing argument.
Genius.
The world's greatest living academic.
To clarify, I mean some actions of the state.
I only found out what recursion means yesterday. I'm not really criticising your definition/error.
25 people like recursive definitions.
David Sloan Wilson and Elliot Sober also work on altruism
Choice
Is evolutionary psychology social Darwinism?