Log In | Register
One of the things that I keep seeing in the debates about politics, the economy, jobs and opportunity and the basics of survival are the creeping ghost words of the Social Darwinists haunting the discussion. Some, not many, but some have even crossed over into the Eugenics area without even thinking where that road has lead us before.
The arguments tend to de-volve into who is a drag on society and who adds to the society. So I think it only fair to re-visit this discussion again because it has really always been underneath a lot of what people are saying. The idea that only the poorest of us are a drag on society has been out there since even before Darwin wrote of the evolution of the species. many thinkers even tied his theory into a social and economic construct that would describe a way to solve many if not all of our societies problems.
Those who produce and are productive are the best of the best and should be given all opportunites to grow and add to the collective. In fact, some have even suggested that the right to vote be tied to economic status and even intellectual status. That my friends is Political/Social Darwinism at its finest. The best get to voice their opinion while the rest just get to go along.
The idea that only those on the lowest economic sector are a drag on the economy, that rises all the costs of society and that are really a burden to be pointed at is as old as the hills and is a clear deviation from reality many times.
Some of our finest minds came out of those lower social and economic sectors. Artists,scientists, inventors, politicians, musicians, entrepreneurs, business owners and financial wizards have added to our society over and over again. Now, that would suggest that opportunity is there for any one to grab it. Yes, to a certain extent that is true, but there are many other deciding factors that are missed or ignored in favor of believing that opportunity is available to every single person in that society. Opportunity is a social construct but all opportunities are not the same or even available everywhere at the same time. It can be hit or miss all the time.
So, who is a drag on society, who should be the culprit for the economic problems we all face today?
Friedrich Nietzsche weighed in on this discussion and I would like to leave what he had to say.
Whenever progress is to insue, deviating natures are of great importance. Every progress must be preceded by a partial weakening, the strongest natures retaining this type and the weaker ones help to advance it. Something similar happens to the individual. There is rarely a degeneration, a truncation or even a vice or any physical or moral loss without an advance somewhere else. In a warlike and restless clan, for example, the sicklier man may have occasion to be alone, and may therefore become quieter and wiser, the one eyed man will have one eye stronger, the blind man will see deeply inward and certainly hear better. To this extent, the famous theory of the survival of the fittest does not seem to me to be the only viewpoint from which to explain the progress of strengthening of a man or a race.....
I think what Nietzsche had to say back then is still relevent to todays arguments.
We never know who will rise above, who will add to the collective social structure in a positive manner. If money is a deciding factor on who or what type of person gains and who doesn't gain then we are losing a lot of bright and productive members to an artificial social construct that is at best Monatary Darwinism. Those who always have more money get more opportunity, a larger voice and better protections. It would seem that if money is the only social construct that is important, then that will ultimately create the survival of the richest. They will survive till the foundation they stand on crumbles!
We never know where or how growth will come from, it would seem that we have ignored this factor for a while now because we have ended up thinking money always equals growth and productivity. The problem with that is that those who made the money and productivity could and do end up passing it on to less productive progeny. They are also a drag on society but we let them go because they have money, they have arrived to a point where they are considered productive even when they are not. They have the feathers of respectability while showing very little intelligent thought about how they use their money and the power money gives them.
It is not always one social sector that can be a drag on our society.
Well, I am done barking, your turn.
