Evolution is antithetical to racism

Dr Adequate

He says that this would be the logical result of applying the "evolutionary regimentation" that he's denouncing, as we can see by reading the article.

This is a curious method of "denouncing". Step one: make a carefully thought-out, logically sound argument in favor of something. Step two: make a threadbare, insubstantial argument against it.

That is not in fact "the one reason he gives", as we can see by reading the article. Indeed, we can see that from the first snippet you quote, where he says that there are "other reasons".

I saw him mention other arguments, but the "one reason" was put in quotes because it's what he said. Guess that slipped past you. That's okay, the "other arguments" he claimed to make seem to have slipped past both of us.

It might, however, convince everyone else that they should not invest any individual with such power.

Ah, but if that's the intention, there are dozens of better arguments available against investing an individual with excessive power. He must've just run out of steam about that time. Poor man couldn't seem to muster any of them.

The alternative to practising eugenics is not to practise eugenics.

So would the paraphrase apply: "the alternative to practicing evolutionism is not to practice evolutionism"? That seems to be in keeping with what your comrades claimed to advocate.

In fact, he has written an attack on eugenics which at no point involves advocating racism, as we can see by reading the article.

So eugenics is separate from racism? I always thought of it as a fancy-dress synonym. (When the thug down the street does it, it's 'racism'. When a 'scientist' does it it's 'eugenics', right?) It's a very fine distinction to make. How can one tell from the text which he was talking about, and which (if either) he was excluding? And please do be so kind as to clarify how this subtle difference has any impact whatsoever on the arguments involved.

Chiroptera

Huxley isn't speaking about evolution. He's speaking about animal husbandry. Eugenicists aren't applying the theory of evolution; they are applying the usual methods known to animal breeders for centuries.

Huxley says otherwise. Were he here, I can't say he'd hesitate to obfuscate, and join those who attempt to muck up the discussion. But he's not here, so he has no opportunity to change his tune.

This leaves you in the position of disputing the teachings of your prophet. Not that that means beans, because you'll be welcome to recant as soon as the discussion ends.

It seems the opposition has fallen into a trap by either failing to read thoroughly enough, or failing to retain the message of the false prophet Huxley.

They argue that "not applying eugenics" is the implied valid alternative to "applying eugenics".

But Huxley has already ruled out "doing nothing".

from "VII"

Thus, as soon as the colonists began to multiply, the administrator would have to face the tendency to the reintroduction of the cosmic struggle into his artificial fabric, in consequence of the competition, not merely for the commodities, but for the means of existence. When the colony reached the limit of possible expansion, the surplus population must be disposed of somehow; or the fierce struggle for existence must recommence and destroy that peace, which is the fundamental condition of the maintenance of the state of art against the state of nature. Supposing the administrator to be guided by purely scientific considerations, he would, like the gardener, meet this most serious difficulty by systematic extirpation, or exclusion, of the superfluous.

If nothing is done, civilization must perish when the population exceeds the limits of the environment. This argument appeals to fear as well as logic.*

So since "doing nothing" has been ruled out, and whatever authority (even non-tyrannical types) one chooses to imagine is not going to "be guided by purely scientific considerations"; it looks like they're going to need some sort of alternative. Huxley conveniently omits to offer any.

Based on the evidence, a fair evaluation is that Huxley argues strongly in favor of eugenics/racism, and then proceeds to feign (or mysteriously becomes incompetent, if you prefer) argument against these. Even if one accepts the not-very-scientific argument that "nobody is smart enough", one is still left between a rock and a hard place because there's no alternative. Either implement the measures, or civilization must perish.

And evolutionists have never offered any alternatives since that time, to the best of my recollection. They still warn of the dangers of overpopulation, and they still generally maintain that 'scientific' knowledge is superior to all other knowledge. While they may or may not openly advocate eugenics/racism, they make no small effort to make everyone aware of the hard place, while conditioning everyone they can reach to be prepared to accept their rock.

* See earlier parts of the piece for his assessment of the importance of "that peace, which is the fundamental condition of the maintenance of the state of art against the state of nature". I'm not going to past the whole thing here.

Dr Adequate has posted

Translated into English: you are lying about Huxley's opinions, and you know it, and you know that if he was alive he'd say that you were a liar, but because he's dead you can lie about his opinions without him pointing out that you're a liar. I should advise you that this does not prevent other people from reading what he wrote and observing that you are a liar, which is self-evident. You are lying about Huxley like you lied about Nietzsche and like you lied about Marx. You are a liar. And again, I should like to ask: given that everyone reading this thread knows that you are lying, whom do you hope to decieve?

I can't help but speculate that you were jotting down a note to yourself and inadvertently posted it.

Everyone can indeed see who's been truthful and who has been otherwise, and I hope and pray that they shall. In future, I expect they'll understand if I don't pay you too much attention.

He says if you don't apply eugenics that evolution takes over. Big whap.

Your earlier posts were better. I still intend to explain a few things you mentioned.

In this case, I'll explain what you don't mention. Your "Big whap" is a tremendous understatement of the situation. A group of humans becoming overcrowded to the point that it abandons all behaviors associated with civilization and resorts to violence to determine who survives - that's the scenario. Mankind reverting to a wild state of panic, and all you say is "Big whap"?

With no trace of civilization, there's nothing to restrain racism. So how do we end up with anything other than chaos and racism? What naturalistic mechanism would you invoke to select only non-racists for survival? If there is such a mechanism, why has it not been effective?

Still irrelevant to the issue: how does the theory of evolution necessarily result in racism (not eugenics, racism)?

*

Yes, we're all aware that you moved the goalposts. The original premise was that evolutionism doesn't support racism, and now you've changed it to necessarily resulting in racism.

If you're patient & polite I may continue to further demonstrate this. Or is that what you're afraid of?

* I noticed that your sentence is more accurate than intended. Your new goalposts are slightly irrelevant, although in reaching them I have already surpassed the original goal.

RAZD

For I don't understand your confusion between eugenics and racism if you are well versed in the definitions of words. One is about selecting individual organisms for desirable characteristics and the other is about rejecting whole populations as unworthy regardless of characteristics.

I'll do my best. As I have already confessed, I am unable to define 'race'. I'm not aware of any definition that fits the modern sense of the term without being overly subjective and/or ignorant.

But even so, I see there are flaws here: a 'race' cannot be distinguished from the rest of the population without noting characteristics. So neither case can be said to operate "regardless of characteristics".

Eugenics is also in effect when selection is made against "undesirable" characteristics, not merely when it selects for "desirable" characteristics.

The only way to have one without the other is to compile two lists: one for 'race' purposes and one for eugenics purposes; and ensure that no characteristic exists on both lists. But even this process would be an artifice, would it not?

And is it not still racism to discriminate for/against descendants of a race which use to exist and has been assimilated? Is it not still racism to select based upon a characteristic which is predominantly found among one 'racial' group?

Can you give an hypothetical eugenics scenario which would clearly not be racist? This might help me see the difference. I shouldn't like to say racism = gutter eugenics if this isn't so. But if it is so, I see no reason to keep it a secret.

RAZD

quote:

---

What

Huxley says ...

... is irrelevant.

---

I can see why you'd want this to be so. I cannot see any reason to think it might be so.

He continues to be a highly-esteemed authority among evolutionists, and more importantly, he makes a sound argument (if you accept his a priori's) which demonstrates the 'need' for eugenics/racism.

Racism says that one (or more) whole subpopulation(s) of people are inferior to one (or more) whole subpopulation(s)

Evolutionism says that countless entire populations of species have proven themselves to be inferior by going extinct. The individual vs. group game won't work, since evolutionism isn't shy and has had much to say about both individuals and groups.

Evolution says that unfit individuals are selected against such that unfit hereditary traits are gradually removed from the (sub)population(s) gene pool. In other words evolution tends to select for fit subpopulations and populations of people in every ecosystem they inhabit. How then can any subpopulation be inferior?

It can go extinct, and that's a pretty good indicator.

But as we well know, evolutionism says humans are a special case. The consensus among evolutionists has long been that other factors supercede/impede 'natural selection' among humans. We've gone over this before. If your sect disagrees with the mainstream, that's not really my department.

No, I don't think there's any argument at all that 'superior' and 'inferior' life exists within the evolutionary paradigm. Not on the individual level or on the group level. They invoke these concepts to explain the origin of any organ you can name. ('Survival advantage' = 'superiority'.) The argument would be over how to tell in advance which individual or group will prove to be superior or inferior.

But again, if you intend to insist that there's no such thing as 'superior' and 'inferior', that's between your sect and mainstream evolutionism.

Genetics shows us that any trait we happen to choose has a wide variation in all populations such that the differences within any population are greater than the differences between populations.

I think you're talking about animals and not people. There are plenty of traits which occur predominantly among certain groups, and some of them are obvious to the naked eye. How else do you think groups are defined?

But even among animals there are traits which are more frequent among one group and less frequent among others. Can one not see that Dalmatians have a much higher amount of spotted fur than any other group of dogs? I suspect this is genetic.

And it's pretty obvious that it must be so. Any time a new trait appears, it must spread. It doesn't appear spontaneously among all members of the species. It will spread locally at first, and then perhaps make its way into the general population.

All traits had to start somewhere, and younger traits can therefore not be present in groups they haven't reached. This is a very good thing, too. I don't expect any creature would live too very long if it were otherwise.

Genetics shows us that any trait we happen to choose has a wide variation in all populations such that the differences within any population are greater than the differences between populations.

The more I look at this, the more certain I am that you misworded it. I hope this was not what you intended to say. The first part of the sentence has "trait" singular, and the last part has "differences" plural. The result is akin to "apples & oranges", except with numbers. I'm giving up on it, at any rate.

As I've thrice defeated the original nonsense I think that's enough. It's not hard to gauge the spirit of those who continue to participate. They're not here to learn, but to propagandize and insult; I've see enough of that.

Strike 1 If evolutionism were antithetical to racism, it would contribute in a rational, logical manner to arguments against racism while providing no support for racism. It doesn't do this.

Strike 2 The claim that evolutionism doesn't support racism has been handily defeated by history.

Strike 3 The goalposts were moved, and Huxley managed to find the zone with his curveball, demonstrating that evolutionism logically leads to racism.

Oh yes, and calling me a racist is what I predicted. Ooooh what a clever trap. And how clever of you to step into it yourselves! You stinking eugenecists are the racists.

But I must revise my previous equasion: eugenecists = gutter racists. That's more accurate. You're less respectable because you try to hide your racism rather than having the guts to say what you are and face your enemies. You're smaller men than skinheads.

If I ever want to be insulted by cowards again, I sure know where to find them. Worse luck next time.

AdminPaul

But pointing out that CTD is engaging in the usual creationist tactic of making false and baseless accusations is quite alright.

So pointing out that my "accusations" are anything but false should be alright.

Marx' partner, Engels (1864):

These fellows are great fanatics and, for that reason, really took my fancy. You must have read something by that extraordinary ‘Dr K. J. Clement of North Friesland’. The man is typical of the whole race. These fellows are in deadly earnest about their struggle against the Danes, which is their whole purpose in life, and the Schleswig-Holstein theory is not an end but a means for them. They regard themselves as a physically and morally superior race to the Danes, and indeed they are.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1864/letters/64_11_02a.htm

"Revolution and Counter-revolution in Germany" Marx himself:

The civil and military officers in the Austrian service form a race of their own; their fathers have been in the service of the Kaiser, and so will their sons be; they belong to none of the multifarious nationalities congregated under the wing of the double-headed eagle; they are, and ever have been, removed from one end of the empire to the other, from Poland to Italy, from Germany to Transylvania; Hungarian, Pole, German, Roumanian, Italian, Croat, every individual not stamped with "imperial and royal authority," etc., bearing a separate national character, is equally despised by them; they have no nationality, or rather, they alone make up the really Austrian nation.

and

It was about this time, say 1843 or 1844, that a particular branch of literature, agreeable to this change, was established in Germany. A few Austrian writers, novelists, literary critics, bad poets, the whole of them of very indifferent ability, but gifted with that peculiar industrialism proper to the Jewish race, established themselves in Leipsic and other German towns out of Austria, and there, out of the reach of Metternich, published a number of books and pamphlets on Austrian affairs.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/germany/ch04.htm

Don't know why anyone should care to defend these racist evolutionist double-talkers, but I think this evidence will suffice to doom such efforts.

Note that racists never have been and never will be restricted to the modern meta-race concepts. They can define any group they want as a 'race'. So can the gutter racists.

I asked

quote:

---

Can you give an hypothetical eugenics scenario which would clearly not be racist?

---

bluegenes' response from Post #163:

Yes. You select out all short sighted individuals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_sighted#Ethnicity_and_race

The prevalence of myopia in has been reported as high as 70-90% in some Asian countries. 30-40% in Europe and the United States, and 10-20% in Africa.

Good job, gutter racist.

I mention this earlier, and Oh it's a big deal that I don't demonstrate it. We get claim after claim that Marx wasn't racist.

Then you accuse me of making "false accusations". I haven't done this, so I have to guess what in the world you're talking about. Pardon me if I can't read your mind.

If it's off topic now, it was just as off-topic when the evolutionists were carrying on about it, now wasn't it?

And I don't see that it's very off topic to discuss the founders of evolutionist & racist philosophies. But that's fine. This is kinda beatin' a dead horse anyhow. I was a little concerned that some naive reader might stumble in and mistakenly believe the erroneous portion of your post. Not too much danger of that now.

Dr Adequate

But since you're back, let's have some fun. You claimed that Marx proved that evolution was racist.

I never said anything at about getting back into this.

When an admin asserts that one has made "false accusations", there's a chance a naive, inattentive person might tend to believe it. Naturally, nobody who's been paying close attention would make this error.

The mistake can be explained easily enough. Not everyone has time to read everything carefully, and it may well be that the sheer volume of the slander in combination with time limitations resulted in an error. I hope this is the case, but I lack the grounds to be overly optimistic.

If you'd like me back in, give me a post number where I said "Marx proved that evolution was racist." Alternatively, show me some significant benefit I can derive from wading in slanderous spam.

Dr Adequate

Your falsehood about Marx is in post #93. Apart from that, I can make little of your post, which appears to be a set of elliptical references to the fantasy world in your head, with which I am, fortunately, unacquainted.

Don't know why you want to continue this, but I'll see what I can do.

How can we advance the discussion further?

I said "advance the discussion".

Neither option is of any help. One is dishonest and the other has been deemed "off-topic".

It seems a bit odd to me, this situation. I'm said to have "falsely accused Marx of being racist evolutionist. I've already demonstrated some of his racism, so my great insult against him is calling him an "evolutionist"? That's funny. And I have to wonder what kind of defense you guys were planning...

Looks like we're done then. I'm not the one who said it's off topic to discuss the racist evolutionist founders of these philosophies. If you're all that interested, that Marx link has a good collection of his books and letters. Read all you can stomach.

I finished my job, and offered to hang around. So, what's left?