What does Evolution mean for Government?

[Edmond Dantes]

If evolution is correct, what does that mean for government? Evolution is at its core the idea that those fittest to survive and reproduce will, and those who aren't will die off. Through this diversity and a fitter species is produced. (I know this is a simplification, but I think it captures the concept.) It seems like our modern society and government (I am only speaking for the western world that I know) are running counteractive to this. We care for those that wouldn't normally survive or shouldn't normally survive. We also discourage the "fit" from preying on the "weak". By engaging in these practices is society removing itself from the factors of evolution, and marking itself for eventual downfall?

I didn't write this to be inflammatory. I don't believe that we should apply these principles, and I even doubt the idea of evolution to begin with (but that is not my topic). My topic is that if evolution did and is occurring shouldn't society and government align itself with these factors in order to stay "fit". What would an evolutionary aligned government look like?

 

[oshron]

evolution--or more correctly social darwinism--more accurately specifically describes capitalism rather than just government; going further, it would endorse monopolization, pushing out weaker competitors in order to ensure your own success. the US government, at least, has anti-monopoly laws; i don't know if any others do.

as for a government based on evolution/social darwinism, it would have to embrace capitalism and likely wouldn't outlaw monopolization. i can't imagine that such a country would be the best place to live.

there's actually also a fictional example of this type of government: the Holy Britannian Empire from Code Geass, a Sunrise anime series. here's a clip of the Emperor of Britannia early in the series voicing Britannia's philosophy. to give some context, he's making this speech at his own son's funeral after he was murdered.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du2mLuK9edk]Code Geass Emperor speech(English) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Zeno]

Governments evolve in their own way. What you call keeping the weak alive, i see as protecting the haves from the have-nots.

 

[Edmond Dantes]

LOL

wow, I've watched Code Geass before, and I would agree that this is quite apt. (props for making an anime work on a historical forum.)

 

[oshron]

LOL

wow, I've watched Code Geass before, and I would agree that this is quite apt. (props for making an anime work on a historical forum.)

i've done it before, actually, linking a speech about perfectionism by Mayuri Kurotsuchi from Bleach in relation to why science isn't supposed to be complete

 

[PM96]

Yes, the term for this is Social Darwinism. Charles Darwin never thought that his scientific theories should be politicized, but they did. The belief that stronger species prevail over the weaker species, now meant that stronger people should prevail over weaker people in human society. This was used a justification for imperialism (stronger cultures and countries should subjugate the weaker ones) and eugenics (if people are mentally or physically weaker, or if they belong to an inferior race, then their gene pool should be restricted). Since these ideas were popularized by fascists such as Hitler, they have officially been discredited, but I would be unsurprised to know that there are still a lot of people who think this way.

 

[Port]

I have wondered if there was a process for "De Evolution?"
I think Marx wrote that economies and the societies related to each evolve.

Evolution is going from the simple to more complex in that regards government does evolve. (But for the better I would say no.)

 

[Tripwire]

Looking at evolution that way ignores the fact that humans are social animals with a likely evolved capacity for altruism and group cooperation.

 

[Lucius]

In re the OP; two steps forward, one step back. That's how we "evolve."

Like the man said, "Villeins ye are and villeins ye shall remain." Later, he went into the Dustbin of History.

 

[Gudenrath]

Evolution has nothing to do with governments. It is a theory proposed for the transformation of of biological life, not for social constructs created by humans.

 

[Linschoten]

Indeed; social Darwinism is pseudo-scientific rubbish, latterly displaced by other kinds of pseudo-scientific rubbish, e.g. sociobiology as applied to human behaviour and evolution.

 

[Aristo]

I have myself no certain opinion. but I do feel an ear-king of the reverse view that government is the Dawkins's type of filling of the gap for the socially progressive forms of rising to the higher level of evolution. There is this way no reason to prefer one system of economics over another. However, religiously there is the propensity to avoid God that way upon the hereditary refusal of politics.

 

[Lucius]

The word can just mean "a process of developing." That's why back in the last century, people would use the phrase "Darwinian evolution" unless the context preluded any confusion. As far as I know, "evolution" means "Darwinian evolution" nowadays(except when it doesn't).

 

[JTWuest]

Darwin never mentioned "survival of the fittest"

 

[Toltec]

Indeed; social Darwinism is pseudo-scientific rubbish, latterly displaced by other kinds of pseudo-scientific rubbish, e.g. sociobiology as applied to human behaviour and evolution.

As any naturalist will tell you, the idea of Social Darwinism is based on Darwinism is nonsense because economists haven't a clue what Darwinism actually is.

 

[PM96]

Indeed; social Darwinism is pseudo-scientific rubbish, latterly displaced by other kinds of pseudo-scientific rubbish, e.g. sociobiology as applied to human behaviour and evolution.

But when Social Darwinism was popular, it wasn't condemned as pseudo-science, because I guess at that time there was already a widespread belief that people were socially or biologically "superior" or "inferior".

 

[Recusant]

Indeed; social Darwinism is pseudo-scientific rubbish, latterly displaced by other kinds of pseudo-scientific rubbish, e.g. sociobiology as applied to human behaviour and evolution.

But when Social Darwinism was popular, it wasn't condemned as pseudo-science, because I guess at that time there was already a widespread belief that people were socially or biologically "superior" or "inferior".

Yes, it could be said that became known as "Social Darwinism" existed long before that name was invented. It was the ideological underpinning of the imperialism of the European nations. As such, it arose from ignorance and prejudice as a convenient justification for brutal and exploitative policies. That certain people co-opted the name and ideas of Darwin in support of the pre-existing ideology doesn't mean that the ideology had its origin in the science of Darwin.

There was never any actual scientific evidence in support of the ideas of Social Darwinism, but the science of evolution itself was in its infancy, and various hypotheses (including Social Darwinism) were able to gain currency merely by adopting scientific terminology. Given the social environment of the time and the pre-existing prejudices, it's not surprising that Social Darwinism seemed plausible to some people. It wasn't effectively challenged until more comprehensive scientific evidence became available.

The gaps in knowledge concerning the mechanisms of inheritance as well as disease transmission made it impossible to tackle the basic scientific questions posed by eugenics. Even after the field of genetics was established in the early 1900s, another two decades passed before researchers finally demonstrated that selective breeding among humans could not rid society of transmittable diseases such as syphilis, nor could it eliminate conditions, such as alcoholism and mental illness.

From "Beyond Darwin: Eugenics, Social Darwinism, and the Social Theory of the Natural Selection of Humans"