Why haven't we adopted Social Darwinism to create a superior human race yet? Why is it shunned in human circles yet its evidence is clear in animals?
oh plenty of people have tried but it never works
Because everyone want to breed. If you forbid it, you are violating his rights.
>>7967636
>Why is it shunned in human circles yet its evidence is clear in animals?
We can define "civilization" as a LACK of social darwinism.
>create a superior human race yet?
Because if your definition of "Superior" is a creature that can exist without the support of society, your "superior" human would be a chimpanzee.
>>7967665
Maybe if we live underwater, we could actually have better survivality, right?
>>7967636
Because humans are more complex than fucking chimpanzees.
Because social Darwinism wasn't actually proposed by Darwin, but some crackpot trying to justify his psychopathy.
>>7967661
>rights
No such thing.
>>7967636
>Why haven't we adopted Social Darwinism to create a superior human race yet?
We have, though. Why do you think half of 4chan can't get a girlfriend? They're being shunned for their inferiority.
>>7967636
We have. They're called the 1%.
>>7967679
Nah, Darwin was pretty adamant that he thought whites would replace negros since they're obviously inferior. From the Descent of Man:
>The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, convinced by general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks incessantly occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies—between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridæ—between the elephant and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and other mammals. But all these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms that have become extinct. At some future point, not distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.[5]
>>7967636
Our society is practically the social Darwinism bible. Nobody who's anyone talks about it though because humans startle easily and you don't want to clue the plebes onto the fact they're being fed into the evolutionary meat grinder.
>>7967712
>>rights
>No such thing.
If intangible "social constructs" didn't exist, then there would be no such thing as car insurance, bank accounts, law or marriage.
>>7967636
The Spartans tried. I cannot call that a success.
>>7968364
What? The Spartans lived way before Darwin.
Because democracy
>>7967742
Those concepts exist because men put their faith in them. That said, in a world OP proposes, where the weak die and the strong survive, he and almost everyone else who peruses 4chan would be dead.
>>7967636
>Why haven't we adopted Social Darwinism to create a superior human race yet?
Most of Social Darwinism's victims would be those too old to work effectively.
This should have no impact on evolution.
Or worse, if families support their elders, evolution might favor those families where people don't live much past 70.
>>7967636
Cause me getting laid is more important than progressing humanity and I don't want to limit my options.
Most modern societies won't tolerate rules or restrictions on reproductive autonomy.
That, and it's completely unenforceable on any sort of large scale.
>>7967636
Imagine this: A group of 4-5 members of a group/agreement (Keep in mind that this is your social Darwinism universe) gang up on you to take away whatever you have that they want. You won't exactly find much support in this "dispute" from bystanders, or hell even your friends, because that would even endanger their well-being (the same situation might happen to them just around the corner and they need to keep spare resources for such a situation). True, more elitist would come to power, trampling over the weaker ones, but it's not for the benefit of evolution to a superior human race, it's only so they could avoid getting trampled over themselves. Not to mention how much people would become paranoid and their relations would shun (I think your picture there is quite fitting for my opinion).
Humans are successful because they have the ability to work together. You are proposing to eliminate that source of success.
>>7967636
>Why is it shunned in human circles yet its evidence is clear in animals?
Jews stop that shit where ever it starts.
>>7967719
Is this bait ?
>>7967719
Either way.
Pic related.
>>7968397
>What? The Spartans lived way before Darwin.
How does that relate to the original question??
I for one cannot see the Greeks have evolved a gene for financial acumen. At least not one I like.
>>7967636
I feel that you have reached the point where you agree that we should kill / prevent dumb and impaired people from breeding. But you have to take the redpill on race before we get to that point.
Oh and the reason we can't do that is firstly because this is America and we should be libertarian, secondly because of liberalism led by the jews.
>>7967718
Nope, most of that is luck and connections having little to do with realistic survivability application. And then there's old money.
>>7967636
We did. This is what social darwinism looks like. Civilization is its product.
>>7967636
becuz redditors
>>7967661
Is it really about breeding though? Most of the strife is caused by the big picture society and not the individual. Government constantly oversteps its bounds while corporations pour money into politicians for litigious support. College is increasingly expensive while the population seems to be getting more ignorant and more complacent, none of this has anything to do with an individuals choice to breed. What you could speculate though is that the human currency is depreciating rapidly as the population continues to climb. Schools become less effective at teaching, pay only increases in a very marginal threshold while the cost of living consistently goes up all the while inflation is occurring on top of taxation. College gets more expensive as the number of attendees increases while the number of occupants remains the same. Entry level jobs are largely provided by huge corporate entities but to grow in their systems you must first wait for previous generations to retire or move up with you in tow. Stepping out from that is impractical as corporations have a stranglehold on virtually every commodity, and even taking business from them they have no need to pay any mind because they have thousands or tens of thousands of stores placed just about everywhere. The corporate interest isn't about innovation it's about profit exclusively and so they cater to the demographics while the few small and mid sized businesses suffer from the mass appeal that the huge corporations can generate through marketing campaigns and demo research. This is also why people are dying of dysentery, malaria and other curable disease in Africa, because curing it simply isn't profitable unless it provides a tax break.
>ctrl+f eug
>no results
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
With latest technologies is possible to use artificial insemination and choose the best genes that humanity has to offer, while eugenics was frowned upon in the past because of its invasive and unethical methods, it's not the case anymore; in a drop of sperm there're hundreds of millions of genetic combinations and even the most retarded and deformed individual can have a chance to generate perfectly healthy offsprings.
