Value of the "profession," bereft?

[AleoMagus]

Quote:

"I could easily argue that poker falls far below the level of Mother Theresa's work in terms of it's societal worth, but I could argue equally well that Mother Theresa's work was aimed at assisting those who would not have survived without her, and from the perspective of a social Darwinist, her work -- while meretorious -- was ultimately unnecessary."

Well! lol. What can I say?

To suggest that Mother Theresa's efforts were uneccessary because those who received her aid "would not have survived without her" is tantamount to suggesting that a trauma surgeon's efforts are unneccesary because after all, what happens to a car crash victim who does not receive his/her aid?
Why help the car crash victim, when CLEARLY they have a genetic tendency to get in car crashes? Who wants a bunch of bad drivers and unlucky people poppulating the earth. That would be contrary to the evolutionary force of natural selection and would be a step backward for society? wouldn't it? I don't think so.

Social Darwinism was a 19th and early 20th century collection of doctrines that no serious academic would stand behind today. It was only ever touted by the well to do in an attempt to justify political and social callousness to the poor in a (pseudo-) scientific way.
Social Darwinism tries to tie social success to reproductive fitness when, in fact, wealth and education are inversely correlated to birth rates.
Darwin himself saw his theories as having no implications whatsoever about the social standing of man. Natural selection can be seen as a well organized theory in genetics whereby certain beneficial genetic traits help an organism procreate and pass on those same traits. Economic success cannot be tied to genetic traits in the same way at all. Unless I am to assume that George Bush's (for example) economic and social success is somehow tied to an actual physiological structure in his brain (as opposed to the handouts and opportunities his family provided), then I am kidding myself if I think that he got where he did by any sort of evolutionary mechanism. You might even think he is a great man (who knows?), but rest assured, that is not because of Natural Selection.

There is also the fact that our decisions about society are largely MORAL. We make decisions that we feel are right in an ethical sense. To think that evolutionary processes have anything at all to do with morality is senseless. If I am to assume that what happens in nature is any guide at all for my own ethical behavior then I'd eat my children if they were unhealthy and murder my competitors. I certainly would not try to save premature infants and I'd abolish hospitals and old age homes.

Sigh.

I hate when people pick one tiny point that might not even be central to the argument a thread is making and go on and on... and here I am ranting away (to Lou Kreiger no less!). I am sorry. Perhaps this is my own unfulfilled need to fight for the rights of the weak and impoverished, but I sure hate social darwinim in all it's forms. I need to go call World Vision. I wonder if Sally Struthers is still up?

Regards,
Brad S