Welp, this is the article I always wanted to write but never could wrap my head around all the moving parts. Thank you for writing it, sharing it, and salting the vibes.
Those numbers you dropped on the wellness industry versus pharmaceutical knocked me out and is something I need to figure out how to passive aggressively get in front of my antivax aunt's eyeballs. Great post, can't wait for more (but will wait😂)!
This post touched me deeply. Because I have heard recently from other movers & shakers in the scientific world that humans are not a product of evolution (See Gregg Braden), and John Peterson's report on the economic need of the current government to cull the elderly, these ideas are intersecting in my brain and heart. I will take the opportunity to purge my own language and beliefs. After being in the medical field for 50 years working in geriatrics, I see a slew of common references to “the vegetable garden” and “waste of skin”. And many regarding the addicts as well! (Personal to me in recovery). Thank you so much for this well researched, full hearted piece! nora ann
it is physically painful how much I need people to know the things in this article. It is so normalized in our society that a person perceivably having low intelligence means they deserve to be physically abused, ridiculed, and even dead. that they are inherently a comedic concept, not worth empathy. That’s not okay! Those are human beings. This philosophy is fucked.
So why do people who consider themselves successful attribute that success to their genes? Regression to the mean shows that economic success is the result of many complex (and often random) factors. That it is really really hard to keep flipping all the switches the right way.
Not only is the information well integrated in this article, but your writing style/voice makes it engaging and pleasant to read. Thank you for the labor you put into this 🙏🏼
One summer I took a summer course in history. There were about 25 people in my class. One student was completing her science degree. She saw I was using an FM system in class as I am hearing impaired and after class she stopped me in the cafeteria to ask about my hearing loss….specifically the nature of my loss. She was focusing on genetics in her degree. When I told her my high frequency loss was inherited, she asked if I planned on having children and was clearly surprised when I said I hoped to have children. It was clear to me that she thought my life was worth less than hers and that she thought I should not have children. She even talked about the probability of my possible future child being hearing impaired. I was just stunned, I have never forgotten that interaction. Sometimes people say things they shouldn’t without regard to the emotional harm their comments inflict of others. Despite my loss I was able to get 2 university degrees, academic awards and to practice law as a litigator for 29 years. I used my expertise to help others during what was for most clients an expensive and emotionally stressful and sad time.
You are mixing social Darwinism with your understanding of evolution, not unlike eugenicists of the past and present.
The science, as you say, talks about natural selection in the animal world. Organisms in the animal and plant kingdoms that, over hundreds of thousands of years, evolved to best adapt to their environment, survive, and reproduce most successfully. Some of this natural selection, over millions of years, led to the evolution of man. But the evolution of man and survival of the fittest are two different things. Especially, as I said in the article, since survival of the fittest was not a part of Darwin’s thesis. He did not say those words in relation to man and society.
What you are talking about is social Darwinism, an idea that incorrectly takes Darwin’s observations of natural selection in the plant and animal worlds and applies it to society and man. This allows for you to believe it is natural, in society (not the animal kingdom), for “the fit” to eat “the weak” because, as you mention, “nobody owes us anything.”
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the science you are clinging to in order to support your claim. Applying predator and prey language from the animal kingdom does you (and humanity) a disservice. If the lion eats the deer (which is a simplified way to speak about evolution in the first place) which humans are the lions? Which are the deer? Is their prey on beings of their same species natural? Or is it cannibalism (natural in some species but not ours)? Social Darwinism knows its cannibalism, because it’s a building block of the eugenics movement.
At the same time, you say that without modern governments, those of us born disabled would be dead. Correct! Meaning that we have not let many people die. We cared for one another, actively. (This took the active work of PEOPLE, including the input of disabled people, working to create a government that represented us, by the way. It didn’t happen just on the whim of a caring omniscient government.) We, collectively, provided what the natural world would not, because we are not plants evolving over hundreds of thousands of years. We are people in a society. And just because governments (who should protect people) have worked to create protections in the past, does not mean those same governments were not instigators and activators of eugenics before and now.
Your idea that eugenics is “more active than letting the weak die out” is an interesting one when every single example about eugenics I listed in this article is an active approach taken by the government to cull a population they deem weak. I’d be interested to know what you think is an active choice of the government vs a passive “letting” of the “weak” die out. Is it taking away benefits? Is it silencing the NIH? Is it sterilization?
Regardless, the guiding through line of the article is that statements like “we progress as a society because the perceived weak die out” is a byproduct of eugenics thinking, likely as a result of societal conditioning. Your comment proves that.
I’ll say it again: we cannot outrun disability. Eat all the “weak” you want, the “weak” will return. It is an inevitability and a guarantee. Therefore “the weakest” in society will never die off, and their death cannot make the species stronger. While an animal species might be made stronger over hundreds of thousands of years evolving past certain genetic traits that made them more susceptible to predators, society has never been made stronger by willing away entire groups. It is, in fact, always made weaker when we choose to segregate, genocide, or prey on the collective.
I’ll say it again. The term “survival of the fittest” as applied to man and society has nothing to do with Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection. When you apply it to society and man, you are talking about social Darwinism. Are you truly wary of giving extra or different meaning to words?
I agree with you that people don’t care about things unless it affects them personally. I think it would be a wonderful evolution of society if that changed. Our survival depends on it, especially now. Adapt or die would be a more appropriate application of Darwin’s thinking to society—and we are collectively failing.
This comment section is not long enough to go through every government that is actively killing people. Maybe that’ll be another post. But our own is on the list.
Calling out the historical implications of our language is not giving extra or different meaning to words. It’s exposing where they come from so we can decide if we still want to use them. This exposure seems to be making you uncomfortable, but it doesn’t make the facts wrong.
I just want to clarify here for anyone else reading. When I said evolution of man and survival of the fittest have nothing to do with each other, I meant the way Darwin employed the term versus the way this commenter and others employ the term. Social Darwinism uses Darwin’s theory of evolution and applies it to society and man. Sophia is right in that while Darwin didn’t come up with the term “survival of the fittest” he used it as a synonym for natural selection. However, once you apply that thinking to society, you are not talking about the evolution of man anymore. You’re talking about social Darwinism’s version of “survival of the fittest,” which is that the weak will die out to progress society “as they should.”
Therefore you cannot make a blanket statement that the science says survival of the fittest, no need to care about each other, dog eat dog world. These are two different things we are talking about and we have to be super clear on that.
Wanted to clarify as it’s important to be super super factual on these things and apologize if my quick responses muddied that differentiation a bit!
It is only ever people who tell me I am changing definitions to the words who disagree with my thinking on our eugenicist government. Despite ample evidence through definitions and history to show otherwise. But it’s silly.
Elon Musk is a Nazi, no? He’s not marching people into a gas chamber, but he uses the salute right? This article implicates tech in eugenics today, showing this affiliation, right?
So just because our government is not walking people into gas chambers, could they still be running policy with eugenics as the end goal? Our government, that has brought Musk in to make “efficiencies” at the expense of disabled people (among others) as outlined in this article? That government.
Is cutting off Medicaid by $880 billion not akin to a Nazi salute? (If you want to say it’s FOR rich people and not FOR eugenics, do the people making this policy not think the rich are superior to the weaker poor?) The millions of disabled people who rely on Medicaid for home health care, medications, and telehealth who will be cut off without access to care, doctors, or medication are not being marched into a gas chamber but are they not being systemically culled? Just because the death is slower and more palatable because it is out of sight, does not mean the intent is not the same.
And again, my point of this article is the INTENT and MEANING behind our words. Do we know what we’re saying? Do we know where it comes from? Do we know what it means, historically? Do we know what we may unconsciously be supporting by choosing to say it?
Solidly standing by “survival of the fittest” as the means and ways of society and man is standing by a fallacy. And it’s standing up for eugenicists who created that thinking.
If you had chosen to actually read my article and my responses, and accept our slightly different outlook on the world, you’d see I never said this was a Trump issue. But an American one. You can’t overlook Trump’s involvement, as he now leads America.
We will only disagree on survival of the fittest. You are choosing to apply it to society and man. In doing so, that’s social Darwinism. That’s the social aspect of it. I can’t argue with someone who willfully refuses facts. Even a very well-published one. Congrats on that, by the way.
I think your response, and especially the anger in it, is really telling here—not to mention your reveal that you don’t “like” the word “ableism.” What did you call it? A punishment for being lucky to be born able-bodied? What would you call racism? Homophobia? Misogyny? Why is the name we give oppressive systems somehow viewed, by you, as oppressive to those that uphold it?
This doesn’t have to be contentious. Like I said before, we agree on a lot. You’re mad that I think we should care about each other, I guess. AND that I believe disabled people are not an acceptable loss—that our loss does not create a progressed society. That actually our collective care is vital to our collective survival. All I can say is that wishing we all care about each other is so obviously the opposite of miserable. I wonder what you’d call your outlook.
Welp, this is the article I always wanted to write but never could wrap my head around all the moving parts. Thank you for writing it, sharing it, and salting the vibes.
I still feel like I left out at least six things. Thank you so much for reading and your kind words ❤️❤️❤️
Those numbers you dropped on the wellness industry versus pharmaceutical knocked me out and is something I need to figure out how to passive aggressively get in front of my antivax aunt's eyeballs. Great post, can't wait for more (but will wait😂)!
This post touched me deeply. Because I have heard recently from other movers & shakers in the scientific world that humans are not a product of evolution (See Gregg Braden), and John Peterson's report on the economic need of the current government to cull the elderly, these ideas are intersecting in my brain and heart. I will take the opportunity to purge my own language and beliefs. After being in the medical field for 50 years working in geriatrics, I see a slew of common references to “the vegetable garden” and “waste of skin”. And many regarding the addicts as well! (Personal to me in recovery). Thank you so much for this well researched, full hearted piece! nora ann
Thank you so much for reading and for this important insight!
nailed it !!!!
it is physically painful how much I need people to know the things in this article. It is so normalized in our society that a person perceivably having low intelligence means they deserve to be physically abused, ridiculed, and even dead. that they are inherently a comedic concept, not worth empathy. That’s not okay! Those are human beings. This philosophy is fucked.
This is so excellent, thanks for saying all the things I haven’t managed to yet!
Really thoughtful and well written!! Thanks for laying out what so many of us need to know.
Period. You ate that.
Really fine article!
So why do people who consider themselves successful attribute that success to their genes? Regression to the mean shows that economic success is the result of many complex (and often random) factors. That it is really really hard to keep flipping all the switches the right way.
Not only is the information well integrated in this article, but your writing style/voice makes it engaging and pleasant to read. Thank you for the labor you put into this 🙏🏼
YES.
Has anyone else noticed that neurology is simply recycled Eugenics?
🖤
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU !!!!
One summer I took a summer course in history. There were about 25 people in my class. One student was completing her science degree. She saw I was using an FM system in class as I am hearing impaired and after class she stopped me in the cafeteria to ask about my hearing loss….specifically the nature of my loss. She was focusing on genetics in her degree. When I told her my high frequency loss was inherited, she asked if I planned on having children and was clearly surprised when I said I hoped to have children. It was clear to me that she thought my life was worth less than hers and that she thought I should not have children. She even talked about the probability of my possible future child being hearing impaired. I was just stunned, I have never forgotten that interaction. Sometimes people say things they shouldn’t without regard to the emotional harm their comments inflict of others. Despite my loss I was able to get 2 university degrees, academic awards and to practice law as a litigator for 29 years. I used my expertise to help others during what was for most clients an expensive and emotionally stressful and sad time.
Completely agree 👏🏼
Thank you for this! Complete oversight on my part. I’ll make an edit now.
You are mixing social Darwinism with your understanding of evolution, not unlike eugenicists of the past and present.
The science, as you say, talks about natural selection in the animal world. Organisms in the animal and plant kingdoms that, over hundreds of thousands of years, evolved to best adapt to their environment, survive, and reproduce most successfully. Some of this natural selection, over millions of years, led to the evolution of man. But the evolution of man and survival of the fittest are two different things. Especially, as I said in the article, since survival of the fittest was not a part of Darwin’s thesis. He did not say those words in relation to man and society.
What you are talking about is social Darwinism, an idea that incorrectly takes Darwin’s observations of natural selection in the plant and animal worlds and applies it to society and man. This allows for you to believe it is natural, in society (not the animal kingdom), for “the fit” to eat “the weak” because, as you mention, “nobody owes us anything.”
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the science you are clinging to in order to support your claim. Applying predator and prey language from the animal kingdom does you (and humanity) a disservice. If the lion eats the deer (which is a simplified way to speak about evolution in the first place) which humans are the lions? Which are the deer? Is their prey on beings of their same species natural? Or is it cannibalism (natural in some species but not ours)? Social Darwinism knows its cannibalism, because it’s a building block of the eugenics movement.
At the same time, you say that without modern governments, those of us born disabled would be dead. Correct! Meaning that we have not let many people die. We cared for one another, actively. (This took the active work of PEOPLE, including the input of disabled people, working to create a government that represented us, by the way. It didn’t happen just on the whim of a caring omniscient government.) We, collectively, provided what the natural world would not, because we are not plants evolving over hundreds of thousands of years. We are people in a society. And just because governments (who should protect people) have worked to create protections in the past, does not mean those same governments were not instigators and activators of eugenics before and now.
Your idea that eugenics is “more active than letting the weak die out” is an interesting one when every single example about eugenics I listed in this article is an active approach taken by the government to cull a population they deem weak. I’d be interested to know what you think is an active choice of the government vs a passive “letting” of the “weak” die out. Is it taking away benefits? Is it silencing the NIH? Is it sterilization?
Regardless, the guiding through line of the article is that statements like “we progress as a society because the perceived weak die out” is a byproduct of eugenics thinking, likely as a result of societal conditioning. Your comment proves that.
I’ll say it again: we cannot outrun disability. Eat all the “weak” you want, the “weak” will return. It is an inevitability and a guarantee. Therefore “the weakest” in society will never die off, and their death cannot make the species stronger. While an animal species might be made stronger over hundreds of thousands of years evolving past certain genetic traits that made them more susceptible to predators, society has never been made stronger by willing away entire groups. It is, in fact, always made weaker when we choose to segregate, genocide, or prey on the collective.
I’ll say it again. The term “survival of the fittest” as applied to man and society has nothing to do with Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection. When you apply it to society and man, you are talking about social Darwinism. Are you truly wary of giving extra or different meaning to words?
I agree with you that people don’t care about things unless it affects them personally. I think it would be a wonderful evolution of society if that changed. Our survival depends on it, especially now. Adapt or die would be a more appropriate application of Darwin’s thinking to society—and we are collectively failing.
This comment section is not long enough to go through every government that is actively killing people. Maybe that’ll be another post. But our own is on the list.
Calling out the historical implications of our language is not giving extra or different meaning to words. It’s exposing where they come from so we can decide if we still want to use them. This exposure seems to be making you uncomfortable, but it doesn’t make the facts wrong.
I just want to clarify here for anyone else reading. When I said evolution of man and survival of the fittest have nothing to do with each other, I meant the way Darwin employed the term versus the way this commenter and others employ the term. Social Darwinism uses Darwin’s theory of evolution and applies it to society and man. Sophia is right in that while Darwin didn’t come up with the term “survival of the fittest” he used it as a synonym for natural selection. However, once you apply that thinking to society, you are not talking about the evolution of man anymore. You’re talking about social Darwinism’s version of “survival of the fittest,” which is that the weak will die out to progress society “as they should.”
Therefore you cannot make a blanket statement that the science says survival of the fittest, no need to care about each other, dog eat dog world. These are two different things we are talking about and we have to be super clear on that.
Wanted to clarify as it’s important to be super super factual on these things and apologize if my quick responses muddied that differentiation a bit!
It’s almost like you agree with me.
It is only ever people who tell me I am changing definitions to the words who disagree with my thinking on our eugenicist government. Despite ample evidence through definitions and history to show otherwise. But it’s silly.
Elon Musk is a Nazi, no? He’s not marching people into a gas chamber, but he uses the salute right? This article implicates tech in eugenics today, showing this affiliation, right?
So just because our government is not walking people into gas chambers, could they still be running policy with eugenics as the end goal? Our government, that has brought Musk in to make “efficiencies” at the expense of disabled people (among others) as outlined in this article? That government.
Is cutting off Medicaid by $880 billion not akin to a Nazi salute? (If you want to say it’s FOR rich people and not FOR eugenics, do the people making this policy not think the rich are superior to the weaker poor?) The millions of disabled people who rely on Medicaid for home health care, medications, and telehealth who will be cut off without access to care, doctors, or medication are not being marched into a gas chamber but are they not being systemically culled? Just because the death is slower and more palatable because it is out of sight, does not mean the intent is not the same.
And again, my point of this article is the INTENT and MEANING behind our words. Do we know what we’re saying? Do we know where it comes from? Do we know what it means, historically? Do we know what we may unconsciously be supporting by choosing to say it?
Solidly standing by “survival of the fittest” as the means and ways of society and man is standing by a fallacy. And it’s standing up for eugenicists who created that thinking.
Also, it’s Christina.
If you had chosen to actually read my article and my responses, and accept our slightly different outlook on the world, you’d see I never said this was a Trump issue. But an American one. You can’t overlook Trump’s involvement, as he now leads America.
We will only disagree on survival of the fittest. You are choosing to apply it to society and man. In doing so, that’s social Darwinism. That’s the social aspect of it. I can’t argue with someone who willfully refuses facts. Even a very well-published one. Congrats on that, by the way.
I think your response, and especially the anger in it, is really telling here—not to mention your reveal that you don’t “like” the word “ableism.” What did you call it? A punishment for being lucky to be born able-bodied? What would you call racism? Homophobia? Misogyny? Why is the name we give oppressive systems somehow viewed, by you, as oppressive to those that uphold it?
This doesn’t have to be contentious. Like I said before, we agree on a lot. You’re mad that I think we should care about each other, I guess. AND that I believe disabled people are not an acceptable loss—that our loss does not create a progressed society. That actually our collective care is vital to our collective survival. All I can say is that wishing we all care about each other is so obviously the opposite of miserable. I wonder what you’d call your outlook.
Wishing you the very best.