“Social Darwinism” revisited

I have commented upon inappropriate usage of “Darwinian” or “Darwinism” in public discourse in editorials before, see for example.^[1] In such cases, I was upset about using the term in its highly restricted incarnation of the competitive struggle between organisms, as if evolution did not also give rise to, amongst others, symbiosis, cooperation, altruism, and empathy, as described by Darwin himself. Such misuse is partly due to the infamous 19th-century concept of “Social Darwinism”, popularized as “survival of the fittest” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest; accessed July 10, 2024), a catchy, but rather unfortunate way of describing evolutionary theory (given its tautological characteristics in this highly oversimplified rendition). Another problematic aspect: “fit” invokes physical fitness, instead of “leaving more copies in successive future generations” which reflects a more accurate description of our evolutionary understanding.

However, a much more pernicious and common misunderstanding regarding evolution wreaks havoc in our environments and societies. Evolution can be understood as a multi-level, highly intricate, interplay between two forces: chance and selection. Even evolutionary scientists themselves run the risk of overemphasizing selection, while (unconsciously) downplaying the chance/luck component. Yes, we point to the random nature of mutations in DNA, but most of us do not sufficiently grasp the overwhelming presence and influence of chance on the make-up of biological (and societal) reality. Because it is so abundant, here are just a few wide-ranging examples. (i) Apart from “simple” mutations, complete gene-duplications can haphazardly occur, with retention opening up avenues of diversifying functions;^[2] (ii) the vagaries of population dynamics, with bottlenecks allowing retention of slightly detrimental (or unnecessarily complex; see below) characteristics, arbitrarily giving rise to founder effects; (iii) the unpredictable nature of highly complex ecological systems, with “sudden” massive changes stemming from internal or external (e.g., an asteroid impact) causes. As Stephen J. Gould said, play the tape of life again and biology would look completely different;^[3] thus “survival of the luckiest” is probably a better description; (iv) because untangling the effects of chance and selection is not easy, it is still unclear whether selection even made a meaningful contribution to elaborate (“extra”) mechanisms such as RNA editing or if these constitute examples of pure “constructive neutral evolution” with complexity just begetting further complexity.^{[4, 5]}

So, why is the relative neglect of chance in our understanding of reality so detrimental to how we interact with nature and each other in society? In answering that question, let me first clarify the difference between “is” and “ought” again. The goals we strive for in shaping society are reflective of our value systems, and these can never be completely derived from our understanding of reality, but reflect (ethical) choices. However, our (mis)understanding of nature shapes such choices in a multitude of ways. For instance, biology shows there is no basis whatsoever for racism or sexism, so a correct understanding could contribute to fighting these societal evils. But the misconception of “winners” as the physically and intellectually superior is, for example, related to the idea of Homo sapiens as the pinnacle of evolution. Yes, currently we enjoy incredible numbers for a top predator, but we see indicators everywhere that ecological and climate systems are thrown off balance. In our societies the billionaire class, mistakenly taking their success as reflective of inherent superiority, further destabilize societies by ever more enriching and empowering themselves. A Texan fossil-fuel billionaire stating that he thinks his riches signify god's blessing and planning evermore fossil-fuel extraction, climate science be damned? Check. Another billionaire openly saying that “freedom” (meaning his rapacious capitalism) and democracy are incompatible? Check. By the way, I might agree about that incompatibility, but instead of even more unrestricted power for the wealthy, I would safeguard against the assault on the democratic rights of the average Joe or Jane.

Recently, Will Hutton noted: “The delusions of entitlement—that the rich deserve their wealth, privilege, and the right to transgress social mores as they choose—are ever-present. In their eyes, wealth can't just be a by-product of luck, can it? It must, one way or another, be deserved.” (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jul/14/the-rich-were-led-to-believe-they-were-different-those-days-are-numbered; accessed July 15, 2024) Such delusions are the great danger of our times.