Hacker News Reader

Comment by kaonashi | Hacker News Reader

Social Darwinism, really? I thought that went out of style with eugenics.

I don't believe the comment you are replying to is Social Darwinism. As I understand it, that particular view set is actually a belief/value system, while the comment you reply to is merely an observation that assuming variety, there will always be a bottom rung.

The comment directly implies that some people are born predisposed to being poor on a genetic level, which is... absurd isn't even close to the right word.

Gee, I kind of hate to say this, but my expensive genetic disorder is why I am deeply in debt and homeless. It is not due to lack of intelligence, ineptitude, etc. It is simply expensive to treat. So I have difficulty with the idea that our genes in no way impact this outcome. I was STAR student, a national scholarship winner, etc ad nauseum. In fact, I am in financial trouble because I figured out how to get well when that is supposedly impossible. It all came out of my pocket.

By Social Darwinism, I'm referring to the idea that 'economic outcomes make right'. If you are poor or destitute, it is because you are inferior and you deserve your plight.

It is a monstrous ideology that has produced nothing but suffering.

I am aware of that and on your side, which is why I said I hate to mention it. Even in CF circles, people hotly debate things like whether or not it is moral for a couple to have more kids after having a child with CF, knowing they could have another child with a tortorous, incurable condition. I had my sons well before I had a diagnosis, so I never wrestled with that question. I understand why people would not want to knowingly inflict such a thing on a loved one. But it easily becomes a slippery slope of "people like you should not reproduce". However, I also feel strongly that you do not get good solutions by claiming genetics play no role, merely to try to avoid a political hot button. Life tends to be a bit more complicated than bigots or people with a political agenda want it to be.

Have a great day.

Interesting. I didn't mean to discount that possibility and my strong reaction to the GP's implication was in the opposite direction as my comment looks in retrospect. I think health issues are a huge cause of poverty for families that were uninsured or didn't have sufficient coverage and I could definitely understand that happening with congenital cases. I'm sorry I came across so un-understanding, I was reading the parent-parent comment as "people are born lazy" which I found myself annoyed at. There are a lot of "poor people get what they deserve/are lazy" comments here that are dressed up to seem nicer (that frustrate me) and sadly I managed to (to you at least) come off even more sourly because I didn't express myself properly. Apologies.

No, not at all. I just hate to say it because it does potentially reinforce social darwinism. The reality is that there is some evidence that genetic disorders also correlate to high iq. In other words, it is very likely that my mental ability to solve my problem is rooted in the genetic disorder I have. So I hate listing it as evidence which might empower bigotry and the like. I am different from other people. That has its good points and bad points. But it definitely is the crux of my financial problems.

Peace and have a great day (and an upvote).

Stylishness is not equivalent to truth.

In science, they are quite highly correlated.

This hasn't been true historically. Almost all of the times we have been confident that we understood something, we have been wrong.

That is because almost all the time we are wrong, whether we were confident or not. However, we were generally less-wrong that were were before.

I recommend Asimov's article on the matter: http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm

There are also step functions when dogma comes into the question. Copernicus and Galileo were both right about heliocentrism, but when heliocentrism was politically incorrect, the scientific consensus was wrong.

That's a powerful argument for the GP.

Eugenics didn't go out of style. It's used quite successfully to prevent horrible genetic diseases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dor_Yeshorim

It's ironic that it's the Jews who embraced using eugenics on themselves!

Genetics don't have to be involved for traits to be passed on between generations. There is more to a phenotype than just the genotype.

It is not a stretch to think that natural selection could apply pressure to traits that are passed on through culture and exposure to ideas.

This seems to be a nonsequitor. "Social Darwinism" isn't a single coherent movement, but those who have espoused it in various forms have only occasionally been specifically concerned with the mechanism as far as I can tell. The grandparent just said "evolution" and spoke of adaptation.

Yes, that does seem to be what has happened here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com