From: "Dave Coull" <d.y.coull-AT-dundee.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 17:10:17 GMT
Subject: Re: Darwin and Fascism


Nico said

>>>One of the reasons for *the myth* of the "Survival of the fittest"
>>>as the  lonely princip of nature is an error by Darwin himself: 
>>>The female isn't a- sexuell and monogam.

and I asked 

> Who said she was ?
> Did Darwin ?

to which Nico replied

>Edward O. Wilson, biologist, in his last book "The Whole of
>Knowledge", Steven Pinker in his book "How a Thought Come 
>Into Beeing In a Brain" (Sorry, German titles!) and by all 
>appearance Charles Darwin.

In England, and in the USA which bases its legal system
on the English one, when there is a criminal trial, there
are just two possible verdicts : "Guilty" or "Not Guilty".
But here in Scotland, when there is a criminal trial, 
the jury has three options : "Guilty" ;  "Not Guilty" ;
and  "Not Proven".  The "Not Proven" verdict means
"Okay, so maybe we're a bit prejudiced against you,
but we can't bring ourselves to say you're not guilty;
still, the prosecution have not succeeded in proving
their case against you, so we'll have to give you 
the benefit of the doubt. But just don't do it again."

Bearing in mind the third possible verdict, "by all 
appearances Darwin" is just not good enough. 
You quote Wilson and Pinker, but there are plenty 
of people who take a different view and yet would 
say that their ideas are based on Darwin. So, 
unless you can come up with something a bit
more convincing, the case against Darwin is 
at least  "Not Proven".

I asked Nico

>> If you think he did, can you quote where Darwin
>> is supposed to have said this ?

and Nico replied

>Der Spiegel, No.5, 01.02.1999 

While it is always best to keep an open mind
about things, I am as certain as it is possible
to be that Charles Darwin does not write 
for Der Spiegel. Unless you can provide 
evidence from the man himself, it's
still "Not Proven".

>I doesn't think that I have missunderstood 
>the "Survival of the fittest":  Nobody real know 
>the future of evolution. Therefore nobody could 
>say which  real characteristic of an specie can be 
>in the future of evolution a fit  pecuilarity.

Well even if it is true that you did not misunderstand,
I still say that by contrasting "survival of the weakest" 
with "survival of the fittest" you were causing misunderstanding. 
If a characteristic (such as being small, or having lightweight 
bones and body structure) proves to be an advantage, 
then how can it possibly be called a "weakness" ?

>Sometimes is a weak characteristic of an specie 
>more fit for survival than  a strong point of characteristic
>  --  like the knots of a tree who going  with the wind 
>and standing not against the wind. Weakness of 
>an specie  could contain more developmental chances 
>for survival than strong points  of characteristic and adaptability.

Yes, and circumstances can change, and what once
looked like a weakness sometimes turn out to be
an advantage. But if any apparently "weak" characteristic 
makes individuals of a species more likely to survive, 
then that characteristic is not a "weakness". What 
you've got in that case is still survival of the fittest.

>We should be aware of the fact that all theories 
>about the nature of nature ever since the start 
>of human history represent only the given prejudices 
>and notions of the societies, in which the theorists 
>live--  the social reality, which is the only model 
>for their imaginations. 

Yes of course we develop our ideas within a context,
and of course none of us can completely shake off
our context, but if we were all rigid adherents of given
prejudices and notions then human society would have
remained totally unchanged. By studying history we can 
see that some things have in fact changed (not necessarily
always for the better, and not necessarily in the direction 
which an anarchist like myself would like, but change 
nevertheless) therefore it would appear that sometimes 
some people do manage to free their imaginations 
and think thoughts which go beyond the given prejudices 
of their time and place. In some respects, Charles 
Darwin was a thinker who made such a leap.

>So in an patriarchal society most of theorists imaginate 
>that in nature and  society the female haven't the same 
>lust as male, because the human female in their experience 
>is oppressed enough to be prissy and monogam.

Look, I know from personal experience that human 
females can be lusty. In fact sometimes they
can be so lusty they make this particular male
downright nervous. But you still haven't proved
the case against Charles Darwin, so there.


Dave