Darwinism, Survival of the fittest & natural selection.

[AntiochusIII]

Assuming that there is enough truth in it, I reasoned that our society prevents survival of the fittest rearing its ugly head. And with fittest being in the context of the stronger one deliberately disregarding the weak one.

Indeed, I agree with you completely that civilization or at least our particular modern form of civilization has done much in preventing the kind of jungle environment that underlies the natural world.

Although another interesting point is that this "weakness" as some would say might potentially be far more useful in the long run: for one, higher thoughts that do not serve immediate purposes are pretty much useless in a "survival of the fittest" environment. Writers, artists, musicians, philosophers, scientists... not many of these will make it for long without the order provided by civilization. It is an interesting question whether we as a whole benefited more from this "unnatural" state of things or not.

Your examples about short-sightedness and Sickle Cell Anemia can never clash with morality as nothing is done deliberately, people with those properties just happen to survive and there is no morality in the equation.

You raise a good point. All my examples are genetic issues with no human intent and no morality behind it.

I think what I fear when I said that the Social Darwinist theory is morally abhorrent are two things: the culling and oppression of those deemed unfit and the basic human mistake of assuming that, because a trait is beneficial for the present environment, or even just because it is familiar, it is "superior" and "fit" in all circumstances. Those two combined makes for both practical and moral disaster if past examples are to go by.

strange overdeveloped instincts = thoughts (nice one )