Social Darwinism allows for human progress. Herbert Spencer argues mankind has an innate desire to move towards “individuation.” People compete for jobs, look to move up in social classes, and defend their lives when threatened. This individuation, which is a product of self-interest and survival of the fittest, creates progress and growth. Although there would be progress in the allowance of genetic engineering, that progress would ultimately be stopped through the destruction of Social Darwinism.To prohibit genetic engineering would be to prohibit progress, but only in the sense that the progress of genetic engineering would be stopped. The evolution of mankind and, therefore, the evolution of technology and national governments would continue. However, these progressions would ultimately be halted in the allowance of genetic engineering. Social Darwinism, as developed by Spencer, states “that the transformation of the homogeneous into the heterogeneous, is that in which Progress essentially consists…” (Spencer). Mankind develops from the simple to the complex. Numerous ethnicities, religions, governments, and social classes have been created throughout the history of the Earth. Genetically engineering embryos, whether it be screening for disease, designing physical traits, or choosing intelligence and strength, would stop this development. The characteristics of humans would be chosen for them. Their successes in life (lifespan, income, intelligence) would no longer be a result of perseverance or drive. Instead humans would not strive for a higher level of progress because they have already been genetically engineered to be at the highest level.
As seen in Brave New World, the world population has been genetically engineered and conditioned. There is no movement from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous because there is no progressive movement at all. Social Darwinism has been destroyed through the removal of individuation. As Henry Foster explains, “We also predestine and condition. We decant our babies as socialized human being, as Alphas or Epsilons, as future sewage workers” (Huxley 13). Humans of the New World do not strive for more because they cannot. Epsilons are denied oxygen as embryos; freemartins are made sterile, and rocket-plane engineers are created to only enjoy being upside down. They have been denied the freedom to chose their own future life styles. The destruction of Social Darwinism in the Brave New World is due largely to genetic engineering.
Social Darwinism also includes class structure. It is assumed that “the mass of the community has become segregated into distinct classes and orders of workers” (Spencer). It can be argued, therefore, that the Brave New World keeps with Social Darwinism in its divisions of Alphas, Betas, Gammas, and Epsilons. However, this segregation is artificial. A primary component of Social Darwinism is the limited influence of institutions, such as government, on individual lives. “For human beings to flourish and develop, Spencer held that there must be as few artificial restrictions as possible, and it is primarily freedom that he…saw as promoting human happiness” (Sweet). The Brave New World government creates these divisions through genetic engineering and conditioning. By predetermining the lives of its citizens, it is not only imposing major restrictions on the freedom of individuals but it is also stopping progress. Genetic engineering, today, would also produce major restrictions on human life. Parents or government could control an individual’s life before he or she is even born. By controlling the genes of a human, an artificial life is created and the future progress of that individual could be prohibited.
While genetic engineering allows for progress, the results of such progress would cause the destruction of Social Darwinism and overall growth. And with the destruction of Social Darwinism and growth, human freedom, the source of happiness, would also be destroyed. The benefit in the allowance of the progress from genetic engineering does not override the negative elimination of societal growth. It is necessary to stop the progress of one event to save the progress of mankind.
Works Cited
Huxley, Aldous. Brave New World. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2006.Spencer, Herbert. "Herbert Spencer: Social Darwinism, 1857." Modern History Sourcebook. 7 Mar. 2008 http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/spencer-darwin.html.
Sweet, William. "Herbert Spencer (1820-1903)." The Internet Encylopedia of Philosophy. 7 Mar. 2008
4 comments:
How do you define "social Darwinism." What is it we are destroying if we destroy "social Darwinism"?
I ask for your definition of social Darwinism because there are variations of application. When you consider SD, are you supporting racism or imperialism? How does, what Spencer coined, "survival of the fittest" fit into your scheme of things?
When we create social programs to help the poor, the disadvantaged, are we going against SD?
Are you sure that "The destruction of Social Darwinism in the Brave New World is due largely to genetic engineering." Is SD destroyed? Or is BNW the embodiment of SD at its best? Are not the strongest, the most resourceful the ones who survive in BNW?
Certainly, I do not condone social Darwinism in how Hitler used it to justify his creation of the master race. I am firmly against racism and imperialism. If from my blog you are questioning my tolerance, I do not think you fully got what I was trying to express. (Perhaps, I did a poor job on it—it’s possible.)
Anyway, I do not believe this sort of social Darwinism is what Spencer had in mind when he wrote, Progress: Its Law and Cause. I believe that social Darwinism is the move towards “individuation”—that is each person creates an identity for him or herself. Yes, you can argue that the characters in Brave New World are individuals in that they are each a human, but the key point here is that they do not create an identity for themselves. Their lives are predestined; they are genetically engineered and conditioned to follow the New World Order. In this world, there are no longer individuals, only masses. Spencer believed in individual freedom, and Hitler’s mass killing of the Jews and BNW’s caste system is imposing on that freedom.
In the destruction of such Darwinism we destroy individuality. We destroy the movement from the homogenous to the heterogeneous. People cannot move up or down in the ranks of society. They cannot choose their jobs, their education, etc. As I wrote, “humans would not strive for a higher level of progress because they have already been genetically engineered to be at the highest level.”
Spencer’s term “survival of the fittest” is obsolete in BNW. It can be understood on a physical level in which the strong (the athletic, the muscular, those not affected by illness or disease) will live longer and survive. Or it can also be understood on a mental level in which the strong (the intelligent, the ambitious, the motivated) will move up in the social classes and earn positions of power and influence.
When we create social programs to the poor and the disadvantaged we are going against social Darwinism. Spencer believed in limited government influence. But although I believe in the majority of his social Darwinism theory (at least what I think he meant), there is always a time and a place to qualify your own personal beliefs. America was created on the idea that all men are created equal and many of us believe we have a moral obligation to those less fortunate. I believe in helping those less fortunate to move towards “individuation.”
Social Darwinism is not the embodiment of BNW. Yes, of course the strongest and most resourceful are the ones to survive. But how can this society be the epitome of social Darwinsim if everyone is genetically engineered to be the strongest and most resourceful (in the sense that everyone is just as strong and resourceful as the next person in his or her caste)? People no long have the power to choose their own identity and individuality, thereby, ridding the society of the biggest aspect of social Darwinism.
I hope that answers all of your questions!
Hi Cpt. pants,
I felt that your post did an effective job of using the scientific principle of social darwinism to illustrate the problems that you see with the use of genetic engineering. You made definite appeals to both logos and ethos by clearly and appropriatly quoting reputable sources. I also thought that your blending of the fiction of A Brave new World, and the scientific facts allowed you for some room to speculate as to what the possible implications of this new technology could be.
At times, I thought that the line between fact, fiction and speculation was somewhat blurred. I suppose this could go under the category of a logical fallacy. Yet, I feel that it did make for a more convincing argument.
Your mentioning, The New World Order brings to mind the concepts of the Elizabethan World Order. You may find reading E.M.W Tillyard's work, The Elizabethan Word Picture interesting.
You continue:
As I wrote, “humans would not strive for a higher level of progress because they have already been genetically engineered to be at the highest level.”
But that would be the "highest level" at the time of the genetic engineering. It seems that they will have been engineered for the highest level as it is known at a particular time, not for the unknown future. If cultures perform the GE in accordance with their own belief systems and life styles, a difference will exist. Will the inquiring mind cease to exist or will it be ever more inquiring than if the GE had not taken place.
hmmmm....interesting to consider.
You conclude: "I hope that answers all of your questions!" I smile, for I have enjoyed reading your response. The beauty of exchanging ideas lies in the questions or new ideas that the prose generates. Your prose is strong and provocative.
Keep writing!!! Not necessarily on this topic, but in general. Hone your skills!!
Post a Comment