Is Social Darwinism the default alternative to Citizen's Income?
What is Social Darwinism?
Many people have heard phrases like "survival of the fittest", or "the natural order of things", yet most do not understand where these phrases originated and the worldview behind them. Some people mistakenly ascribe the phrase "survival of the fittest" to Charles Darwin but the truth is Social Darwinism the world view had nothing to do with Charles Darwin. Herbert Spencer coined the phrase "survival of the fittest" in the work titled "Principles of Biology". Social Darwinism as a school of thought emerged sometime in the 1880s-1890s from writers such as Ragnar Redbeard who was an anonymous alias from which the original author is still debated. In 1890 Redbeard wrote a book titled "Might is Right - Survival of the Fittest" which exemplified the philosophy of Social Darwinism into a coherent worldview. Might is Right embraces concepts like genocide, slavery, theft, rape, and conquest. In general Might is Right is not an amoral book but promotes a morality based on masculinity and a code of honor. Unfortunately the book does not embrace human rights, and is very much like The Prince by Machiavelli.
The concepts of Social Darwinism are contained in chapters with titles such as "MAN — THE CARNIVORE! ", "THE PHILOSOPHY OF POWER", and "THE LOGIC OF TODAY". Quotes from the book promote a ruthless worldview with the chief aim being the pursuit of power:
Nature is harsh, cruel, merciless to all unlovely things. Her smile is only for the Courageous, the Strong, the Beautiful and the All-Daring. You have no comfort for the ‘poor and lowly’, the ‘innocent ones’, the ‘downtrodden’? The poor and lowly are a creeping pestilence — there are no innocent ones, and the downtrodden are the justly damned — sinners in a hell they’ve made.
When a band of rich men plunder the poor, that is business shrewdness, practical statesmanship, of financial integrity; but if bands of poor men plunder the rich, that is larceny, burglary, highway robbery, and rebellion. When the Anglo-Saxon invader is cooped-up and slaughtered in India, that is mutiny and red-handed murder; but when HE mows down the sepoys in battalions, or fastens them to the muzzles of cannon and blows them into ribbons, that is upholding the majesty of Law and of Order. When Cuban guerillas kill Spaniards, all American papers describe it as “war” but when the Spaniards retaliate and kill the Cubans, that is ‘horrible butcheries by General Weyler.’ Spanish cut-throats are glorified (in Spain) as dashing heroes, and the Cuban patriots described as brigands, outlaws, and brutal Negro murderers. ALL DEPENDS UPON THE POINT OF VIEW.
How did Social Darwinism become an accepted worldview?
When we look at Nazism or similar authoritarian fascist worldviews the one foundation we see that they have in common is Social Darwinism. The belief that there is a Master race, or that different races of people are fit or unfit, all stem from at least some of the concepts promoted by Social Darwinism. A key component to this worldview is Race Realism but Race Realism doesn't automatically lead to Social Darwinism or Nazism. Race Realism is the view that the different racial categories represent real and significant differences between populations and today we would call this "scientific racism". Scientific racism was and continues to be used to justify racial superiority but this in itself doesn't necessarily lead to a Social Darwinist outlook. The racial IQ bell curve for example is believed to be evidence by racial supremacists that certain races are intellectually superior to others but believe in intellectual superiority in 2017 does not mean the same thing it meant in 1890. The technology of today allows us to study genetics so the question can be asked to a race realist "which genes control intelligence?" if they believe it is genetic, and if it turns out that race realists are right it does not justify racism.
Race Realism became an accepted worldview at the time because scientists did not understand the nature of genes. Scientists had little understanding of medicine and believed in concepts such as phrenology, physical anthropology, and arbitrary classifications of humans according to races rather than geography. Scientific racism led to a period of neo-imperialism starting in the 1880s possibly connected to (correlated with) the growth of Social Darwinism.
Africa and parts of Asia. The new wave of imperialism reflected ongoing rivalries among the great powers, the economic desire for new resources and markets, and a "civilizing mission" ethos. Many of the colonies established during this era gained independence during the era of decolonization that followed World War II.
Consequentialist (ethical) Race Realism
A person proven by statistics or testing to be smarter could also be expected to be more ethical. A person who has the ability to crack the genetic code and find the genes for intelligence can simultaneously prove race realism is true while also having the technology to ameliorate or in other words cure low intelligence. So race realists who aren't filled with hate, who aren't Social Darwinists, who truly want the best outcomes for themselves and the world, could seek to raise the IQ of populations discovered to have low IQ. Whether a person believes in race or does not, the raising of IQ for all is a much more beneficial solution from a utilitarian perspective than conflict, war, genocide, and all of the problems associated with that. The summary of this example is that a racially biased yet truly intelligent person with a consequentialist worldview can see solutions which are much more desirable than the common solutions most racial supremists offer.
Would a lack of Citizen's Income inevitably lead to Social Darwinism?
This is still an open question as we cannot know what the future will bring but we do has projections which reveal 4.1 million drivers will lose their jobs to the self driving car. The statistics point to a future of mass unemployment and while we can disagree about how much time before we reach that future it does seem that our current tradition of distributing income through employment may not be sustainable. Social Darwinism may become attractive as many people lose their jobs and see "foreigners" as competition for scarce positions of importance and scarce sources of income. A Universal Basic Income also known as Citizen's Income is a way for national governments to united a country around economic stakes. Social Darwinism on the other hand divides a country along racial lines, and by class, as people who feel they are the elite whether financial or genetic, could develop a world view that every man, woman, child, is for his or herself, with no sense of community or government support.
Libertarians who oppose Citizen's Income
Libertarians who oppose Citizen's Income typically offer no viable alternative. A natural rights Libertarian may choose to oppose it because it violates the non-aggression principle which they see as an absolute. A consequentialist libertarian would not see any specific principle as absolute and would be most concerned with what libertarianism produces in terms of outcomes. A consequentialist libertarian is libertarian because they believe it produces better outcomes than the alternative and would cease being a libertarian once data reveals it is not producing a desirable outcome.
Libertarians who support Citizen's Income
For the most part I would expect libertarians who support Citizen's Income would do it out of necessity rather than conviction. A consequentialist libertarian would support it because it is the "right thing to do" and because it "leads to the best consequences" or "leads to the least undesirable outcomes". A consequentialist libertarian would follow the data and statistics by conducting or studying the results of trials of basic income to see if it actually produces positive outcomes for society. If the statistics show it produces positive outcomes then consequentialist libertarians could seek to implement the most liberty preserving forms of it which would be deemed as the least undesirable forms.
Conclusion
The conclusion is if we simply wait for situations to play out then the cost of dealing with risks increase. In addition, do we have options better than a Citizen's Income? So far there is no popular alternative which people can show would produce better consequences. Consequentialists would seek to look at statistics, data, results, and only by trial can it be known whether or not it's a valuable solution. Currently Y-combinatator is conducting a universal basic income test in California and there is also a test taking place in Africa which is a long term test. The preliminary results look good statistically as it does seem based on several studies that it leads to better outcomes. Social Darwinism being a worldview may grow and this may happen as a reaction to the situation which is even more reason to think about what could happen if Citizen's Income is not implemented yet Social Darwinism becomes popular.
References
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Might_Is_Right
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Imperialism
5. http://www.businessinsider.com/kenya-will-see-the-worlds-largest-basic-income-experiment-2016-4
6. https://face2faceafrica.com/article/give-directly-kenya
7. http://www.princeton.edu/~joha/publications/Haushofer_Shapiro_Policy_Brief_2013.pdf
8. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/hello-self-driving-cars-goodbye-41-million-jobs-2016-09-15
9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-rights_libertarianism
10. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialist_libertarianism
The darwinists who never read Darwin? The survival not of the fittest but the most adaptive
Exactly, that is why I promote transhumanism rather than "racial science". Technology is what allows our species to adapt, not biology. We are fairly limited compared to bacteria which reproduces exponentially, or mold, or many species which have natural advantages. Our main advantage is our ability to make tools which allow us to adapt in unnatural ways such as making clothes, or cutting tools, or even space flight. In order to continue that trajectory we will have to become cyborgs merely because we cannot survive in space without help.
The fact that we can possibly improve ourselves technologically, genetically, can guarantee the survival of our species if we make wise decisions over the next few decades.
Fairly reasonable
This post has been ranked within the top 80 most undervalued posts in the first half of Feb 21. We estimate that this post is undervalued by $2.86 as compared to a scenario in which every voter had an equal say.
See the full rankings and details in The Daily Tribune: Feb 21 - Part I. You can also read about some of our methodology, data analysis and technical details in our initial post.
If you are the author and would prefer not to receive these comments, simply reply "Stop" to this comment.
**
The data suggests that UBI would only be temporary.
one example of declining costs
another
because of this
In the US, today a poor man lives better than a King,
did in times past
I suggest that we need UBI for a short while only,
until we are over the hump so to speak.
Of course you do, you're a non-libertarian. But why would it be inevitable if libertarians deem it either unnecessary or undesirable?
Also how could UBI be abused exactly?
Good post.
HOWEVER
A person proven by statistics or testing to be smarter
could also be expected to be more ethical.
Expected by who?
That does not follow.
Does the (empirical data) support the hypothesis?
If you define IQ as being "general intelligence" and being ethical is part of that then it would be expected that if someone is of superior intelligence they should have superior ethics. After all they can see the consequences provided they learn the techniques of predictive statistics.
Otherwise you would have to believe in multiple intelligences and test them specifically on ethics.
You are making some assumptions.
there are others
Does your empirical data support your hypothesis?
I don't personally believe we have a good way to measure general intelligence so I don't believe the test score is accurate to measure it. I do think it measures a certain kind of reasoning ability, and perhaps short term memory.
I would say based on the data I've seen the result is inconclusive with regard to our ability to measure general intelligence and also for the genetic basis as the genes associated with intelligence have not been isolated last I checked. So the hypothetical example was based on the premise that somehow we had conclusive evidence to show a genetic basis for general intelligence and a perfect way of testing it. Under those assumptions then if someone can be shown to truly have superior general intelligence then it would also mean they should be capable of superior ethics. Just as some people are more capable of lifting heavy weights.
It has been said (correctly I think)
that if you can't measure something
then you have no idea what you are talking about.