Many abuses that mankind has perpetrated upon itself over the course of history have been justified under the banner of Social Darwinism. I already had something of an idea about this before attending this class and was rather surprised to find that the definition of Social Darwinist I encountered here different from my previous understanding. I had believed it to be the concept that Europeans were more highly evolved than other “races” and thus had the duty to spread themselves, their culture, their technology, their government, their genetics all across the face of the world so as to better it. It was linked with Rudyard Kipling’s charming little ditties. I was very happy to decry this notion as not only morally dubious but scientifically laughable.
It was rather concerning to me to be present with a different model. From this class I gathered that a newer perception of Social Darwinism is simply the application of the theory of natural selection to cultural arenas. And that it was being attacked with the same ferocity as the blatant racism, stodgy apologist justification and backwards thinking as before made me feel profoundly uncomfortable.
Because I think that not only can the ideas of natural selection be applied to society, but I think that they should. I think that it is the fundamental building block of a functioning free capitalist society, which I have been led to believe is the best society. In my view, culture or society is a sort of ecosystem, a microcosm of the global where each unit of humanity is like a unique species in competition with all others. Although some rhetoric might define different phenotypes of units of humanity, the true unit of humanity is a single human. For me, the ideal society is one in which each human is allowed to prove themselves to be fit or not on their own merits and as little else as possible.
Like all aspiring dictators, I have a plan to bring this paradise about. It starts out simple, with a core concept that I am quite fond of: the abolishing of inheritance. We do not live in a functioning, free, capitalist society and it is because of the generational compounding of both power and powerlessness. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. You’ve got to have money to make money. There are those who have who did not earn, did nothing but sit back and collect on what they feel is owed them based on who contributed to their genetic material. I do not feel this should be encouraged. Money and power should come from innovation, drive and excellence alone. In my ideal community, all property returns to the state after an individual’s death. Material goods are auctioned off and financial means are confiscated.
Problems immediately arise from this measure. What if a parent gifts things their children while they are still living? This is, of course, illegal and careful records will be kept of who acquires what so that recollection may proceed smoothly. Another plus to this method is that it creates jobs. Other, more Lowry-esque, solutions to the issue of progeny include taking all children from their parents and having them raised either by surrogates or in orphanages. Although these have their upsides, the put a damper on one of the key human drives, to provide for one’s children, and I believe would ultimately be destructive. Doubtless, there would be large orphanages for children whose parents expire before they reach majority but they should not, ideally, be someone’s first stop.
Through these practices, the nurturing parental urge should shift in the majority to provide the tools for the child to achieve themselves rather than simply granting with them the fruits of one’s own success. Furthermore, for those whose lives appreciably depreciate after being separated from the possessions of their parents, it is my hope that they should yearn to recapture at least the same level of comfort and strive for achievement in their own lives.
From the confiscation and resale of property, the government should acquire a surplus of funds. These funds will be channeled back into the community in the form, primarily of scholarships and grants. These funds will be allocated on a basis of merit, determined by testing and observers within classrooms and other public spaces. Corruption of these observers should be punishable by death. The lynchpin of this society’s moral integrity is that those who can best use resources are those to whom resources are given. If this is compromised and those who judge merit could be bought or sold then there is nothing redeemable within this concept and it is fit only for dystopian science fiction.
Other than the function of collecting and reallocating funds, the role of the government should be limited peacekeeping and national defense. Ideally, these duties could be taken up by private companies for the most part however, in the instance of rogue elements, it will always be necessary to have a governmental military presence.
I see this society as, strange though it may seem, the epitome of equality. To riff off the quintessential quotation, “All men are created equal.” I agree with this sentiment wholeheartedly. In each person there is theoretically equal potential. However, I see this concept being abused ceaselessly in our society due to the simple misunderstanding that being equal at creation should ensure consistent equality. It is grossly fallacious to assume that equal opportunity should equate to equal results. Furthermore, I believe that it is the duty of none but the individual, and that individual alone, to determine the results which are the fruit of their opportunity. In its essence, my ideal community is simply an attempt to create equal opportunity in the belief that those who make the most of what they are given are those that should be given further opportunity to have more.
I also believe that, if I was ever given the opportunity to run my ideal community in real, non-idealized life, I would immediately run it into the ground.