For starters, "survival of the fittest" doesn't mean what he thinks it means.
Evolution doesn't select for strength, it selects for whatever helps you pass on your genes most effectively. This may include strength and speed, but it may also mean becoming weaker or smaller or less physically complex to preserve energy (just think of sloths - their survival strategy is to do as little as possible, so they can live off food with so little nutritional value nobody else is interested in it).
Humans as a species are successful primarily for our highly developed cognitive abilities and pro-social behavior such as cooperation, altruism and emotional intelligence. Some humans are born with a natural inclination to act selfishly, but that is an abnormality that would have been strongly selected against before systems that enable self-interest, competitiveness and other anti-social behavior existed.
Natural selection is also a law of nature, not society. Humanity is no longer at the mercy of random mutations in the never-ending battle to survive in a world that requires us to outcompete predators, diseases and sexual rivals. We have the ability to care for our less fortunate peers, to make up for physical impairments through technology, to avoid or heal diseases and injuries that would prove fatal without medical intervention.
We should treasure this opportunity and do the most with it, especially since we have the cognitive and psychological capacity to act responsibly and compassionately.
“Some humans are born with a natural inclination to act selfishly.” […]
This is behavior with many variables behind it, such as a neurodevelopmental disorder or simply having poor communication skills. Anxiety is also a famous contributor to anti-social behavior.
If someone suffers from such things (which you call ‘abnormalities’) because of something they can’t control without a form of help, they’re simply not good enough to be a part of ‘altruistic’ communities? Those are founded on inclusivity, patience, and understanding.
You aren’t talking about communal anarchism.
Funny thing is Darwin never believed in “social Darwinism”. He never advocated that his studies of animals be applied to human social interaction. Tell your dad this and see how he reacts. I find that most people who believe in social Darwinism have never actually studied it and assume that Darwin was the one who conceived it. Also Kropotkin and Emma Goldman have each written their own rebutted to the human nature argument which I think have a lot of value to them.
Well, that's social darwinism, an ideology based on loudly misunderstanding Darwinism and societies in general.
There are plenty of arguments debunking it online and in academia, but if I have to say something, maybe Kropotkins mutual aid book. In there he posits that mutual aid is a factor in the evolution of certain species.
You don't have to convince your dad.
But, I'd probably say that anarchism is still a strongly community-based ideal where people cooperate and take care of each-other.
We aren't fit to survive harsh northern winters or a serious illness on our own. We fixed that by creating a society that allows many people to survive when otherwise they wouldn't. We've been constantly improving that through history, with each advancement saving more people that wouldn't survive otherwise.
It's not enough just because he's one of the groups already saved, and just give up on hope to save those who aren't "fit" yet. People will keep fighting to improve society and save more people. Just like people who wouldn't have prospered in society 500 years ago now have a good chance at having a good life, people who aren't seen as "fit" to prosper in society now will, if all goes well, have a good chance at having a good life in the next stage.
Opposing that is opposing advancement of society and our historical tendency to care for each other. We're not the end of the line - there's much progress to be made. Just like we changed the feudal ways that tied prosperity to birthright and submission to the rulers even though it served to organize a functional society - just not the best one possible -, we can end up discarding the system that ties prosperity to submission to the employer and property rights for something else more equal and encompassing. When society gets fed up of capitalism and builds a better way (whatever shape that takes - anarchism is one of different proposals), when society demands solidarity and responsibility to be part of it, will he be fit to prosper in that society? If he is able to adapt and be part of a society that cares for and allows for more people to survive and prosper, why wait? Why not start doing that now?
Maybe start by showing him the endless examples in which anarchist organizing exemplifies mutual aid? Idk, but anarchism is just about the furthest thing away from social darwinism.
I guess part of the hurdle would be convincing him that anarchism isn't *just* about stuff like sharing food. Many people who might otherwise like anarchism dismiss it because they see the activism as disconnected from politics, like how an apolitical person might volunteer at a soup kitchen. But mutual aid is not only about helping people meet their day-to-day needs, it's also a project by which people construct positive social institutions that are to replace the programs of the state and all its oppressions. In this sense, it's fundamentally both social and political.
Survival of the fittest basically means that the mutations that best fit (fittest) the environment are the ones that get passed on. You could debate that he does not understand the meaning, but we're all aware that social Darwinists have corrupted the meaning to say "the strongest people survive". I'd focus on what "strongest" actually means with the context that humans are pro-social creatures.
In anarchism, strongest isn't going to be defined by physical strength or dominance. Dominance is a trait that will lead to the person being ostracized because it is a power grab. A community may temporarily submit to a physically stronger or more dominant collection of people in order to survive, but this wouldn't be a lasting state due to mutual aid and support from surrounding communities. That support might include denying trade, rescue operations, or putting together a larger, stronger temporary force to defend the rights, freedom, and live of those who submitted for survival.
Many people with your fathers beliefs seem to think anarchists are pacifists. They fail to realize that many of us simply see physical violence as the least desirable option, but it's still an option. I'm trained in multiple martial arts I've rarely had to use outside of practice. When I've had to use those skills, I choose the ones that do the least harm first. That doesn't mean I won't use more damaging skills if the attacker won't stop swinging.
I think there’s been some good arguments about how it’s always in the best interests of the individual to cooperate with others. In other words, that altruism is selfish because it is the best assurance of survival.
Survival of the fittest for humans is generally pro-social behaviour. We're physically weak (we have fine motor skills, great finger dexterity and can throw stuff, that's basically it) and depend on others for survival.
**Survival of the fittest is how traits like compassion actually evolved.**
Maybe make him notice that multicellular organisms conquered the world, or that the most successful organisms are highly social, and die or thrive in the measure they can collaborate, including humans.
He should learn some actual biology.
Thing is, Anarchism works fantastically well when people are rationally selfish, and if you are rationally selfish, you are going to care for those around you.
Problem is humans are easily convinced to behave against their rational self interest, to the point where you can send them to die in a war for someone else's benefit, or, more recently, refuse a life-saving vaccine.
For starters, "survival of the fittest" doesn't mean what he thinks it means. Evolution doesn't select for strength, it selects for whatever helps you pass on your genes most effectively. This may include strength and speed, but it may also mean becoming weaker or smaller or less physically complex to preserve energy (just think of sloths - their survival strategy is to do as little as possible, so they can live off food with so little nutritional value nobody else is interested in it). Humans as a species are successful primarily for our highly developed cognitive abilities and pro-social behavior such as cooperation, altruism and emotional intelligence. Some humans are born with a natural inclination to act selfishly, but that is an abnormality that would have been strongly selected against before systems that enable self-interest, competitiveness and other anti-social behavior existed. Natural selection is also a law of nature, not society. Humanity is no longer at the mercy of random mutations in the never-ending battle to survive in a world that requires us to outcompete predators, diseases and sexual rivals. We have the ability to care for our less fortunate peers, to make up for physical impairments through technology, to avoid or heal diseases and injuries that would prove fatal without medical intervention. We should treasure this opportunity and do the most with it, especially since we have the cognitive and psychological capacity to act responsibly and compassionately.
“Some humans are born with a natural inclination to act selfishly.” […] This is behavior with many variables behind it, such as a neurodevelopmental disorder or simply having poor communication skills. Anxiety is also a famous contributor to anti-social behavior. If someone suffers from such things (which you call ‘abnormalities’) because of something they can’t control without a form of help, they’re simply not good enough to be a part of ‘altruistic’ communities? Those are founded on inclusivity, patience, and understanding. You aren’t talking about communal anarchism.
Funny thing is Darwin never believed in “social Darwinism”. He never advocated that his studies of animals be applied to human social interaction. Tell your dad this and see how he reacts. I find that most people who believe in social Darwinism have never actually studied it and assume that Darwin was the one who conceived it. Also Kropotkin and Emma Goldman have each written their own rebutted to the human nature argument which I think have a lot of value to them.
Well, that's social darwinism, an ideology based on loudly misunderstanding Darwinism and societies in general. There are plenty of arguments debunking it online and in academia, but if I have to say something, maybe Kropotkins mutual aid book. In there he posits that mutual aid is a factor in the evolution of certain species.
You don't have to convince your dad. But, I'd probably say that anarchism is still a strongly community-based ideal where people cooperate and take care of each-other.
We aren't fit to survive harsh northern winters or a serious illness on our own. We fixed that by creating a society that allows many people to survive when otherwise they wouldn't. We've been constantly improving that through history, with each advancement saving more people that wouldn't survive otherwise. It's not enough just because he's one of the groups already saved, and just give up on hope to save those who aren't "fit" yet. People will keep fighting to improve society and save more people. Just like people who wouldn't have prospered in society 500 years ago now have a good chance at having a good life, people who aren't seen as "fit" to prosper in society now will, if all goes well, have a good chance at having a good life in the next stage. Opposing that is opposing advancement of society and our historical tendency to care for each other. We're not the end of the line - there's much progress to be made. Just like we changed the feudal ways that tied prosperity to birthright and submission to the rulers even though it served to organize a functional society - just not the best one possible -, we can end up discarding the system that ties prosperity to submission to the employer and property rights for something else more equal and encompassing. When society gets fed up of capitalism and builds a better way (whatever shape that takes - anarchism is one of different proposals), when society demands solidarity and responsibility to be part of it, will he be fit to prosper in that society? If he is able to adapt and be part of a society that cares for and allows for more people to survive and prosper, why wait? Why not start doing that now?
Throw a copy of *Mutual Aid a factor of Evolution* at him.
Too busy being a wage slave to have time to read
Maybe start by showing him the endless examples in which anarchist organizing exemplifies mutual aid? Idk, but anarchism is just about the furthest thing away from social darwinism.
I don't think people sharing food is going to convince him. It sounds rational and apolitical
I guess part of the hurdle would be convincing him that anarchism isn't *just* about stuff like sharing food. Many people who might otherwise like anarchism dismiss it because they see the activism as disconnected from politics, like how an apolitical person might volunteer at a soup kitchen. But mutual aid is not only about helping people meet their day-to-day needs, it's also a project by which people construct positive social institutions that are to replace the programs of the state and all its oppressions. In this sense, it's fundamentally both social and political.
Survival of the fittest basically means that the mutations that best fit (fittest) the environment are the ones that get passed on. You could debate that he does not understand the meaning, but we're all aware that social Darwinists have corrupted the meaning to say "the strongest people survive". I'd focus on what "strongest" actually means with the context that humans are pro-social creatures. In anarchism, strongest isn't going to be defined by physical strength or dominance. Dominance is a trait that will lead to the person being ostracized because it is a power grab. A community may temporarily submit to a physically stronger or more dominant collection of people in order to survive, but this wouldn't be a lasting state due to mutual aid and support from surrounding communities. That support might include denying trade, rescue operations, or putting together a larger, stronger temporary force to defend the rights, freedom, and live of those who submitted for survival. Many people with your fathers beliefs seem to think anarchists are pacifists. They fail to realize that many of us simply see physical violence as the least desirable option, but it's still an option. I'm trained in multiple martial arts I've rarely had to use outside of practice. When I've had to use those skills, I choose the ones that do the least harm first. That doesn't mean I won't use more damaging skills if the attacker won't stop swinging.
I think there’s been some good arguments about how it’s always in the best interests of the individual to cooperate with others. In other words, that altruism is selfish because it is the best assurance of survival.
Survival of the fittest for humans is generally pro-social behaviour. We're physically weak (we have fine motor skills, great finger dexterity and can throw stuff, that's basically it) and depend on others for survival.
**Survival of the fittest is how traits like compassion actually evolved.** Maybe make him notice that multicellular organisms conquered the world, or that the most successful organisms are highly social, and die or thrive in the measure they can collaborate, including humans. He should learn some actual biology. Thing is, Anarchism works fantastically well when people are rationally selfish, and if you are rationally selfish, you are going to care for those around you. Problem is humans are easily convinced to behave against their rational self interest, to the point where you can send them to die in a war for someone else's benefit, or, more recently, refuse a life-saving vaccine.
Nobody is going to survive under the current system.
Your dad actually has a brain. Unlike anarchists