does this have anything to do with that famous phrase:  "the
fallacies of social darwinism"?
the walking question mark,
tom hoover


>This past week, I read something "interesting":
>I read that Darwin *personally* believed that it was desirable
>for society to *not* apply itself to helping
>the "less fit", because this would weaken the species.  He
>apparently understood that this would entail a lot of persons
>suffering a lot.
>I believe there is a profound blindness in this, since
>I had earlier read that the only reason Darwin was able to function
>in life (and, e.g., to discover and publish the theory of evolution...) was
>because of his inherited wealth and the ministrations of a
>devoted wife.
>In other words, on his own beliefs, Darwin should have
>suffered much and died young *instead* of being the founder of
>the various forms of "Darwinism".
>--Unless, of course, one believes that the fittest
>always survive *by definition*, in which case a fragile creature like Darwin
>was clearly evolutionarily superior to a person with
>Charles Atlas's body and Einstein's brain but who had
>the bad luck to be born anywhere that social
>conditions would have precluded him from "flowering".
>"Yours in discourse...."
>+\brad mccormick




                              * *  * * *  * *
      AWAKENINGS MASSAGE THERAPIES
"La grandeur d'un metier est d'unir des hommes"
                                                      -Saint Exupery
                  415.331.5571 (msg)
                  415.721.5205 (pgr)
           email:  [log in to unmask]
     http://www.well.com/~awakens