OCR Text |
Show 246. more powerful implications than might at first be obvious. Many Darwinists, for instance, would decide that a struggle was waged in all societies, man against man, or bear against bear; not just men against bears. This was social Darwinism. Was the struggle waged for food only, was it largely economic, or was the struggle territorial, for "niches" in the environment? Or did the species struggle against their environment, as Marsh believed men did? Depending on the attitude of the observer, either the most adaptable or the most ferocious species might appear fittest. Or was there no struggle at all? Did the process where species diverged into a waiting landscape lead to a more varied and numerous family of life on earth? As a consequence of such questions about process, the direction of evolution began to trouble scientists. Did it have a goal? Was it a means to some higher or better end? Social Darwinists wondered if strife in society was an inescapable law; did it lead to a better society? Was the final goal of Nature that each species would find its "niche" in a stable, rich, self-perpetuating biological realm? Or was the order of things unceasing change? What about Man? Was he the goal of evolution, or just one more species which would one day pass out of existence? Many of these questions arose from Darwin's own consideration of Man, but evolutionists could not help focusing on Man, his freedom, his death, his future. Did Man ascend or descend as he evolved? Was he a part of Nature, or dominant over it? Could he hope to control his own evolution in the |