[betty boop]

Other than arguing that “nature is cruel,” it being all about the “survival of the fittest” (and in Darwin’s terms, these poor miserable folks whose ill-treatment he “deplored” had little fitness/survival value anyway, and so their ultimate fate was a foregone conclusion), in what way did Darwin do anything at all to eliminate slavery? There was enough of the eugenicist in him already for him to be losing any sleep over such matters as the suffering of his fellow human beings. “Nature is bloody in tooth and claw.” And his theory dictates that “the best men win” in the end anyway. And isn’t that “good?”

[Coyoteman]

Your understanding of “nature is cruel,” “survival of the fittest,” “nature is bloody in tooth and claw,” and “the best men win” is flawed.

First, just for the record, Darwin did not originate the term “survival of the fittest” -- that was introduced over a decade later.

But the main point is that at any given time there are probably thousands, or tens of thousands of adaptations competing against the environment for survival. Everything from skin color to brain size, lung capacity and hair form to those little chemical and enzymatic changes deep in the body. To summarize this as “survival of the fittest,” where fittest is interpreted as strongest (bloody in tooth and claw), is both incorrect and totally misleading.

Lets do an example; in the Mediterranean the skin color is kind of medium, supplemented by tanning ability. That ability to change skin color seasonally lets folks absorb more vitamin D in the winter, yet avoid most of the ultraviolet rays during the summer. Pretty good adaptation, eh? Folks to the north have lighter skin, while folks to the south have darker skin. Which is "fittest?"

Now multiply this by perhaps a thousand traits.

And realize that many traits will work contrary to others. Larger brain sizes mean more difficult births, for example. Sickle-cell anemia is no fun, but it conveys some resistance to malaria.

Its a very complicated subject, and one which we are only beginning to understand. But your comment...

There was enough of the eugenicist in him already for him to be losing any sleep over such matters as the suffering of his fellow human beings. “Nature is bloody in tooth and claw.” And his theory dictates that “the best men win” in the end anyway. And isn’t that “good?”

...just tries to make a mockery of it all through not understanding the science involved and wishing to discredit Darwin and Darwinism in any way possible.

And isn’t that “good?” No, boys and girls. That isn't good.

[Stultis]

in what way did Darwin do anything at all to eliminate slavery?

Aside from his occasional published pejoration, and arguing the case for abolition forcefully person to person on every occasion that arose, I'm not aware that Darwin engaged in any further activism specifically in opposition to slavery. He did support the missionary movement, both with donations and in laudatory writings, probably in part because it was generally abolitionist, but mainly because he saw missionaries as a civilizing force (both on natives and on the colonials).

Darwin was certainly justifiably proud of the contributions his family had made, principally on the Wedgewood side, to the abolitionist cause. E.g. his grandfather Josiah Wedgewood who (or rather whose workers) designed, mass produced and distributed this famous seal of the Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade, of which Wedgewood was a member:

These widely distributed emblems were worn and displayed by abolitionists in both England and America, and turned out to play an important role in popularizing abolitionism and turning it into a mass movement.

Lessee. Also Darwin showed concern for the welfare, and justice concerning, former slaves in Jamaica. We was a member of the Jamaica Committee, organized in 1866, to prosecute Governor Eyre to be tried for his excesses (including the slaughter of innocents, summary executions without trials, etc) in putting down the "Morant Bay rebellion" (1865). Darwin was very energetic in fund raising for this cause. It was an issue that divided British society with many Tories (including much of the clergy) supporting Eyre.

But for the most part Darwin's charitable donations, voluntarism and activism, although considerable, where kept close to home, in Downe on Kent, where he carried out many projects for the poor, and for the benefit of ordinary folk, in cooperation with his close friend, the local Anglican pastor Brodie Innes.

There was enough of the eugenicist in him already for him to be losing any sleep over such matters as the suffering of his fellow human beings.

Not accurate at all. If anything Darwin was excessively empathetic.

“Nature is bloody in tooth and claw.”

Um, yeah. That -- "nature RED in tooth and claw" -- is from Alfred Lord Tennyson, the poet, and Christian, and was written in 1849, a decade before Darwin's Origin.

You're kinda snide regarding Darwin, but I don't think you have a very accurate appreciation of Darwin the person.