Thurow contends that Social Darwinism as it has been practiced in the United States, is still politically incompatible with democracy. There will then, always be “the need for large social welfare income transfer systems” (Thurow, 1992, p. 17). Briggs notes that today, “divorce rates are staggering, bankruptcies are increasing . . . homeliness is spreading . . . the percentage of children living in poverty, the incidences of violent crimes, the magnitude of adult illiteracy . . . are the highest in the industrial world” (Briggs, 1998, p. 473). While Social Darwinism may be good for state of the nation’s economy and for a privileged few beneficiaries in particular, analysts claim the widening economic disparity is a symptom of a growing intensification of Darwinian laissez-faire capitalism. Even billionaire financier George Soros now fears the house of cards that he helped to create. “Although I have made a fortune in the financial markets, I now fear that the untrammeled intensification of laissez-faire capitalism and the spread of market values into all areas of life is endangering our open and democratic society” ( Soros, 1997, p. 45). Sociologist Geoff Mulgan takes the concept of Social Darwinism further, arguing that as embraced in American consumerism, it reveals both th limits and cost of providing too much freedom. “Full freedom of consumption has led to obesity, drug abuse, and so on. This entails costs both for the individual and for society” (Malik, 1996, p. 36). In terms of Darwinist thought regarding social problems, the concept that some people are scientifically less fit and therefore limited in employability or tendencies toward criminality tends today and define even social response to these issues in ethical terms. “The idea of limits to social activity has led people to question how far we can ‘engineer’ social solutions,” ...
