Malthus's ideas relates to Darwin and Wallace's theory in that both human, and wild populations bred way beyond their means, leaving losers and survivors in a struggle to survive. Those with desirable traits would remain, but those who were less able would die. Darwin and Wallace both stressed that the difference between humans and apes is much bigger than the differences between human races.
Their difference was that Darwin emphasized on competition between the individuals of the same species to reproduce and survive. On the other hand, Wallace emphasized on the ecological pressure on different species forcing them to either adapt to the existing environmental conditions or become extinct. Wallace emphasized the need for adaptation to the environment, while Darwin emphasized on competition between the same species' individuals. I think Darwin received much credit for this work than Wallace because Darwin was the first to collect evidence from diverse fields, bring it together and unite it under one theory (Gayon, 1998)
The Social Darwinism brought about different social reforms and reactions. Andrew Carnage became the leading philanthropist in the world and was a prominent leader against warfare and imperialism. He argued that while the competition may be hard for an individual, it might be best for the race. Therefore, we should accept the differences and conditions in which we must accommodate ourselves in for the future progress of the race. Kropotkin could not agree with this theory. He did research and wrote a book named 'Mutual Aid' in response to distortions of Darwin.
The book was an outstanding contribution to anthropological and evolution thought. Kropotkin's opinion was that those species that survived were, mostly, where the individuals left cooperated. The most striking differences in their lives is that; Carnage was a businessman, while Kropotkin was a member of the army and a trained scientist. The main lessons that can be leant from the two about interpreting science theories is that we should always be positive, and not use theories to give explanations that threaten the dignity of life.
Heinrich Von Treitschke supported his praise about war by writing. He stated that when nationalities engage in war, corn eventually separates from the chaff. He argues that those who are against war are rather too cowardly to protect their nations since war is the best medicine for humanity. Heinrich goes further supports his statement by saying that the Bible says that the man in authority should protect the rest with a sword; and that the person who gives his life for a friend has the greatest love. He says that the Aryans always protect what they intellectually won by using the sword (Treitschke, 1996). Wilfred Owen would have dismissed Heinrich's assertions about the greatness of war. Owen would have told him that war is not a pleasant experience; it is a pity. In my opinion, war is devastating, and it should be highly avoided. It is evil, and God is against it.
Emmeline Pankhurst gave a speech to clarify why women used force in their struggle for women Suffrage. In her speech, she gave a history of how women's rights had been violated. She said this was because women had, all along, kept low while men used force to demand what they wanted. Pankhurst said that the modern woman was now educated, which saw the numbers in Woman Suffrage membership swell. It was now their time to violently demand for the rights denied to them for a long time, and these would only be successful if done violently. They were fighting for a great idea: the betterment of the human race, and they believed this betterment could only come through empowering of women (Pankhurst, 1900). Personally, I do not consider women as terrorists in nature. I think they were justified to protest but not to destroy private property. They are familiar to the terrorist groups in that they assaulted private property.