posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 10:42 AM
Charles Darwin said that all life adheres to the principle of "Survival of the Fittest", where the strongest, most intelligent, most adapted species
and particular sub-species would survive the brutality of nature and pass thier genes onto their offspring, hence, eliminating the weak, less
itnelligent and less adapted species. Hence, this is the basis around which evolution exsists. But does this Darwinian theory apply to us as human
This can be answered with a simple fictional example:
Imagine there was an earthquae, ad two animals where trapped, each under a boulder of similar size, weight, etc as the other one. One of the animals
was big, strong, and intelligent. The other animal was small, weak and unintelligent. The big, strong, intelligent animal has the strength and brain
power to remove the boulder, survive, and reproduce, passing on its genetic material. The small, weak, unintelligent animal cannot do this, and hence
dies, failing to pass on its genetic material. This will therefore result in a stronger, bigger, more intelligent species.
HOWEVER, with humans, this no longer occurs, or not nearly as often. if we think of the two animals now as humans, a stronger, bigger, more
intelligent one and a weaker, smaller and unintelligent one, the situation alters. This is becasue we have compassion. The weak human cannot remove
the boulder, but the strong man, after saving himself, will likely remove the boulder for the weak man and save him, therefore allowing the small man
too reproduce as well, passing on his weaker, smaller, uninteligent genes. This in turn makes this largely accepted Darwinian theory INCORRECT,
IRRELEVANT to some of the compassionate human race.
This is not always the case however, with humans still being selfish, and still possibly have negative thoguhts against the weaker man... he/or she
might dislike him. But the fact is, we have the option, we have the ability, we have the INTELLIGENCE to break this cycle of self preservation. In
contrast ,just becasue our present morals and ethics might see the preservation of other human beings as well as ourselves as being the RIGHT thing to
do, we must also keep in midn that our morals and ethics of what is right and what is wrong is ONLY GOVERNED BY POPULAR OPINION. For example, the
vast majority of people 200 years ago thoguht homosexuality was wrong, therefore immoral. But today, most people would disagree, and see it as
acceptable, and therofre RIGHT. Whos to say we mgiht change our minds about the preservation of the majority of lives over the minority? Its all
food for thought...
Apologies for so many typos and the exhaustive uses of "therefore"!
Please reply with any of your comments on any of the topics highlighted.
[edit on 13-6-2005 by John Pearce]