Survival of who?

an03 at Lehigh.EDU an03 at Lehigh.EDU
Thu Aug 24 10:57:07 EST 1995

In article <41duoc$1ip4 at>, carterb at (Deep Throat)
>       There is no doubt that Darwin's theory concerning the survival of the
>fittest is correct when applied to organisms living in nature, but it
>loses all of its integrity when applied to humans living in today's
>society's. The reason that the theory works in nature is because the
>natural world is an aesthetically pleasing place where there is no
>pity or compassion or emotion. Species exist to the best of their
>abilities, and should they die off, it's just as well, because they
>were not properly suited to their environment. If a particular
>organism is born with an advantage, it will prosper and flourish, if
>it is born with a cripple, it will perish and not reproduce. That is
>the beauty of the natural world.
>       However in human societies, we treat everyone as equal and go out of
>our way to aid the helpless in extending their lives and leading a
>normal life. Some have guessed that in thousands of years, humans will
>have evolved huge brains or will look very different then they do
>today. This will not occur, because should a freak with a larger brain
>be born, he will be treated like everyone else and not reap the
>benefits of his advantage. Likewise, should a man be born with only
>one kidney, or some other defect, he would live to pass this trait
>onto his children and future generations. That is the problem with
>human evolution. Unless things change, human's may evolve in negative
>ways, and we may not become the creatures we would like to be.
>What do YOU think?
>Brad Carter
>carterb at
>Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Our society is doomed to failure, precisely because we contrvene "survival of
the fittest."  In the modern "welfare state," we support the least intelligent,
least fit, and least productive members of our society at the expense of the
more fit and productive.  By instituting a progressive taxation system and a
nation of "entitlements," we have in fact enslaved the productive people to
provide for the unproductive ones.  This has led to today's quagmire, wherein
the least intelligent, least fit, and least productive people are reproducing
at a far greater pace than their enslaved providers.  If this doesn't change,
Ayn Rand's vision of the future (as portrayed in Atlas Shrugged) is the
logical and inevitable outcome.  Perhaps the "men of the mind" will not
disappear, as she wrote.  They may simply give up, or turn to destructive
endeavor, as was the case in the Soviet Union (which she also predicted).

The only hope for us is to live by reason, in a society which respects and
protects individual rights.  A system of values such as that which guides our
current leaders' actions, which holds that group "rights" and "entitlements"
supercede individual rights can only fail. The only rights which can possibly
exist per se are those of individuals.  There is no collective
consciousness or life force to possess or exercise rights.  If a government
defines the existence of such "collective" or "group rights," it is then
necessary to assign one or more individuals to administer and exercise the
collective's "rights."  This inherently subjugates the "natural" or "God-given"
rights of individuals.

I refered to rights as "natural" or "God-given" for the purpose of
clarification by associating the concept with others' concepts of the source
of such freedoms.  The rational argument for the existence of "rights," which
are essentially freedoms from the interference of others, is the nature of
Man.  As an individual, conscious, reasoning animal, humans need certain
freedoms in order to sustain their own lives (e.g., freedom to: think, labor,
create, engage in transactions by mutual consent without force, keep the
products of their labors or trade, ...).

By subjugating individual rights to those of the collective, we have created a
society in which the most fit are the slaves of the least fit.  So long as the
most fit consent to being victimized, and continue to "play along," this
broken, unjust system will hobble on.  When enough "producers" determine to
stop producing, our society will collapse in a freefall into anarchy and death.

It's not a pretty picture, but it is the rational outcome of what we've been
doing in the US since early in this century.

Adam Nelson

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list