carterb at cadvision.com (Deep Throat) wrote:
>SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST APPLIED TO HUMANS OF THE MODERN WORLD
> 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
Humans are living as well in nature as any other creature does. Why do
you suggest it is otherwise?
> 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
Natural selection doesn't only suggest that the strongest survives. It
could also be applied to be smarter than other members of the species,
thus gaining an advantage. This would mean that even is somebody is
ill or not fitted to survive in an hostile environment, he could as
well contribute important things to the society. Look at Hawkings for
example.
>today. This will not occur, because should a freak with a larger brain
How will you know this? Medical care, technic, science doesn't stop
evolution. It is possible that it bends the way evolution was trodding
along, thus coming to other solutions as it would have been if we
hadn't developed this kind of things. But that doesn't mean that
evolution of mankind is stopped. This kind of things always happen to
one species or another and is an integral part of natural selection.
>human evolution. Unless things change, human's may evolve in negative
>ways, and we may not become the creatures we would like to be.
To evolve in a negative way can only be stated by an observer. But
evolution doesn't bend to an observer. It goes it's way, working with
things that are there to work with. No matter if somebody thinks that
it is negative or positive or even halted.
by(e), Gerhard W. Gruber
fido: 2:310/81.11
email: gruber2 at ibm.net
Any spelling corrections will be appreciated as email.
