Survival of the fittest

is it good or bad???


I see it as fair based on the fact that those not strong enough are able to die and not live in pain...

like an equillibirum you know...


but it is good that things work on this survival of the fittest system (not that they do.. but if they did), or would it be better if we cared more about each other and not only the strong survived .. or lived well??


PLEASE ANSWER.. lots of opinions needed

Well the stupid tend to keep on living having large amounts of children. Allowing their subjective beliefs to hurt us all in the end, and they gain positions of power and generally make the world worse for everyone. And bring us closer to oblivion. So if I am included in this catorgory which from time to time I am, I would say survival of the fittest is good but it no longer plays apart in human lives. Unless you enter into it again, criminals, moving to africa, etc for such examples.

Survival Of The Fittest allows the genotypes of each and every species to adapt to a world of change. For example, 90% of all animals die by being eaten, so over the millennia the many species develop the instinct, abilities and prowess to give chase, get away or fight. Abnormalities like the hammerhead shark occasionally buck the rule, though they've somehow overcome their handicaps to get by anyhow.

It was once the same for humans, but since the dawn of civilisation there have been many societies which developed the idea of the strong assisting the weak which I suppose was helped along its course by the fact that we can love and empathise.

Survival Of The Fittest is correct in cold hard genetic terms even though modern humanity makes it an uncomfortable reality to face. As long as we're never 3 meals away from revolution then we can have the comfort of thinking ourselves above nature just because we're nice.

WAIT. one I dont mean fittest in a BIOLOGICAL sense.. I just mean fittest ..as

those who survive ARE the fittest.. if you werent strong enough you would be dead..
today people help eachother out.. we have medicine n stuff.. so it's not survival of the fittest..
but whether fittest=smartest, strongest, most lucky..

but my question is .. should the concept of helping eachother out be present.. or more present...or should it be less present?

what is ideal and why?

I think that there are 2 types of the fittest, I guess. Emotionally fit and physically fit. I guess confidense and healthy mind will beat the beautiful fit body.

I don't think it's a matter of good or bad but if the person is capable.

This might sound a bit like Nazi propaganda and fascist, but it's my opinion that medicine has had a negative affect on the gene pool in the long run. In nature, animals that have poor immune systems or genetic defects or fatal flaws usually die out. That's how their genes get removed from the pool, and over long periods of time (hundreds of thousands of years) they slowly get stronger as a species as impurities are weeded out. But now, anyone can survive and live on because of better nutrition and all of the pills that we develop and pump into people on a daily basis. Of course, this is a view too radical for society and most people instantly reject it.

Now, this view would definitely be in favor of things like selective breeding, license to breed, and euthanasia of the old, sick and mentally impaired, but then again, you can't go around getting cocky with nature. Who's too say that while that person might have one genetic flaw that they don't also carry some gene that is beneficial to the society as a whole? My father has diabetes which is a genetic disease, and so that means I am always at risk of getting it and so are my children. But then again, my father is extremely intelligent, and so are all of his offspring. So which is the better trade off? If you went around playing mother nature, you might cause some big fresia up just as bad as medicine has. So in the end, you never really know if you are doing the right thing. But then again, what is "right"?

I've always believed that you can't be good at everything. There's just not enough resources in your system. Have you ever noticed how people that are extremely talented or gifted in one area to an extreme are always lacking in another? It's as if their bodies and brains have to pull resources from other places to help compensate for that one part of their brain that makes them good at what they do. They usually have some weird social problems or can't perform simple daily activities like tying their shoes, but they can solve any math problem thrown at them.

It's a pretty blatant observation that things in nature are only good at what they are designed to do, and nothing else. It's almost as if it's the universe's way of being efficient and not wasting resources. Our brains and bodies are only as fit and strong as dictated by our environment. It's cause and effect all over again. If you don't use it you lose it. Lethargic and lazy? You will have no muscle tone and a flabby body. Don't use your mind and don't educate yourself? Then you will be dull, ignorant and slow. Ever wondered why we aren't walking juggernauts with perfect bodies reminicient of Greek Gods and minds as sharp as tacks naturally? Wouldn't that help us be more powerful as a species? Well, the universe has no concept of "best" or "powerful." Those are human ideals. In the end, it's really nothing but one thing leading to another, one ball bouncing into another... Think about it...

Brodie said:

Have you ever noticed how people that are extremely talented or gifted in one area to an extreme are always lacking in another? It's as if their bodies and brains have to pull resources from other places to help compensate for that one part of their brain that makes them good at what they do.

Click to expand...

That's not true for Gottfried Leibniz.

He was educated in law and philosophy, and serving as factotum to two major German noble houses (one becoming the British royal family while he served it), Leibniz played a major role in the European politics and diplomacy of his day. He occupies an equally large place in both the history of philosophy and the history of mathematics. He discovered calculus independently of Newton, and his notation is the one in general use since. He also discovered the binary system, foundation of virtually all modern computer architectures. In philosophy, he is most remembered for optimism, i.e., his conclusion that our universe is, in a restricted sense, the best possible one God could have made. He was, along with René Descartes and Baruch Spinoza, one of the three great 17th century rationalists, but his philosophy also looks back to the Scholastic tradition and anticipates modern logic and analysis. Leibniz also made major contributions to physics and technology, and anticipated notions that surfaced much later in biology, medicine, geology, probability theory, psychology, linguistics, and information science. He also wrote on politics, law, ethics, theology, history, and philology, even occasional verse. His contributions to this vast array of subjects are scattered in journals and in tens of thousands of letters and unpublished manuscripts. To date, there is no complete edition of Leibniz's writings, and a complete account of his accomplishments is not yet possible.

Click to expand...

jales said:

is it good or bad???

Click to expand...

As a nihilist I'll abstain from saying whether something is better or worse than anything else, especially in terms of evolution, it's just a fact that traits that get passed on more get passed on more, nothing more.

As a species that is largely aware of this fact I would have thought that we would aim to be happier people as opposed to stronger people more able to pass on their genetic traits.

Last night I compared myself with my rabbit to determine which of us was superior.

LIFE SPAN
Myself-Well I plan to live for about 70-80years, maybe more. Diabetes catches up with my family when he hit about 60 so I don't exspect much longer but otherwise we're pretty healthy

Rabbit-Is coming on to be 8years old and can't have much more than 2 or 3 years left in him. However he is unable to comprehend not existing so for all his intents and purposes he is in fact immortal.

Rabbit 1 - Me 0

PROBLEM SOLVING
Myself-Fairly smart guy, sub genius IQ but (apparently) not far off. Still, there are lots of problems I can't solve

Rabbit-Has a brain that must be roughly the size of a walnut, judging from his skull. Most of his brain is taken up with basic motor control, homeostatic functions and sensory interpretation. He cannot understand that there is a problem and because I care for him he'll probably never come across one. He doesn't care. He's too stupid.

Rabbit 2 - Me 0

STRENGTH
Myself- Not strong but certainly not the weakest person I know. Can achieve most things I need to, though some jars proove a problem and any pride in my masculinity has been wrenched from me by firmer hands.

Rabbit- Never has a problem with strength, if he wants something I give it to him. Sometimes tries to open doors in the house and fails, minor dissappointments there but still not capable of angst as he has yet to experience any strong physical stimuli, a bit miffed at best.

Rabbit 3 - Me 0

After about half an hour of reasoning I decided it would be much better to be my rabbit. Out spite I refused to give him a bit of my biscuit that night but he hoovered up the crumbs and returned to the radiator quite content. I had lost to him again.

I would be all for selective breeding to raise the iq and try to weed out genetic diseases. Because all it takes is making sure people have kids with people who dont have the same diseases as the person you breeding with until its rolled out of the genetic code. So 3 or 4 generations down simple diseases like diabetes could be reduced, and cancer, hemophilia and who else knows what. But right now the only genetic breeding we get is when woman use sperm donors which is a shame.

frey12 said:

I would be all for selective breeding to raise the iq and try to weed out genetic diseases. Because all it takes is making sure people have kids with people who dont have the same diseases as the person you breeding with until its rolled out of the genetic code. So 3 or 4 generations down simple diseases like diabetes could be reduced, and cancer, hemophilia and who else knows what. But right now the only genetic breeding we get is when woman use sperm donors which is a shame.

Click to expand...

Eugenics?

Lol thanks for all the responses..

good vs. bad....
to define that i suppose we would have to know the purpose of life..
so sleepy g2g