Now, I ask - why would a person be inclined to hold this belief? I can understand being against our society - but if survival of the fittest was our only rule, then humanity would be very different. And not necessarily for the better.
-------
If survival of the fittest was the only governing rule of man, then none of the modern human innovations would be present, or used. Why? Well, it's survival of the fittest - no companies, materials, anything. Therefore, no hospitals (meaning the deaths from illnesses would be left almost completely to chance, and I don't need to explain what a blow that would be to humanity on it's own.) would have ever been built. No houses - no companies, right? It's survival of the fittest. Also, many people would die at birth from health complications. No modern technology would be available. At all.
To back up my statement that there would be no companies, simply think about this: wouldn't the formation of companies aid others? Yes. Food companies, for example, would package and sell food to people. Survival of the fittest = no food companies, because they are aiding people.
Hospitals are companies. No hospitals. Hospitals, of course, aid people.
In fact, there would be NO ALTRUISM AT ALL. Because survival of the fittest is just that - survival of the fittest, no-one else. And altruism introduces the possibility of survival of those who are not fit - which contradicts that cardinal rule, survival of the fittest.
Logically, the rule is hit-and-miss. Fittest would be = to physical fitness, correct? What about other gifts besides athletics? Intellect? Artistry? None of those would matter under that rule. Humanity would be back at square one, and would stay there. . .forever, as long as it is consistently followed.
----------
So, I ask, what could the reasoning for holding this view, that survival of the fittest should be the law that governs man? Is it valid reasoning? And please provide a good reason, not just that you want to rebel against the establishment, man! Give a good, supportable, logically sound reason.
When they say survival of the fittest I don't believe they're talking about strictly of the most physically fit. They could be talking about fit in general. Survival of the fittest would just be who is the best at surviving. So that would include companies, hospitals, all that good stuff.
If you think about it, our world is still survival of the fittest. It's just evolved so that it is a less severe version. But I mean if you aren't fit to live in your environment, not smart enough, not strong enough, etc, and you can't get any help you'll die.
So, I ask, what could the reasoning for holding this view, that survival of the fittest should be the law that governs man?
Let's forget my theories up there for a second, and just focus on your question. I believe that people would hold that belief because they feel like if humanity lets the weak die then we'll be a stronger species. It's true though, if we didn't let the weak people pass on their genes eventually our entire species would be stronger, smarter, all that good stuff.
Incorrect. It has never been defined as "Survival of the Physically Fittest." Some other traits like Intellect, maybe not Artistry so much in the given circumstances, would aid you greatly. You'd be more able to think about a situation and get the best course of action out of it rather than a ready, fire, aim kind of thing going on. (Heck yeah I quoted Iron Man, though that is probably quoted from somewhere else in the movie)
Also, I don't think this idea is supposed to apply to everything. It's only supposed to apply to a few things, like more along the lines of wild creatures or humans having no resources being put in the wild. The fittest would then prosper. Those who would prosper the most are the people who are the fittest both mentally and physically, supporting my idea from earlier.
That's all for now until I think of something else to say or get questioned.
@Dragon: But I mean as it being the only law to govern man, in which case all fo that would be irrelevant. Because intellect and artistry are not definitely needed ti survive, right?
Because intellect and artistry are not definitely needed ti survive, right?
I have already argued that intellect can make you more fit to survive. Also, there are rare occasions artistry can make you more fit for survival. Creating camoflauge and artistry such as the creation of goods, such as cooking, can make you more fit for survival as well. The idea of survival of the fittest is very circumstantial besides being unclear on what it was meant to encompass when the idea was created.
But I mean as it being the only law to govern man
I'm not so sure that's what it was intended to be, but okay, I'll bite. If that's what it was, then would we even be the dominant species? Almost anything created can be thought to benefit others. Even things to destroy others are usually used to benefit people on your side. Without this, we'd have no reason to explore and we'd lose our trait that makes us humane. We'd be carnal. Though, without some of the things we've done, the world could be a better place. But I digress. If we want to be wild creatures, or you could think of us as the stereotypical caveman (not the Geico cavemen), then yes, this should be what we follow. But humans want to explore. We want to learn. We want to not just survive, we want to live.
Though I'm not too sure about accepting that "Survival of the Fittest" is supposed to encompass everything, I will admit that if it is in fact supposed to, it is the wrong belief. It would go directly against what we humans want. Maybe if it had started out like that, it'd be fine, but after learning, there's no going back. Our eyes have been opened and they're not closing 'til the day we die.
I have already argued that intellect can make you more fit to survive. Also, there are rare occasions artistry can make you more fit for survival. Creating camoflauge and artistry such as the creation of goods, such as cooking, can make you more fit for survival as well. The idea of survival of the fittest is very circumstantial besides being unclear on what it was meant to encompass when the idea was created.
I understand that they can help, but under survival of the fittest, they aren't strictly needed. And the rest of this, I can agree with. It's a rather ambiguous statement. -------
I'm not so sure that's what it was intended to be, but okay, I'll bite. If that's what it was, then would we even be the dominant species?
There are people who think it should be. . . .
Whether we're the dominant species is irrelevant, is it not? ------ Really, it's a very ambiguous statement - and is difficult to think opf exactly what it would supposed to encompass.
The rule of 'survival of the fittest' does not just apply to individuals, but groups and species. Being that our species is particularly social, certain social behaviours are invaluable; and those that possess them are more likely to succeed, either in terms of their social stature, or genetically in their likelihood to find a suitable mate.
In fact, there would be NO ALTRUISM AT ALL.
There is no altruism already. People do things because they benefit them in some way. Functioning sociopaths interact with others, smile, joke, get along because to do otherwise would compromise them. People give to charity because they think that helping the poor will get them into God's graces, they don't join some rainforest alliance because they want to save the trees & planet; saving the planet is kind of heroic and sexy, and that girl they have the hots for might be impressed because they're so environmentally aware.
Logically, the rule is hit-and-miss. Fittest would be = to physical fitness, correct? What about other gifts besides athletics? Intellect? Artistry? None of those would matter under that rule. Humanity would be back at square one, and would stay there. . .forever, as long as it is consistently followed.
I think your interpretation of the phrase, and subsequently the logic in your argument is flawed. It is by being social, and intelligent, and cooperating together that has allowed humans as a species to dominate, and as such - that social cooperation and intelligence is a part of our 'fittest' survival instincts.
There is no altruism already. People do things because they benefit them in some way. Functioning sociopaths interact with others, smile, joke, get along because to do otherwise would compromise them. People give to charity because they think that helping the poor will get them into God's graces, they don't join some rainforest alliance because they want to save the trees & planet; saving the planet is kind of heroic and sexy, and that girl they have the hots for might be impressed because they're so environmentally aware.
While I agree with this, it's pretty unsupported. ------
I think your interpretation of the phrase, and subsequently the logic in your argument is flawed. It is by being social, and intelligent, and cooperating together that has allowed humans as a species to dominate, and as such - that social cooperation and intelligence is a part of our 'fittest' survival instincts.
Kay. . .thanks for that then. I'd say you're right in this
Hardly. Richard Dawkins has written on the subject quite a bit, though in a couple of ways he does come to some different conclusions - that there is a 'genuine' form of altruism in genetics - a concept he writes about in "The Selfish Gene" (1976) which is extrapolated here by Benjamin O'Donnell; in that, self-sacrifice of an organism to save other, similar organisms is a propagation of the gene pool in which that 'altruistic' gene exists.
I'm not sure I entirely agree with him, and for one of the reasons Benjamin brings forward in that post, in that the self-sacrifice doesn't necessarily help it's own gene pool strictly, as it could be sacrificing itself for organisms that lack the carrier 'altruism' gene.
It's a wicked read, I'd totally recommend it (not just the article, the book).
There is no altruism already. People do things because they benefit them in some way. Functioning sociopaths interact with others, smile, joke, get along because to do otherwise would compromise them. People give to charity because they think that helping the poor will get them into God's graces, they don't join some rainforest alliance because they want to save the trees & planet; saving the planet is kind of heroic and sexy, and that girl they have the hots for might be impressed because they're so environmentally aware.
I'd have to disagree with this. There is no proof that people don't give just to give. You can easily give to have no benefit to yourself, other than feeling good about it, but that doesn't seem to be what anti-altruistic points your trying to get across. There are plenty of times I've helped and not gained anything out of, and I was expecting that.
allowed humans as a species to dominate
Kay. . .thanks for that then. I'd say you're right in this
Whether we're the dominant species is irrelevant, is it not?
One, I was blathering, but when Hidden said something more of us dominating which = dominant species, you agree. So :P
I'd have to disagree with this. There is no proof that people don't give just to give. You can easily give to have no benefit to yourself, other than feeling good about it
You can't say you don't get something out of it if it makes you feel good.
I'd have to disagree with this. There is no proof that people don't give just to give. You can easily give to have no benefit to yourself, other than feeling good about it, but that doesn't seem to be what anti-altruistic points your trying to get across. There are plenty of times I've helped and not gained anything out of, and I was expecting that.
You can't say you dont' get something out of it if it makes you feel good.
Better?
Examples of what you did, why you did it, and how you felt about yourself/the tasks you were doing.
>_> So any feelings at all? I think that's pushing it a bit, don't you? Well obviously you don't since you're putting that up as your opinion. We're not zombies, of course we're going to feel. It's natural for humans. We feel, we love, we have emotions. This anti-altruistic talk seems a little too far, since as humans we can't help but feel. We can avoid such things as doing it to be good in the view of God, or to impress someone, but feelings are unavoidable. No matter what, you can't oppress them. Even if you think they're not there, they're lurking in the back of your mind.
