Evolutionists, do you truly believe in survival of the fittest?

Question

Most democrats (also evolutionists, usually) believe that every dying species should be propped up and supported at the expense of the public thriving species. If the species is unfit, why not just let nature take it's course if they can't evolve to meet the challenges?

Politically, it's the same way. Many believe that the mediocre people that have made bad decisions in life and have reached bad conclusions should be supported to death by force (taxes). While, I'm not saying that these people should die unhelped, isn't it a burden on those that are evolving to throw away their resources (that could have been better used to advance the human race rather than keeping the status quo) to those that can't catch up naturally?

Is the whole survival of the fittest thing just a joke or what?

Thanks!

Answer 1

Bad homes make bad people which make bad decisions it's not there fault. Some people are very smart and left behind while there are stupid successful people. What makes people get ahead. Brain knowledge not physical strength. Anybody could do anything they wanted too they just choose not too because of there pride. Nobody is any better than anybody.  

Answer 2

yes  it is,,, we have done so much to hurt ourselves because of society and the "downtrodden" we have to show compassion to everybody now adays

Answer 3

you know survival of the fittest confer to certain principle and I do not think a person who's corrupt attitude confer onto it .one of the prerequisite of survival stated by Darwin is the ability to cope up to change and  its not necessarily that intelligence is the factors of survival .Hence any person who ride on this factor  could survive and of course evolved and not devolved and he who falls to be corrupt being certainly will devolve since he did not accumulate onto himself the principle of survival (and the worst to these people uses others as their own survival kit by oppressing them )

Answer 4

Survival of the fittest normally means SUPPORTING YOUR OWN RACE. So in killing or letting our own race die we actually prove that we are unfit to survive. If there are only a few humans who are the strongest but refuse to help others then the majority of the unfit die and thus decrease the human population signifigantly and at that rate it only continues until the population is so low that the race as a whole(humans) go extinct.

Survival of the fittest is not how you think. It can be percieved in many different ways. After all physical strength is NOT what allowed humanity to "rule" the Earth as we do with so much "power" it was our minds. The fact we knew we needed EVERY human being with ANY potential. The fact we knew that as a whole we were stronger than any other animal.

Physical traits are normally a factor in animals not so suited to using tools like humans. The lions were the fit because of their speed, deadly accurate strikes, and quickness, but they also hunted in packs and such to keep their numbers consistent.

Your example needs to stop focusing on the "disease" and cutting away the dead skin and look more to a "cure" and fixing the dead skin, not so much by cutting it off but more by using it in a different way.

What you also don't understand is the law of nature, or at least that's what I'm calling it now. WHAT HAPPENS, HAPPENS. If we choose to help a dying species, THEN WE ARE PART OF IT AND WE ARE MAKING IT FIT. You assume you know what the path of life will take, that the "CORRECT" path is to simply let the animal race go extinct since it is unfit, but by decisions- that humans normally make- we FOLLOW THE PATH, we do not change it, and we help the species. If that is what happens, then that is what will happen, and it is what was meant to happen, then there is nothing wrong with it. When the universe starts ripping itself apart, then yeah maybe something was wrong, but I don't think that will happen, but you never know.

Answer 5

Normally, people always want to be better and higher than everyone else. Words like Survive of the Fittest is only a reason for them to succeed their own goal. But it's not right if we sacrifice other people in order to  reach our goal. We live in this world as unity, we must care to others. Even if we believe that words, why don't we make other people survive also in this world?

Answer 6

Yes, and it is no joke.

Answer 7

My first thought is that you've taken the notion of survival of the fittest out of context. "Survival of the fittest" works in conjunction with random genetic mutation over a long period of time to evolve species that are best equiped to cope with the environmental pressures they are subjected to. It isn't a fast process or one that can be accomodated in the time it takes humanity to destroy an ecosystem.

Many people believe the preservation of the earth's biodiversity to be important both because it's simply the "right" thing to do, and for our own survival on this planet. This isn't contradictory to any evolutionary theory - it simply isn't possible for a species to evolve fast enough to counteract a rapid change or destruction of their environment - throughout history there have been several massive extinctions, of which the end of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago is but the best known. These are caused by these sorts of rapid environmental changes. A few species a capable of surviving the changes, most aren't. Those that do go on to evolve and adapt to the changed situation.

Supporting the disadvantaged and poorly off in a society is not really the same thing. This comes from a society's view of itself as one that values and respects every individual. While it's true that some people are indeed lazy or not very bright, many people in bad situations have simply ended up there through no fault of their own - if you're born in say the desert in the middle of the Sudan, there's not much you can do about it for example, and most first world countries have areas of extreme poverty and deprivation to compare with that example. Societies establish different ways of dealing with the idea of supporting everyone, while encouraging people to contribute as best they can. This is a cultural phenomenon, not an evolutionary one - although you can argue that human culture is an offshoot of our evolutionary development, it's probably going a bit too far back to primary causes to discuss, say, public medical benefits in terms of evolutionary theory.

Lastly, I'm almost horrified by your use of the term "genetically unfit". Once you start trying to determine who is "genetically fit" to advance the human race, you start down a very, very slippery slope into the realm of eugenics and genocide. I'm not saying you support either of those two things, but I think you need to rethink that particular philosophy