So why is social concern a humbug? Today, many talk about the uplifting of the poor and a bottom-up approach. The concern for the poor and the disadvantaged is high and omnipresent. But practically speaking, such a concern may be unwarranted. I will try and reason out why.
For all those who are familiar with Darwin's natural selection theory, it’s a tacit agreement that life on earth has to follow the process of 'survival of the fittest'. The ecology ensures that only a percentage of life can survive and go on to the next generation. A stoic and unemotional thought process reflects that this is in fact something that is healthy.
In life, we tend to have many options. Of those many options, a few are stale or at least not practical. Of the remaining, based on perceptions, options are rated and chosen. The process of natural selection can be thought on similar lines. Life is born as both competent and otherwise. The worst creations die out easily and the rest stay on. And depending on the systems' perception, the ratings of life differ.
Now, don’t take me capitalistic. Life should take its course of natural selection. Only species that are ready to be competent and ready to put in efforts can survive. That ensures a stronger earth. So why at all wealth should be divided amongst the undeserved? Why at all should the person who conceived all the idea of an enterprise take the wealth he had created? Rightfully speaking, he is the mastermind of the actual enterprise.
And coming back to what I was saying, practically speaking, ‘survival of the fittest’ is how the world works and so such deliberate concern for the disadvantaged is not warranted.
Take the case of a crying baby. When you start petting her, you are actually spoiling her. Let the butterfly fly out of its cocoon. Agreed, one generation suffers. But the next flourishes. Only such determined survival brings the earth fate to a neat destiny.
I too understand the pain of survival. But I have survived.
9 comments:
‘survival of the fittest’ is how the world works and so such deliberate concern for the disadvantaged is not warranted.
For starters, its Darwin's theory, and not the protocol of life. His theory was based on research of animals which have much simpler way of life, without the human complexities.
Even when going with your line of thought...
A study was conducted across the different countries of the world and it was found that people who stayed at the slums close to the great river of Chennai recorded some of the world's highest immunity levels. Aren't they technically one of the fittest?
The survival of the fittest was to make sure the progeny is strong and healthy, so they have all the rights, if not more to not just survive but flourish.
If you were talking about 'survival of the richest', then your take would hold true.
Happy blogging :)
Cheers *_*
Yes, I've got to agree with Someday's dreamer. If we go by Darwin's theory, we would have to say that infants born through a c-section would have to be considered "unfit" for survival, just because they weren't born naturally, but surgically. In that case, great people across the world, including Caesar, would have to be classified as a deficient member of the human race. As we all know, that is not the case. Therefore, saying that people should not be given equal opportunity is a flawed argument. By the way, did you know that babies who are not stroked constantly when they are young will die? That is the basis of the theory of transactional analysis. So we aren't actually spoiling a baby when we pet her, we're keeping her alive. And coming to your argument that a person who conceived the idea should always take home its benefits, spare a thought for venture capitalists. They plow money into other people's ideas. What about them? Should they also not be given a share of the wealth created? If they should, then how can you say the people who actually work to create that wealth, the employees, should not take home a part of that wealth? And did you know that the reason why richer people are more prone to diabetes is because they're too clean?(based on a recent research). So saying richer people will make the earth stronger is not right either. Most of the countries in the world favour the poorer and the under-privileged because they haven't been provided with equal opportunity as the richer ones. Therefore, Darwin's theory doesn't make any sense here at all.
I must, as usual, admit that I dont take a rigid stand. But to make things clear, I was talking about mental perseverance.. I am seriously not worried about biological weakness.. I agree, KA that biological weakness is what Darwin primarily talked about.. I am in a way applying that to mental perseverence. And Someday's dreamer.. I am in partial agreement with you.. But I always believe that humans are not complex as we perceive.. Its possible to simplify taking into account all butterfly effects too..
Hey Siva I suggest its time you revisited the origin Darwinism... firstly FYI you would be suprised to know that Darwinism and 'survival of the fittest' are two different ideas. Please refresh your history lessons... there is more than meets the eye in this story... and since your reasoning is based solely on this concept I regret to say that it is flawed!
Hi Aarthi.. thanks for taking time to read n comment.. Umm.. I must say I did not mention about Darwinism or social darwinism.. nor had the intention to. And I agree that Darwinism and Darwin's theory are different. What I am talking of is Darwin's theory of natural selection as applied to a society..
siva if people were to be eliminated citing poor mental strength or lack of effort to raise above their current position as a reason, then i guess ,there would hardly be anyone left .
if u think a little , everyone of us at some point in time are content with where we stand , and occasionally make an extra effort ( an inconsistent one at that) to improve. same is the case with many of the underprivileged. one reasoni attribute to this kind of attitude is ignorance of a means to live a better way and hence lack of interest to achieve it.
but even if some of them did ,where do they have the financial strength to do it ?
these days evrything runs only on fat money.
a thing as basic as a college education would cost them their entire lifetime earnings.
how then are they going to get a decent job ?
they then have to depend on agriculture . now we all know how reliable it is and the profit earned through it is hardly enough to repay the debts incurred in producing the yield.
any govt office they approach for help we know what would happen.
now how are they going to come out of their ignorance , their only known way of life ?
the only way is fierce determination coupled with an initial thrust .
determination they might have but where is the thrust going to come from ?
True Mary.. In a way, we could be lucky to have that initial thrust which many under-previleged dont have. I am not asking to eliminate them sure. I am saying concern for them would not be warranted. Say a lion kills a deer. Should there be concern for the deer. What I am saying is, its all biology and there is some balance being maintained.
And just think, there r poor people in this world. But many are overcoming their disadvantages out of sheer will (and I wont say opportunities) and a determination. This level of threshold should be crossed for life to sustain. A person who is talented but is not having the will is not fit mentally. And money is not what that drives things in world. So to say, there are numorous people who started with as less as a penny. All companies have their roots in 10000 Rs investments or sometimes even less. And wht makes it to grow is sheer will. And that will is the one that gets screened and the lowest terminated. And thats the theory of natural selection. Its a perception. I maybe wrong. But my reasoning sounds very rational.
what is the difference siva
whether there is concern or not .
anyways there is no action going to be taken .
true there are some whove built up empires from scratch but not all can do so . even the Rs 100000 investment companies you mentioned, what about those who cant even earn Rs 1000 per month ...
I believe we must give Siva points for thinking on the areas which many of us haven't even thought of as a possibility. "Survival of the fittest" is what Darwin had stated but why not look it at a different light? True that in today's age, it can not be considered a protocol of life but what if the race for survival brings out the best in us. In today's time, that has been termed as Constructive Competition where we work so hard that we win the race. That would surely make the world full of superior people who are aware of their abilities and they strive to sharpen it. Although this very elimination is debatable, but if we indulge in some type of constructive competition, all of us stand to win.
Post a Comment