Do you think that by helping the less fortunate, we are going against natural selection?

Question

What are your thoughts?

Answer 1

No.
It would seem like that on the surface, but helping the less fortunate, at least from a biological standpoint actually increases the survivability of a species by shifting the focus from competition to cooperation. A species that takes care of its own benefits from a cohesive social order that allows for even the "less fortunate" members of that species to survive long enough to contribute something of benefit to the species at large, even if it's just greater numbers to potentially fend of predators. It's also indicative of a sophisticated enough brain which would probably mean that the species in question has some capabilities of actually changing the environment.

Humans aren't the only species on the planet with a "help the less fortunate" mentality. Various social primates, and indeed some other sorts of predatory mammals also exhibit forms of alturism which seem to coincide with our concept of helping the less fortunate. Female cats, for example WILL sometimes adopt orphaned kittens, and indeed ALL female cats, especially those who live in social groups (as opposed to solitary housecats) will respond "helpfully" to the distress yowls of kittens, whether those kittens are their own or not. Various primates will also tend for the young in a communal sense, though primates WILL also express aggression to other members of the species just as readily.

There is also an ant species in South America that lives as the only ant species in which members of one colony will NOT attack members of the same species from OTHER colonies. Intra-species predation doesn't seem to exist in this ant species (I can't remember the name of it) and as a result of that, this particular breed of ant enjoys life in a wider range of territories that the more solitary-colony species that attack all intruders in their territories, ant or otherwise. It's been shown, though only in a limited way, that members of one such ant colony will be accepted into another colony, if that other colony is of the same species, thus showing--at least on a rudimentary scale--that cooperation (which extends to "helping the less fortunate") adds a number of benefits to a species.

Answer 2

No, we are going WITH it. We are social animals. It is not just individual that is object of natural selection, but also a group.
If we, as a group, can afford helping the less fortunate from generation to generation, then we are not weakened. In fact, we can help more and more.
Strong networks of mutual help are a matter of life and death when society is under strong external stress (war, famine etc.) By helping less fortunate today you build alliances that may save you tomorrow. That's why the behavior of helping someone who is not your family was not eliminated by evolution.

Answer 3

Yes. It is unfortunate, but if left to our own defense's, children would not survive if severly handicaped. Elderly would be aloud to die, without being abandoned in nursing facilities. Some will say God gave us the forsight and mind to control these issues. Really? I think it is about money and control and a person's inablilty to accept that we all die. If you believe in what has been written by many faiths, then what in the world are you worried about? I read an article once stating our need to understand that all life is not here for our personal preference. Some may come early and give us a few moments and some may give us their lives. Think of it as a gift. Sure it may be hard. NO DOUBT. Yet, their lives were given as a gift. Is it our right to continue to pursue venues that keep people alive for our own selfishness or fear. Who knows. I hope I will feel relief, compassion and a true sense of knowing that no one should suffer because I selfishly want to keep them alive when the facts are the have a right to die with peace and dignity.

Answer 4

Our natural selection is to help the less fortunate..

Answer 5

No because natural selection is related to the environment. If the environment changes to where it can support something that was a liability, then it will survive. The process of natural selection will still go on...in accordance with the environment.

Answer 6

It depends on the context. In the context of dog-eat-dog naturalistic hunter/gatherer type society, yes absolutely it would be. But what about in a society in which those with a strong intellectual capacity can play a very real and very viable role yet not be able to fend for themselves? Actually, that too would be natural selection if they were weeded out. I suppose it's unnatural selection as we are conciously picking out the traits which we find desirable and promoting them through scolarships, etc.

Answer 7

No, for me being in the so called "natural selection", gives us the power to execute our own will, and that power includes sharing what we have to the people who needs it. We are who we want and choose to be, the natural order of things is only the product of ones material possessions but inside we are all the same., created the same way.

Answer 8

This is a very good question.. I think if you look at say medicine, and what they have achieved I think you could say that we are interfering.
However, you could argue, that the fact that we can do these things in the first place, is because we have evolved enough through natural selection, so therefore it is what we must do.

Answer 9

It is natural selection. You don't have to be the physically strongest to be the fittest survivor. If you can get what you need to survive from someone else, either through sympathy, theft, or other means, you still survive to potentially pass on your genes.

That's why babies (human and animal) are cute. They make themselves loved and accepted by the group to receive care until they can fend for themselves.

Answer 10

Natural Selection ended a long long time ago with our civilization. It's not a bad thing. Evolution is not the mode of our existence, we don't exist FOR it-- we are not a holding camp for super-humans yet to come.