do you aggree, in this modern society and civilisation, still the "Darwins Theory" rules.?

Question

"SURVIVAL FOR THE FITTEST" think of this & answer, thank-u

Answer 1

It is applicable to species explaining biological adaptation to environment. Using it to justify cut throat competition amongst ourselves is the greatest folly. Should we then annihilate all disabled persons in our world, first of all in our own family?

Moreover, when the rule is applied by mother Nature, there is a standard of justice which human beings can not bring about in themselves, both on account of selfish and emotional motives. As a result, this rule has merely become a convenient excuse to reward some and punish others to meet extraneous objectives.

If we are human beings worth our soil, we should never let a survival question arise at all. Instead of competing for survival, we should be striving for excellence!!

Answer 2

With modern sentimentalities, in which the weak and those who probably shouldn't breed are encouraged to do so, we are simply passing bad genes onto our descendants. This is obviously a bad thing...

To those who say "well, we wouldn't have a Stephen Hawking if we didn't encourage the handicapped!", I reply that that is an empty statement. Stephen Hawking has many peers, and it is entirely likely that had he not existed, someone else would have developed his theories in time (not necessarily now; I believe that excellent in humanity is influential, don't get me wrong).

However, let us consider this: what if an asteroid grazed Earth enough to alter the temperature? What if the sun suddenly decreased it's output? What if 75% of the population died because of a virus? Would we have enough people to produce insulin for diabetes sufferers, would we be able to sustain a large handicapped population? If we are ever reduced below the critial population mass in order to maintain all of our current services, I fear for large groups of the population from secondary effects (no medical supplies to keep dependent groups alive). In that case, Survival of the Fittest would indeed come crashing back into our faces, to the detriment of all.

(Mind you, I believe that everyone should be allowed to make their own decisions, etc. Even if I had the power, I would -not- forbid anyone from breeding; it's a personal choice that everyone should be able to make for themselves. I am not a Eugenecist, but simply acknowledge reality. I'm glad Stephen Hawking was born!)

Answer 3

Given the humans control and destructiveness over the planet any other species are going to struggling to survive let alone surviving of the fittest. The world Darwin observed was largely pre industrial.The World now is post industrial with a failing ecological system. The natural world needs sanctuaries and protection from the exploits of industrialization. The original idea of survival of the fittest was about the natural world in a fair ecological mode. Given that many animals are having trouble surviving due to human encroachments on their territory has nothing to do with the fitness of that species. We should be looking at he natural world with conservation for species safe havens and protection from adverse effects of industrialization.

Answer 4

We are DE-evolving! There is no more survival of the fittest because wild bears aren't eating the slower people. Diseases for the most part have been wiped out. I know that if you breed fish in an aquarium they lose their colors more every generation because there's no reason to be more colorful if everybody survives. Go to your local Walmart and you'll see this to be true. Stupid people are breeding at an alarming rate. Professional career women are waiting longer and longer to have children, reducing the smart people. What's funny is that the things we're trying to kill: like viruses and weeds, we're only making stronger by killing 99%, but leaving the strongest 1%. I think we're losing the evolutionary race.

Answer 5

Unfortunately No.
Rich , and even middle class -- are all content with having 1-2 children. But the poor on welfare have 4-5 children. They are OBVIOUSLY not the fittest -- yet they reproduce more and more. I blame the birth control.

Answer 6

I disagree. In our modern society, man has come up with many ways to cope up with his disabilities. You don't just have to be fit to survive, uve got to have money, uv got to have power, uv got to have intellect to surpass life.

For example, a sick man could actually die of some severe disease, but if he has money to spend on his medications and treatment, then he could live.

Survival is no longer measured by what a person is but is imposed by the boundaries of the unknown. AIDS would become JUST a disease if we found the cure to it. Survival is just a stone's throw away...

Answer 7

well to be fit is desireable in this day and age but no you dont have to be fit all you need to survive would be position in society (power) supplies to sustain(Money) and influcence on those around you the people that can get their message out ther will recieve something in the end

Answer 8

Darwin was misunderstood! He was not denying God, he was just talking about progress (very, very slow process)...
There is not such thing as "atheist"!
(if someone claims to be one, just ask him- what is LIFE?)
So, we're all making mistakes, but in general,
I think Darwin was right...

Answer 9

i think it more applicable today then ever. globaization is changing the game and only those who produce best quality at lowest price are surviving.
we human's are tramping other species are we are creating rules.
even personally we are valued more when we are the best .....