Domination=economic, cultural, colonisation of other countries.
2007-05-05 05:11:05 · 8 answers · asked by purplepeace59 5 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
its a non-contiguous claim. It's using a theory written in a different context to explain an irregular set of phenomenon one can choose to emphasize or not.
I would also say that there is a disconnect in the issue of choice. i.e. colonial and post-colonial policies were and are driven by choices and desicions (the wealthy few affect the impoverished many), not simply by 'the market,' which is, furthermore, fundamentally representative (an interpritation of data). Darwin's theory is driven entierly by big-N Nature, which is animal, irrational.
It's also a bad use of language and bad politics, because it implies that the 'winners' in the economy get there because of their natural right to win, not because they played dirty, exploited advantages, created conflicts and exploited them too, dropped the bomb, etc.
Lastly, it assumes that there are "different species" among the human race, which is total BS.
2007-05-05 07:01:18 · answer #1 · answered by !@#%&! 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes and No. Darwin spoke of survival of the fittest body or the cleverest mind. While the easiest way for our species to survive is to convert the evironment to our will, The thoery of evolution says nothing of cultural survival of the fittest.
It is counter productive to the species as a whole to convert all to the same way, those that have adapted to one way of life most suited to a particular area would soon find it hard to survive. While it could be argued that humans like all animals will protect a dwindelling resource, history our civilisation does not support the notion that our drive to concour and convert all others is evolutionary based.
A better answer would be a drive based in evolution, want of more. If an species can drive of all competitors then that species will survive. This drive in humans, however, seems to be the basis of greed. Greed, the want of more from your own species, would apear to be the basis of the the drive to rule the world. We must keep in mind that humans are pack animals, we do not do well away from others of our own kind. To infight is totally conterproducive to our species from an evolutionary standpoint. And while the argument can be made that even pack animals will turn on each other once resources get short, history does not support this. History has shown that people wish to dominate each other even in times of plenty. Evolution may be the basis of the drive but it is not evolution that drives it.
Hope this helps.
2007-05-05 12:31:07 · answer #2 · answered by Arthur N 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think so. Survival of the fittest assumes that some individuals of a particular species are "fitter" to compete for resources and mates than other individuals. Culture implies all the individuals in a fairly large group, which doesn't sound like the same phenomenon to me.
2007-05-05 12:15:32 · answer #3 · answered by Still reading 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No i think Darwin was referring to natural evolution as Domination=economic, cultural, colonization of other countries is man trying to force evolution which in fact man would fail.
2007-05-05 12:18:36 · answer #4 · answered by Savage 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, as society protects the week there is evidence that Eugenics are now science fact rather than theory
2007-05-05 12:14:53 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I wish it was then there would be a genuine reason for all this crap thats going on.
2007-05-05 12:18:05 · answer #6 · answered by Tabbie 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
One could argue that, yes.
2007-05-05 20:26:00 · answer #7 · answered by Hot Coco Puff 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no it's an example of corruption, not fair play
2007-05-05 12:21:36 · answer #8 · answered by Juliet 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋