![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.1){kind=small}
I've seen many people starting to panic over the April 30 situation. Medical supplies, it seems, would undoubtedly run out as those nice delivery trucks that get them to you would stop running, as would the high-tech factories that produce the pills in the first place as most workers would have a hard time getting to the factory to begin with. It is my thinking though, that this may be just what our culture needs.
Now I mean no offense to anyone out there with any serious medical illness or whatnot, believe me, I sympathize for all who are in such condition, many in my family suffer from various forms of cancer, they too would undoubtedly die rather quickly if it weren't for their medicines and other medical treatments. It seems to me, however, that Darwinism would truly rise again. Look around you today, how many people are wearing some sort of glasses or contact lenses? How many people do rely on medicine for one reason or another, be it their sanity or their well being? Far too many.
Our modern medicines and technology work to defy Darwinism, it would seem. For even the unfit are quite apt to survival. More often than not they are taken care of by the more fit. Truly, that must be one of humanity's highlights. It's not, however, the best for the gene-pool. We've become a weak people. Am I weak also? Undoubtedly so, I'm allergic to nearly everything: grass, pollen, pet dander, many oils, and even my own sweat. It will be an uncomfortable world indeed without my antihistamines (fortunately there are alternative solutions to my needs, natural honeys from my area will cure me of my allergies to much of the plant life around the are I live).
I undoubtedly sound cruel when I say that it's a good thing that many people will die. If you think about it though, maybe it's what the world needs. I don't know. I don't particularly enjoy the metaphysics of death. Too much fluff if you know what I mean. I don't want to be thought of as some weird sociopath either, so please don't take it that way. I don't know, maybe it's time for some pro-evolution.
--
Artimaeis
April 28 2007, 20:48:34 UTC 5 years ago
Humanity as a whole, has become complacent. People whine about having a sniffle, or a sore finger, when in reality - theres nothing overtley wrong with them.
We have become too dependant on medicines, and doctors. Lets face it there is a pill for everything.
Thats not to say I agree with everything you say, hell if it came down to it, I'd wrestle the nearest 100% healthy person to the death over the last piece of food!!
But this opens the very intense discussion of Survival of the fittest, but 'who exactly is the fittest'? Is it the 'healthy' people who dote on over the counter drugs to get them through the day, or is it the people like me who are already fighting everyday to survive...
Your post has started me thinking about this! Great post!
April 30 2007, 06:02:15 UTC 5 years ago
Or to put it another way, evolution only selects for those traits that are important to survival of the individual. But as a society we need to select for the traits that will be important for the survival of the society. And that means things like intelligence and diversity and creativity. None of which have any really connection to your ability to surive a day without medical attention.
Anonymous
April 30 2007, 07:57:39 UTC 5 years ago
----
Heid
April 30 2007, 20:42:42 UTC 5 years ago
What of rape? Evolutionarily speaking, rape is an incredibly efficient strategy for maximizing progeny and genetic dispersal which was in fact used by humans for centuries. However, could you possibly argue against the opposition of this "evolutionary tactic" in human society? You must surely agree that the push to oppose, condemn, and criminalize rape is a wonderful chapter in human development which must be strengthened.
To romanticizes Darwinian evolution purely in terms of "survival of the fittest" regarding pre-civilized survival strategy is a mistake. The evolution from jellyfish to apes to humans is most wonderful when it reaches beyond simply rewarding organisims that survive, and begins rewarding organizms that thrive in others senses of the word. Apes don't have contact lenses, but they also don't have literature, morals, or selfless compassion that knowingly assists those beyond their genetic circle.
May 1 2007, 04:37:24 UTC 5 years ago
In any society since the Renaissance the best way for a man (i.e. male) to ensure that he is born a son or daughter to continue his genetic line has arguably been to marry a woman and then have child. Through this the man can work for the safety and upbringing of the child so that said child can go on to further carry the genetics. More often than not men think of their name and honor in this process, it would seem, but it applies to genetics nonetheless.
I did go to far in fully supporting Darwinism, I do not fully support it for if I did then automatic weaponry would be my best defense to ensure my own survival. I would hate for society to fall into a complete dark age like the one you describe when men killed and raped each other for survival's sake. As one commented earlier, though, society has become far too soft. We should always work to embrace those who are unable to embrace themselves, for in embracing them we are embracing ourselves. It should not, however, be the sole dedication of our lives and government.
Trust that you have made me think much further into the subject. Government. Perhaps tomorrow will inspire writing on that very topic. Thank you for your comment, it means a lot.
April 30 2007, 23:39:14 UTC 5 years ago
There's a reason we stay on top. It's not that at some point we were immune to disease, or that no amount of reading could damage our eyesight. It's that we are clever enough to think our way out of physical limitations, rather than just dying off whenever they hit us. It IS survival of the fittest. By being able to invent ways to survive, and by being able to support the rest of our species, we overcome far more obstacles than a simple tendency toward good health would let us. Our completely different strategy toward survival is why we are, in fact, the fittest. In our species, a mental disability actually makes you less fit than a physical one.
Besides that, only a few generations ago, humanity wasn't surviving on contact lenses and prescription drugs. Natural selection works by wiping out weak genes, but we have basically the same gene pool as those people did, so we are still genetically as fit as they were. The problem is our way of life, not our genes, making Darwin pretty irrelevant. The effect of circumstance here would not be to cleanse the gene pool of the inferior. It would be to push people out of sedentary lifestyles. Unlike a genetic change, a lifestyle change can happen within one individual, so no deaths are required to make this change. Maybe that would have the effect of putting natural selection back into play on our physical abilities, but it certainly wouldn't be one catastrophic act where humanity would suddenly lose its ability to produce people who get sick, and our minds would still be more important than our bodies as far as our survival goes.
Anonymous
May 2 2007, 20:05:42 UTC 5 years ago
The only way we could achieve the effects youre talking about is either genetic scanning-sterilization, which we don't have the technology or resources to do; or a holocaust type purge, which has obvious problems of compliance as well as the same technological setbacks, without mentioning the mechanism by which you decide what traits are superior.