Sunday, 9 December 2012

Day 127 – The False Justification of Survival of the Fittest


From Wikipedia…
"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase originating in evolutionary theory, as an alternative description of natural selection. The phrase is today commonly used in contexts that are incompatible with the original meaning as intended by its first two proponents: British polymath philosopher Herbert Spencer (who coined the term) and Charles Darwin.
By the word "fittest" Darwin meant "better adapted for immediate, local environment", not the common modern meaning of "in the best physical shape"
Natural selection refers to differential reproduction as a function of traits that have a genetic basis.
Survival of the fittest, and/or natural selection is merely a subjective scientific observation defined within the context of communities/individuals competing for resources in the struggle to maintain their state of existence.   In no way does this theory justify itself as a valid reason to exist, for the sole purpose of surviving.    
It is simply what occurs within nature and our environment, and as such, it is but a limited concept and/or definition - not a full explanation - of evolution.  This ‘theory’ is incomplete, as it does not offer the entire process or reasoning as the total cause and effect behind why nature behaves in such a way, nor does it offer any insight as to why this type phenomena continues to occur.  It simply shows that creatures adapt, as anyone can see within our own lives, we all change according to what is present within our environment.  So, why is this theory so highly regarded? 
With the widespread adaptation and indoctrination of this theory within the education system, – which boils down to a series of simple observations and deductions - many people erroneously lay claim to Darwinism as a “rule to live by” – as if to justify any and all actions/ behaviours carried out and motivated by survival. 
Interestingly, evolutionary biologists define ‘survival’ - those who are better equipped for surviving – within the context of reproductive success.  That is to say that - if one reproduce many offspring – one is successful.  This is based within the context of the evolutionary equation that the sole purpose in life is to reproduce.
So, if I were to measure my life experience based on this equation, according to these scientists, since I have no offspring, my life would be a total failure (lol). 
On the other side of the coin, if I were to live my life by this definition of success, I would have had to have sex with as many women as possible, and produced as many offspring as possible (regardless of the inherent responsibility for raising a child) and I would be regarded as successful! –  Is it any wonder many people actually behave this way in society? 
What is also greatly overlooked and omitted within this scientific description of how different species interact and adapt within their environment, is the initial cause for this behaviour.  Yet our scientists are incapable, or unwilling, to see or take into account anything beyond what is observable with our physical senses.  They prefer to confine their conclusions within compartmentalized fields of research and refuse to connect the dots to provide an all-encompassing solution to the problems their observations present.   Science may try to make sense of observable reality, yet the omission of critical and essential elements which make up the entire equation (that which is not seen or considered) makes the whole practice of science completely biased and devoid of actual validity, thus entirely irresponsible.
If we take the human physical body for example, we can see that the inner workings of the body does not function according to competition and survival of the fittest, nor could it.  All parts of the body share the resources that are available, if the heart would hoard all of the blood, other parts of the body, and thus the whole body itself would die rather quickly.  If a part of our body becomes injured, the body acts to heal itself.  Individual cells do not act in self-interest, they do what is necessary to be done to correct the situation, even if it means their own demise, in essence, they sacrifice their own existence so that the body as a whole may continue to live. 
Therefore ‘survival of the fittest’ is not a valid mode of existence or evolutionary justification for one to live in self-interest, as clearly the consequences of such behaviour is leading us to destruction of our planet and a collective extinction. 
Science has not yet considered that life can exist, or ‘evolve’ by way of everyone participating for the best interest of all - to support life itself.  When we realize that we are all an integral part of this reality, it simply becomes a decision we must each take responsibility to make, because at this point, we really have no other choice, its either best for all, or the acceptance and allowance of our own self-destruction.   A rather simple mathematical formula can predict the outcome. What path will we choose to take for ourselves will decide our destiny?  Support the Equal Money System and Support Life.  

No comments:

Post a Comment