Survival of the fittest

'Survival of the fittest,' a large brain atop a digestive system...

With the exception of most plants, all life forms have evolved around their digestive system; each life form competing with the next, evolving more efficient ways to engulf the next meal; each life consuming other life forms composed of nutrients, i.e. proteins, amino acids, mineral, etc.

At the higher evolution of various species, each species developed its own specialty for survival and all exact a competitive behavior to survive. Wild beast developed fangs and claws; humans developed large brains atop their digestive system; hence, man must think to survive.

Fast forward to our highly evolved state... We are probably the only species not only aware of its own mortality, but aware that all species compete; we know they compete with other species and within their own species; we comprehend this natural phenomena of competition that places our digestive system at the top of the food chain... J

Now we turn our attention to politics, i.e. autocracies, democracy, socialism, etc. These are nothing more than highly evolved 'survival' schemes within our human species.

For certain, it is the collectivist political systems that place our species at the most risk. Collectivist ideals place us at risk of stagnating in our evolution, of falling back a few notches in the hierarchy of life's natural selection process.

To continue our progressive evolution, 'survival of the fittest,' we cannot conform to the lowest denominator in our society, which is the requirement of all socialist / collectivist political systems. Collectivism promotes and rewards inaction and dependence on others. It impedes and dissuades individual self interest, personal incentive, and opposes the very nature of our survival tool; it renders our highly evolved brains useless, i.e. in terms of wild beasts, it de-fangs and de-claws us.

We must embrace our Capitalist system and unshackle its pure ideals, to spring forward not only those ideals, but practice and ingrain it in a political system that rewards men who freely compete among each other; holding liable only those who coerce others and rob them of their survival right to 'choose' freely.

In its simplest term, choice is inherent in our capacity to think; our capacity to form value judgments, sub-constructs of sub-percepts, choices based on reality, are the very nature of human survival.

Survival of our species depends on our capcity to... 'choose' freely... to...

Think!

Capitalism is a means of healthy competition (survival of the fittest) between members of a single society.

But that doesn't mean a purely capitalist society is can compete with OTHER societies. The Great Depression showed that.

Capitalism cannot be blamed for implementing half-ass measures of its ideals, especially when infused by Congressional actions that result in coercion...

Government's mending had a lot more to do with the great depression than Capitalist free market's practices.

Beginning with Sherman Act of 1890 and other such acts by Congress, competition has been reduced and harnessed; in many cases certain corporations and business entities have been favored over their competitors.

In short, it is not Capitalism that caused the great depression, it is 'lack there of' that did so.

For the greatest to come of it all we must remember that children cannot adequately raise themselves for the most part, and this is the basis of a lot of problems, the collectivist and wellfare type of system is needed in the degree of helping teach and parent kids (of all ages) how to take care of themselves and others, families require hard work in a world that is factually so much a world of the survival of the fittest, but demands compassion and sacrifice to keep it stable and productive as both a living and learning environment.

People who abuse the system in either direction will always exist, the ones of inactivity often need a type of parental guidance which takes effort, perhaps an idealogical need for a type of love, trust, etc. as well as just basic directions. The point of that is that they will exist and helping them is the common conclusion, just not propigating encouraging such inactivity, which usually means more than just giving them money. Just like schools I think we need better programs for getting the kind of surrogate teaching and parenting that either never sunk in or they never had to begin with, maybe they were abused or poverty stricken to the point where priorities have not allowed healthy growth into productive citizens. I agree that just throwing money won't help anyone but those honestly able and willing to use that as a stepping stone rather than a life support. But not everyone is a capable as we might think because of reasons like I've mentioned plus any psychological aspecs. And these people need more than just financial help, therapy is the only thing we really have and its far too expensive and either too specialized or too general to be of much help, and too infrequent.

Just condemning people as losers and sponges actually just makes things worse, thats my other point, so if we really want that fixed we need to get serious about it, use the money in wellfare systems smarter and harder. Not just take it away either, nor just give it away with the hopes everything turns out ok.

Thats a big problem with this country, thinking everything can be solved with money, or just a job.

As soon as we were left with the situation where most households need 2 people to have jobs and or careers this problem really arose, its a big factor for the resulting generation X. Hardly any people ( comparitively speaking) get the real parenting needed anymore.

And parenting is not a survival of the fittest function so much as a survival of the family and village one, which both help eachother in striving for excellence and the "guaranteeing" of quality and solid base to strive from.

One last thing, for an idea of a enlightened people, such things as life controlled by emotions would be controlled, and a survival of the fittest mentality would be only be effective for the collective species anyway.

nugamer - I find that incredibly dubious, I don't suppose you remember what brought America out of the Depression?

WAR. Or more specifically the GOVERNMENT SPENDING during that war. Today, the debate is whether the right means are interest rates or government spending, or both.

In any case there a is clear consensus that "some sort" of gov intervention is necessary (which doesnt mean social programs etc..)

Now, I think this whole survival of the fittest thing only works if the playing field is level. That is, there people benefit MINIMALLY from whatever their parents did. The idea is that each person has equal opportunity, that's not the case right now.

My points would be :
- free markets, down with tariffs, down with subsidies
- overwhelming state intervention in times of recession
- free and equal education for all, except for those students who show their skill and thereby get free access to even more education (IE, I am saying university edu should be less dependant on money and more dependant on skill)
- a minimal amount given to those in need, in order that they can still function as human beings and provide labour

I don't totally disagree with your guys, but I think you've missed the point of my post...

It's a philosophy I'm putting forth, not the nuts & bolts of every possible instance in a society.

The premise is that individual men, acting out of self-interest and responsibly, advance human technology and enrich the lives of all men (the species) as a secondary effect of the individual's self interest.

This also means that individual men must never be held responsible for the condition of the unwilling & unable. By the same token, the willing & able, as they proceed in their self-interest quest, must never diminish or coerce anyone.

Today, we blame Capitalism for practices that are not in step with this philosophy. What has prevailed in our society, in our court systems, are legislation & regulations, and judgments favoring large corporations & unions at the expense of the individual. We have placed more emphasis on the collective groups and their rights, than the rights of the individual.

Example:

You guys have probably heard of eminent domain abuse. Corporations and local Government committees escheating private property under the guise of 'for the benefit of the community.'

And, as you all know, eminent domain was never intended as a trump card to pass property from one owner to a more preferred owner. It was strictly intended to pass property for 'public' use; not public use as joint venture of cooperation like Wal-Mart and a Township touting that it is in the best interest for their community.

Anyway, I hope that places it in perspective.

Cheers,

The basic philosophy works most of the time. Again its never so simple, or we end with the Great Depression and 30% unemployed and fascism/communism rising in the more unstable parts of the world. The Great Depression made WW2 possible, remember that.

I am saying two things : the gov has the duty to make sure the economy keeps working when market forces fail AND the gov has the duty to make the playing field as fair as possible (no, my dad worked so much that I get a 100 mile head start)