 |
|
 |
There is a common assumption that the human society should be based on "survival of the fittest," since the plant and animal world evolves on that basis. Fittest for what? In biology, fittest means the prevailing influence in passing on genes. Should the purpose of the human society be to pass on genes? The Nazis based their claimed superiority on racism; the rest of the world did not, which indicates that the mysterious basis for white racism is the assumption of "survival of the fittest".Humans add the ability to evaluate and control choices, which plants and animals could not do. The choices allow a much more complex social order to human existence with higher values than racism. Creating art, culture and technology goes way beyond the fittest passing on genes. Those values are optional. They only exist when choices go beyond survival of the fittest. A similar assumption appears to underlie the anti-socialism that conservatives promote. What is wrong about solving problems for the needy? It certainly isn't the cost, when solving problems saves money and endless squandering has the purpose of making sure the lower classes don't benefit from the use of resources. Corporations refuse to pay taxes trying to prevent the needy from benefiting from government programs. They burn tax dollars on the fraudulent claim that economic improvement is the result for no other reason. Conservatives are apparently afraid that the nonfit will survive if socialism is allowed to solve problems for the needy. One of the things they get wrong is that no one could be less fit than the incompetent power mongers who take over everything through criminality. They can't maintain the exploits which they steal from others. Power mongering is based on force and violence. When it succeeds, the promoters of force and violence are more fit at producing criminality but not at constructivity or solving peoples' problems.
|
 | ||||||||
 |
 |
 |