andjaywc7 wrote:"Survival of the Fittest" can mean many different things, but it's all based on the hierarcy of needs (thank you Maslow) and adaptation to envioronment in which we live (thank you Darwin).
In reference to "Survival of the Fittest" you credit Darwin above. But, even Darwin would disagree that evolution has anything to do with consciously adapting to your environment. Evolution is a process, which, is carried out through natural selection, in which genetic defects work to the advantage of the species. Contending survival of the fittest is based on Darwinian theory of evolution is a misrepresentation of the theory itself. While you made no mention of natural selection, I only felt it prudent to present the theory, as stated which I feel clearly shows "Survival of the Fittest" is not based on Darwin’s theories, as you credit so above. Furthermore "Survival of the Fittest" is an economic model for business which has been twisted, and is not a generally accepted scientific or sociological term, and I feel only applies in relevance of words in the term, not the theory supporting it.jaywc7 wrote:Directly referencing my quoted quote above, my ideology is refering to evolution as darwinism, and makes absolutely no mention of natural selection, which I agree has nothing to do with survival of the fittest, and at no point indicated so.
denalibound wrote:Animals abandon their nature when significantly traumatic events occur. Bears will eat other bears when a seasons food supply is devastatingly low. Whales beach themselves when they have been subjected to harmful sonar pings. That does not give humans a green light to act in the same way. We have an ability to understand the event, and formulate a solution, which benefits all. Trauma is no excuse to abandon rationality.
I think my point was missed. You are absolutely correct, we can conclude humans may do unnatural things in the face of traumatic events just as animals do. However in the example of the whales, they don't know they are killing themselves. They beach themselves to escape a sound in the water. Them dying is a result of that action. As humans we have the ability to rationalize a better alternative to killing ourselves. When people to choose to commit suicide they do so willfully. When people eat the meat off of dead bodies to stay alive, they understand what they are doing. Saying traumatic events can and have caused people to do things they otherwise wouldn't do, is far different from saying that it is in their nature to do so. When a bear kills and eats another bear, it has abandoned it's nature. When a human kills themselves or others they abandon their nature.jaywc7 wrote:We can not draw the conclusion that a human does not kill themselves due to an environmental problem any differently then a whale beaches itself to death. Natural selection includes our minds as well as any appendage. In the case of the whale ship essex, as well as the rugby team which crash landed in the Andes, we can conclude that humans will consume each other when in desperation. Just because the occurance is less common, it cannot be ruled out.
Basically my point was that you can’t use traumatic events as an excuse to do things you otherwise would not. I understand there are certain circumstances that may call for unnatural action, but as a human you have the ability to make the choice, where as other animals do not. With that ability to rationalize the correct choice, you also have the ability to find other less obvious alternatives, which may prove to be better.
I never made any statement that would imply you said, "my disintrist in your survival would ever include killing you myself". I did state that having no interest another humans survival, contradicts furthering the human species. Can you imagine what life would be like if everybody held the position, "As a fellow human being, I don't care whether you survive or not."?jaywc7 wrote:I never implied that my disintrist in your survival would ever include killing you myself, unless it was in defense to my own life. You mention "protecting myself by killing others" which implies to me your inability to understand protection as defense rather then offense. I would never kill unless threatened.
It is clear to me that if you had a gun, you would use it for protection if necessary. I fully understand protection as defense rather than offence. You state you would never kill unless threatened, which implies a direct threat to you. Would you be willing to amend the statement to say, "I would never kill unless my survival was threatened"? The later seems much more likely, based on my understanding of your position and your feelings of human actions.
If that is the case, then Hurricane Katrina perfectly illustrates the potential problems associated with the protection as defense rather than offence. Few people were directly threatened, however many peoples survival was threatened. People used force to defend their food, clean water, and homes, because they felt people, who were only trying to survive themselves, were threatening their survival. Innocent people died.
As a human I feel there could have been other solutions. Offering to share your stash would help prolong the life of another human. Taking an offensive position to save more lives, in my opinion, if far more human and courageous than protecting your own.
Unfortunately this just doesn't hold water. I've stared down the barrel of a loaded gun twice, unarmed. I am still here to talk about it and still hold the position I do. I have no problem with guns or people who carry them. I do feel there are other alternatives for survival, and have to think that humans are on a higher level than animals and can postulate ideas that prolong life rather than take it. Worrying about protecting yourself, as an individual, is meaningless if the entire species is wiped out from violence.jaywc7 wrote:I think people who are afraid to defend have simply never had their life threatened.
Dang, I got burned by a baseball metaphor.jaywc7 wrote:If you want to step up to the plate, be sure you're holding a bat first...
