Sometimes these things just come to me, what can I say. At any rate, to what extent, if any, is our current society/world/culture still, if at all, running under the general rules of survival of the fittest? If we are, how has the definition of 'fitness' changed? Is this necesarily a good or bad thing? What do you think?
Depending on what you believe this could be a sensitive subject so please keep all comments respectful.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Based on my knowledge founded in 9th grade and SL Biology, I think that there are both natural pressures and human induced pressures. A strong immune system etc. promote the likelihood of an individual living to reproductive age and finding a partner. However, in today's society, there are selective pressures that are not natural. Wealth is an example. If my family did not live in a country with good healthcare, I would have been miscarried. Heck, my mother would have died at 18 of an abscess tooth. But instead of superior genetics that promote the viability of human beings, it is their economic power (for example) that increases fitness. That is one reason our population is skyrocketing. This of course raises a huge ethical dillemma - how do we limit the population to prevent substandard living conditions/low levels of darwinian fitness? Can we teach without quashing values previously established (think colonialism)? How do we overcome the unethical nature of denying everyone the care and employment necessary for survival people if it will only further a greater problem.
By the way, there is no need to begin your posts with a disclaimer. The blog is a place for you to address those questions so long as they are relevant to TOK and the search for Truth.
I agree with rachel that there are two different possible "fitnesses" in today's world. Because of the progression of humanity (technology, medicine), the "natural pressures" are no longer the cause of the survival of the fittest phenomenon. Instead, it is indeed the products of society and how much of them a person has that determines their survival. The development of humanity has increased the amount of our species that can survive at one time, but it has also made more distinct those that are unable to survive. The natural pressures only come as a side-effect of the pressures caused by society. It is the poor that feel the full effect of their physical weaknesses. Other people can supplement any fitness they lack and survive just fine with their money. Also, because of society's increased influence on survival, mental fitness is as important as physical fitness because of new opportunities for survival. The survival of individuals is bound by the survival of their role in the society in certain cases. For example,in the business world, large, well-managed corporations survive while smaller, poorly run businesses go bankrupt along with those under its umbrella. However, looking at recent history, one can see that sometimes, neither type of fitness matters at all, especially if you are living in under a dictator... sorry if i make no sense, my thoughts are really disjointed...
I think you have to take into consideration the "accepted" definition of fitness (from Mr. Malone's biology classes) as 'the ability to survive and reproduce.' I think that definition still applies, however, I wouldn't say that our survival depends on our fitness as an individual, because fitness usually refers to a species as a whole. Therefore, it wouldn't really matter the human race's species, because as a species, we have a high fitness, but there is no other species trying to challenge us for dominance in the world. (Sorry, its late, and this might not make as much sense to you guys as it does in my head.)
Rachel up there three blogs above this one I'm writing right here, brings up a good point about how financial fitness has replaced genetic fitness in a sense. Of course we've still got those Michael Jordan who slammed dunked coming out of the womb and those other talented dudes who make it big. But like she was saying i think economic is a big factor in who has success and who doesn't. oop bell rang got to go. Right you guys take it easy.
I think that our world has become separated into two distinct groups: those who rely on money, and those who rely on their genetic makeup to stay alive. As such, I think we will start to get a more pronounced separation of peoples over time. Those who rely on money will be affected in a very different way genetically than those who retain some basic hunting / survival / foraging genetic traits.
Throughout history, we have perceived evolutionary changes due to environmental changes. The drifting apart of Pangea, the extinction of the dinosaurs, changing climates, etc. All these events produced evolutionary bottlenecks / or branches which allowed two or more different species to evolve out of one common ancestor.
What if this use money in some parts of the world is todays version of a major environmental change. Those who have money can control their environment, those who don't can't. Is it too crazy to suggest we as homo sapiens might diverge along two different paths over the next million years? Or might one snuff the other out?
Post a Comment