“The survival of the fittest”. The fittest to what? This theory cannot make a prediction unless one is able to pre-define “to what”. It’s in most cases only a non-committing account of what happened. The non-commitment part is the healthiest part of it, leaves you the freedom of making a rational choice for the future at the price of justifying the past in a specific way.

So, again, fittest to what? Fittest to an eat-or-be eaten environment or to a humanist environment? Let a tiger and a physics professor in a university classroom. Who’s the fittest and who will survive? Well, here, the irony is that both of them will die if they’re isolated for a week in that classroom, does the order matter?

My point is, don’t jump in justifying any unscrupulous capitalist maneuver as an example of darwinism confirmation, and don’t jump to the conclusion that socialism failed just because some unscrupulous bureaucrats behaving like a capitalist corporation failed. If a crazy guy passes by on the sidewalk and stabs you to death, who’s the fittest? The fittest to what? To what do we want to be the fittest? We are free to choose. What do you choose? Based on what kind of experience? Based on what kind of reasoning?

If you let somebody else define the “reality” for you, then, most probably, that one’s the fittest to the “reality” he’s defining for you. The only attitudes which can fix this imbalance are social awareness, verification and critique. No criminal will try to do his work in public without the assistance of some “reality” builders.

This entry was posted on Sunday, June 15th, 2008 at 2:39 am and is filed under humanist. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.