Saturday, March 10, 2012

Survival of the fittest does not mean you have to be mean.

The bad survival of fittest in American TV shows and movies

Recently I saw the last episode of The Walking Dead. In that episode, the group of people where the protagonist belongs was discussing whether they should kill a captured member of a hostile group. The guy is a young man and according to him, he did not do bad things, but he just had chosen to act with the group, because one cannot survive alone in the world where zombies prevail.

Now, most of the people agreed that they had no choice but to get rid of him otherwise he might contact the hostile group and eventually bring a bad situation to the people. One old guy defended the guy from the hostile group, saying if they killed that guy, they would become nothing different from the hostile group. The old guy continued, if they killed that guy just to be safe it would be become like the survival of the fittest, and he did not want to live in a world like that.

I saw another movie called 'In Time', and it that movie also, Darwin's survival of the fittest is used in a negative way. In the movie, a very rich guy who owns thousand years of time said it was just the survival of the fittest that other people were suffering from limited time.

Being fittest is not equal to be strong and ruthless

As we humans have evolved from simpler forms of life, so did everything that are related to us. Sure, for some animals 'fittest' means 'physically strongest', but we (except some Christians) know for us humans, it is not always true. For example, a very smart person may become a doctor and earn more money than a physically strong person who became a construction worker. The smart person may meet a better spouse, and have more chance to have attractive children who will have chances to grow up and reproduce.

Not only intelligence, but other values that we humans think are 'good' will also be appreciated. A kind, thoughtful and generous but physical weak person could meet a better spouse than a bad-tempered, rude but physical strong person does. Yes, for our human species, the survival of the fittest can actually be the survival of the persons who have the values we appreciate.

Things are not fixed as the Bible which was written in thousand years ago, things change and we have the power to change things, too. Even if the survival of the fittest meant the ruthless selfishness before, it cannot be always like that. That is what we humans are capable of.

No argumentum ad consequentiam, please.

It is a different matter whether something is true and whether something is desirable. If X is happening, no matter how you do not like the result you cannot say X is not happening. It is stupid to mention how much you do not like X, when you are debating whether X is true or not. I feel very sad when a weak young animal is attacked and eaten by other animals on TV. All humans feel the same way if he/she is not a psychopath. The survival of fittest in the animal world is often cruel, but you saw that happening on TV. That is how the living things have evolved. Evolution is fact, and if you want to disprove it, bring a single actual evidence not arguments as 'that SEEMS to be too improbable' or 'if it is true the world would be bad".

No comments: