Question 1: Is Evolution by Natural Selection a correct description for Nature?
Answer: No
Result: I probably can't get through to you so stop reading right now.
Answer: Yes
Result: Go to question 2
Question 2: Does Evolution by Natural Selection describe the survival of the fittest?
Answer: No
Result: Go read evolution
Answer: Yes
Result: Go to question 3
Question 3: Is perturbing the survival of the fittest against evolution and therefore against Nature?
Answer No:
Result: What you talkin' about, Willis?
Answer: Yes
Result: Go to question 4
Question 4: Is allowing the weakest in society to gain from the strongest a perturbation of the fittest (e.g. deliberately feeding the weakest over the strongest)?
Answer: No
Result: Don't want no more jibber jabber
Answer: Yes
Result: You believe that giving to the poor is unnatural
This is perhaps a little harsh because there are other factors that need to be considered and this is obviously grossly simplified. Are civilisation and charity a part of natural selection? By making our society better by sharing out resources to the weaker members are the fittest altruistically helping themselves and thereby fitting in with evolutionary theory by creating as better society for their descendants? Quite possibly in my view.
It would certainly be extremely right-wing and bordering on fascist or naziist to start to examine society and try to "help along" evolution by cutting off support for our weaker members (by weaker I don't just mean obvious examples like people with disabilities or lack of certain kinds of intelligence, it could also mean members who have genetic "faults", e.g. disposition towards violence etc).
In no way would I condone a change to the way society helps the needy (except for increasing it, in my opinion), however there is sometimes in the UK, perhaps inevitably, and running throughout all walks of life, an anti-fittest attitude. For example, it's common to knock those who are better at something; I remember distinctly feeling embarrassed about my intelligence at school and learnt to feel that to not care and to "dumb oneself down" (albeit superficially) was preferable to enable getting on with people; being labeled a swot (not that I was). It's not a well-known part of our culture, but I think it's definitely there in contrast to many other countries.
This was brought to my mind by recent news on the American health care crisis. About one fifth of Americans have either no health care or limited cover. This is an astonishing number and makes one wonder how this can come about. The thing that struck me is that there must be a pervading selfishness amongst many who have sufficient care that enables them to ignore the fact that a large proportion of their own society are so poor.
It then struck me that it's not a real selfishness, but of a feeling of survival of the fittest. America was founded on a sort of free-for-all society where the strongest did best. I think this attitude still prevails today to a certain extent, especially amongst Republicans, and it seems easy for them to look down their noses at the less well off because they think that they deserve it. This is not selfishness, but a specific decision to prejudge. More evidence of this is the increasing fracturisation in American society into those who have and those who have not. Gated communities are growing faster than ever and are most often desirable not for what's inside the gates, but what's outside the gates (e.g. the lower classes). The lower classes, for whatever reason, including, on occasion, their own ineptitude, have been denied some of the benefits and opportunities that the other tranches of society have profitted from. This places them on an uphill struggle made worse when others look down on them and hinder their progress.
In any event, whether the UK values its fittest or not or whether the US values its weakest or not, it can be argued that in the US and the UK there is a growing amoral sub-class with too few prospects and it's a fear of this that gated communities seek to benefit from (and they do).
The governments are just hiding from these facts. Crime is increasing and society is becoming increasingly fractured. No-one seems to be stating the obvious, honest reasons for any of this (I have certainly not heard it if they have).
I imagine the US will sort their healthcare out (when the Democrats assume Executive power), but it will certainly be a hot potato! I can't see what will happen in the UK. Supposedly we already have a left-wing government, but they don't seem too keen to address the problems of either the high crime rate or the issues causing them. I guess we'll have to wait for a right-wing government to clamp down harder on crime. In the meantime I'll be looking for a nice gated community somewhere (seriously).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/08/31/do3101.xml
http://www.international.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=4664
http://dovbear.blogspot.com/2006/05/argument-wanted-universal-health-care.html
No comments:
Post a Comment