THe theory of the survivial of the fittest has been brought up many times.(Usualy in threads pretaining to hard drugs) Some one explain this to me....Wouldnt survivial of the fittest mean?.... - No hospitals, I mean comeone Why should we let those weak people stay alive??? -No police, SHit if you dont have a gun, your on your own. Some one could rob you, but its their right to, you know If they are stronger than you sure why not. There is so much more Im not covering, but the "survivial of the fittest" seems Like a good Idea to some, In a broad picture, it seems that many would start to realize,"hey, shit, survivial of the fittest isnt all that fun after all" This was thrown together rather quickly, and is only a basis for further discusion, Just my opinion, as of now.SO build city, build
Fittest doesn't always have to be strength. Intelligence can be fitting as well. We humans have brains capable of problem solving. All living beings wants to survive, but we humans know hospitals can save us from not surviving. I do see hosipitals as a problem, because we are letting too many weak people survive and waste resources we barely have for the strong.
If your stong tho, who needs all them resources any ways huh? It just doesnt make sence Im just seeing how many people will believe in the survivial off the fittest, after the realize what kinda of shit there getting them selves into/
humans are the only species that won't evolve. We're very close to the end of the evolutionary ladder. What the future holds is technology taking the role of evolution.
for humans i believe that survival of the fittest is all about decision making, you choose your outcome for the most part..not 100% but more than less.
I think Humans will evolve more, All the way to the point where technology will over come us, evolution in turn will start all over again. Technology is part of evolution. Our bodies will still continue to adapt to the ever unstable enviorment. True/ anyone think about retarded people, that require care most of their lives. I know some people belive those people should be killed at birth, because they have nothing to contribute. I just dont see it that way....For some reason that seems sort of cruel. I dont rely know what I am gettin at.I got thrown off track today
i think 'fittest' means 'most able to reproduce', like someone with six kids and no job was able to pass on their genes better than say a world-class surgeon or whatever who never had any kids. Fittest isn't smartest or richest or strongest it's just 'most able to pass on their genes'. i also think it applies to whole species and a species that protects it's weakest members like with police and hospitals is probably more likely to survive than one that lets its strongest members do whatever they want. If we want to see what 'fittest' actually means we just have to look around us, the things we do now are the things that worked to help us pass on our genes, like hospitals that fix us and laws that protect us and living in cities were we're safer. But some of the stuff we're doing is just new stuff we have to try out 'cos we don't know what's going to work until we try it. I think prohibition of marijuana is one of those things, it doesn't help society and it's going to fail but it had to be tried to find this out. I don't think humans have stopped evolving, in fact I think we're evolving rapidly and we'll keep evolving until we die out. The environment we're living in is always changing so we have to change with it or it's bye bye to us.
i would tell you my thoughts on survival of the fittest, but it would be deemed racist, immoral, and very offensive to alot of you but yea i'll go into a couple of em anyway, say if we started today what we as humans would have to do handicapped people whether physically or mentally would be put to death, unless they have an intelligent mind people with hiv/aids, and other lifelong dibilitating std's would be put to death isreal would get bombed, before they try to nuke the fuck out of the world in the name of god women wouldnt have the ability to say no when it comes to sex, and sex would be mostly for reproduction.. the children would be allowed to get to the age of 7 and then if deemed weak be put to death (yea, i know, 300, but its still a good idea) thats about all i can tell you, the rest of em you would see as racist, although i got some pretty damn good information on why i think it should be that way