If in the interest of fairness and equality we could take food, habitat, hunting skills, speed, intelligence, survival instinct ect.. from more successful animals and species and redistribute them to natures less successful adaptations what do think would be the outcome?
Do you think nature would thrive or stagnate and die?
From the tenor of many of the responses, this question seems to have hit a nerve. Perhaps “Survival of the fittest” was not the most accurate term. Evolution seems to stir so much emotion that I thought I might receive more coherent answers avoiding it. You obviously took my meaning without it. Obviously there are more criteria than those I listed just as there are more ways to limit success in a society than progressive taxes, quotas and excessive regulation. As you know I was not referring to Social Darwinism but to the failed philosophy at the root of the Progressive movement and responsible for misery and atrocity throughout history. I understand your defensiveness and why you choose to avoid a direct answer.
Thanks Jack. I never mentioned Darwin in my question. You brought up the subject of Eugenics. What concerns me are people like the Emanuel Brothers. Rham Emanuel is Obama’s Chief of Staff and Chief Arm Twister. Rham’s first brother is Ari Emanuel. Ari just happens to be Michael “Sicko” Moore’s Hollywood Agent. Rham’s other brother is Ezekiel Emanuel M.D. PhD. Dr. Emanuel is a leading Oncologist, Bioethicist (EUGENICS) and proponent of Euthanasia. Dr. Emanuel is also on President Obama’s Medical Advisory Board. Then we have Dr. John Holdren, the President’s National Science Advisor. Dr. Holdren is a leading expert on global population control ( EUGENICS) and well known Euthanasia proponent. The last charmer we have is Cass Sunstein, U. Chiciago/Harvard Law Professor and another “Eugenics and Rationing of Care” Proponet and sometime advisor to President Obama
Our nation’s “Science Czar” John Holdrens book Ecoscience:
“In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man now firmly in control of science policy in this country wrote that: Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not; The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or in food; Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise; People who ‘contribute to social deterioration’ (i.e. undesirables) ‘can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility’ — in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized. A transnational ‘Planetary Regime’ should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans’ lives — using an armed international police force.”
You read all of that correctly. If you don’t believe me, do the research for yoursel
We’re already doing that, that’s why we have so many retarded people in America
Reality Television
Report this comment
since you prefer survival of the fittest, i assume you never call the police or fire department for help, never go to the hospital, never …
Reality Television
Report this comment
Survival of the fittest is a social Darwinistic term not even said by Darwin himself. Now if you are talking about the Theory of Evolution, no you cannot manipulate evolution and biological traits as natural selection will take care of that. Evolution has to do with your systems adapting to our environments, not with money.
Reality Television
Report this comment
We’ve done that. That’s where liberals come from. That is not intended as a joke either.
Reality Television
Report this comment
You don’t actually understand the processes of Evolution.
Survival of the fittest (a phrase never used by Darwin) relates to the ability to reproduce and spread one’s genes throughout a population—it’s not about ‘survival” of the strongest, meanest, fastest, etc.
By no means are mere intelligence speed etc the only criteria for Natural Selection.
What you are referring to is “Social Darwinism”, a perverted form of economics that sprang up after Darwin, and professed by late 19th century industrialists in order to exploit labor and the environment.
Social Darwinism is the child of capitalism, entirely, not of nature.
Reality Television
Report this comment
What do you think liberals are trying to do? lol
Reality Television
Report this comment
sorry buts thats already been done since 1000 years ago as we became more civilised
did you know most allergies didn’t exist 200 years ago, or even 100
Reality Television
Report this comment
its called a zoo
also Washington DC is similar to a zoo
Reality Television
Report this comment
Thanks for the 2 points. Questions like that, which glorify pseudoscientific ideas such as Social Darwinism will receieve stupid answers. Foolish conservatives trying to take away people’s humanity. Then again, what do they know about that?
Reality Television
Report this comment
The outcome would be horrible. What happens when we genetically modify plants and animals? The food becomes toxic, caused sterilization, and causes harmful mutations in our DNA.
When man tries to screw with nature, historically the results have always been bad.
As a side note, natural law is a phenomenon to be observed and survival of the fittest is a belief system.
The idea of evolution predates Darwin. Darwin and Julian Huxley who were backed by Rockefeller, took a perfectly observable phenomenon, evolution, and turned it into a belief system that touts intellectual assumptions about how human beings should live. Out of the Darwin/Huxley model came the theory of Eugenics. Eugenics is controlling human evolution through human interference and was hitler’s justification for committing genocide on “undesirables.”
Darwin’s theories also fly in the face of modern biology that observes “symbiotic” evolution. For example, we have found that primates developed dexterity and long fingers at the exact same time that plants started producing fruit. That is NOT survival of the fittest, and survival of the fittest no longer works as a viable biological theory.
Reality Television
Report this comment