You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “What would be the result if man could alter natural law and repeal Survival of the fittest?”.
What would be the result if man could alter natural law and repeal Survival of the fittest?
This entry was posted in Disaster Preparation and tagged adaptations, animals, equality, fairness, food, habitat, hunting, intelligence, interest, law, man, natures, repeal, result, survival, survival instinct. Bookmark the permalink.
10 Responses to What would be the result if man could alter natural law and repeal Survival of the fittest?
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