Social philosopher Herbert Spencer
was wrong in many respects when he coined the term survival of the fittest to discuss human behavior and Victorian social policies. But
social scientists would not be wrong today in comparing humans to other organisms, or to understanding (but not necessarily agreeing with) Spencer's application of survival of the fittest, especially as the guardrails of government and religion are weakened.
Humans may appear sophisticated in some ways, but we are animals, nevertheless. Many of the laws of human behavior are consistent with the laws of nature, despite commonly held beliefs about human civilization that seemingly make us different. Yet like other animals, humans are prone to disease and vulnerable to the environment. We can adapt to change, and survive using a variety of means which may comport to our values or cause cognitive dissonance. Humans imitate, innovate, manipulate, connive, and steal. Non-human organisms, including viruses, bacteria, fungi, and more complex beings, like insects and rodents, can also adapt, and have so for millions of years, much longer than we have. We live in an ecosystem, and in communities. When other organisms thrive or die, it affects us.
This new social reality (or a return to older social realities) should become more apparent in the coming years as humans across the globe deal with a number of existential issues, including war, famine, and disease--and the human-induced climate change that will pour fuel on these issues. Not only must we reexamine Herbert Spencer, we must also reexamine Thomas Malthus and determine what aspects of his theories on population may be coming back to life, and what aspects may not be as relevant.
Related links:
The US Working-Class Depression: "Let's all pretend we couldn't see it coming."
The paradigm of survival of the fittest is present in all life on our planet. Some higher level organisms have potential to mitigate or modify this concept by integrating understanding, empathy and compassionate interactions within their populations to negate “survival of the fittest” in varying degrees.
ReplyDeleteConservative vs liberal really amounts to defining what a population decides it is willing to accept within its culture to broaden the survival and quality of life’s experiences.
Each culture’s entire existence is based on these “decisions”. Whether it be for example - do we develop successful vaccines and promote their use to save a wider range of the population or do we go in the opposite direction that falls back more on a philosophy of survival of the fittest?
Do we promote programs that aid in providing food or housing for people or do we swing towards a more basic approach of everyone for themselves?
All political issues and subsequent decisions fall within these two “bookend” parameters and obviously both the wealth and conscience of a culture plays an overriding roll in the direction each culture decides to go.
At this point, it looks like everyone for themselves.
ReplyDelete