Instruction of our youth provides not only intellectual guidance, but moral and ethical guidance. There are those who believe all potential humans are equal, and each individual can learn with similar ability. To a point this is true, but our personalities are shaped by our genetics, environment, inhibitions, preferences and desires. I think people believe we all are blank slates, but there has to be some type of base to make the imprint on. Two people raised in the exact same conditions will react differently to those conditions. It's the balance of reality that seems to be at play here. (See future write-ups on balance as well as waves). For instance, photons that were presented two holes to pass through seem to be dicated by the ones before it. If one chose one hole, the other chose the other hole. This to me is a natural check of keeping balance within nature. Two people presented the exact same circumstances will create slightly varying to completely different personalities. It's the lack of sameness that matters.
These differences shine light on our preferences towards the smarter, more attractive, more athletic; which is a preordained biological cue to better our species. We look for continuation of our own, however humans many times place special interest in the weak of our species. We value all life forms, allowing to over look nature to help the quality of life for others. Instead of labeling this as not-survival-of-the-fittest, perhaps this is a quality that makes humnanity unique. We provide for those that are less fortunate than us. At the same time, we often look away when the less fortunate are taken advantage of by fate. Our natural reaction to let nature take its course?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Your musings assume that we as a society are really even aware of nature. I am often moved by stories of the weak or disadvantaged beating the odds, but there's something awfully unnatural about that scenario. In nature, the strongest, smartest, most attractive are the ones who mate and procreate, like you say. This leaves the weaker, dumber, least attractive genes to eventually be removed from the species' genetic pool.
ReplyDeleteAs humans, we intervene and combat nature for the right for these individuals to survive and bear young. I think this is the root of what you're getting at - we like the underdog story, the story of the species' weak, because it gives us an opportunity to see if we can beat nature. In concept, it would be best to take the path of least resistance, to allow nature to run its course. This is how our species began, and how some nomadic tribes in Africa continue to live in balance with nature. But somehow fighting nature seems the humane thing to do, given the emotional bond one will unfailingly feel when given the opportunity to do something good.
Terrible responsibility, this emotion.
Perhaps the emotion or 'condition' of supporting and giving attention to the weak and disadvantage is a biological response. After all, as you said, "the strongest, smartest, most attractive are the ones who mate and procreate". Very true indeed, and it is obvious that humans are evolving and improving from generation to generation. We've become the stronger, faster, more attractive. We're removing the blemishes from our species, however every generation has it's own mutations and mistakes that are the natural order of chaos.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, we do have a continuing cycle of the weak and disdvatanged getting their chance to leave new generations. Is this going to create a sharper and more contrasted divide the further we go?
And I am well aware of how arbitrary my tangent is, considering we have general guidelines of what is more advantaged, but where is the line drawn to create the contrast? And who commands that guideline?
One interesting thing I want to point out is that your last sentence points not only to a feeling we all share at one point or another, but that religion has created a safeguard to combat that feeling. Who hasn't walked past a beggar and kept the dollar bills or change in their pocket. If you gave every single one money, you'd have nothing left. Religion does not specify to give all of your money, but it does teach to give as much as you can. By enacting such a command, the disadvantaged and weak are continually supported. It can be assumed that there will always be the lesser of the species to use as a measuring stick for the better; so the question is: should the species not provide for the lesser to better the human condition, or should we continue to provide and support them to improve quality of life?