jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (65 posts)

Survival of the Fittest vs. Govt. Enabling Weakness

  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    It seems like the idea of survival of the fittest is at odds with the basic ideology of the Left.
    No?
    Yes?

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
      Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      How can the general government enable strength instead of weakness, as it is now prone to do?
      In all actuality, this is neither a right or left issue. It is a matter of common sense.

      1. junko profile image78
        junkoposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        The general and Federal Governments should promote and support education and retraining while avoiding private sector government  fraud. Federal Government fraud is equally committed by the left and right

    2. wilderness profile image98
      wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, of course.  It is also at odds with compassion and altruism.

      Bigger question is will affect the human race negatively over the long run.  As in thousands of generations.

    3. Credence2 profile image81
      Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Survival of the fittest, fine, but I want a level playing field where opportunity for one to reach his or her potential is maximized. We don't take knives to a gunfight. If we take your reasoning to greater lengths, how long do you think you would survive in a "Mad Max" kind of society?

      It is interesting how Scandinavia stands head and shoulder over so many in the amount of humanity included as part of its culture. I wonder why that is?

      We all agree to the rule of law that protects those that have a great deal, what if that disappeared tomorrow and we determine a different way of calculating value and wealth, "Quatroos"? We decide to shake up the cookie jar, who will come out on top then?

      1. wilderness profile image98
        wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        Sorry, nature does not provide a level playing field.  That comes from compassion, altruism, etc.; i.e. the things the OP is asking about.

        The "humanity" in Scandinavia?  As "humanity" includes violence, theft, hatred and all the other base actions I don't quite understand.  Do you refer to those actions that are "above" the common man?  (jk - I do understand and can only offer that the environment has made it necessary in order to survive, at least until the last few hundred years.)

        1. Credence2 profile image81
          Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

          If nature does not provide a level playing field what is the justification for the status quo and people whose interest of making a society/civilization work adhering to it?

          As for violence, theft and hatred, most true, but found in smaller quantities in these societies...

          1. wilderness profile image98
            wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Not sure what you mean by justification, or people who have interest in society adhering to...what?  You kind of lost me here.

            I've never lived there, but tend to agree just because of anecdotal stories from others.  Again, probably a reaction to harsh environmental conditions millenia ago.  Or possibly a genetic change, though I think that is doubtful.

            1. Credence2 profile image81
              Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

              Sorry that was a badly phrased comment. I will try again.  If nature cannot provide a level playing file why accept the status quo? It could be the guy with the biggest club, or the highest IQ, it could be perogatives of royalty, who established who is on top or on the bottom? People want to say it is a natural station, but is it?  It is only under civilization that we all agree to accept our relative stations in life without rocking the apple cart?

              That is why we have to nurture nature because why should I accept the premise that Donald Trump is to have everything while I have nothing in comparison. We all set and agree to play within a rule book that is how we make it work.

              1. wilderness profile image98
                wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                From an evolutionary standpoint, it doesn't matter what you want or think.  If you cannot beat out Trump then he will get what you want.  That's because he is unlikely to agree to give you things that he wants himself (dollars, maybe) - you either take it as a survival feature or you fail. 

                The point is that nature does not provide that rule book; you are making it and wanting the "superior" to agree to follow it.  They have no reason to do so and won't.  We know this because we already HAVE the book and those at the top don't follow it.

                1. junko profile image78
                  junkoposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  Survival of fittest in relationship to the spirit of God to believers who believe Man was made in the spiritual image of The Creator, would separate Man from Animal. Survival of the fittest absolutely is the nature of Animals and things. Animals know not what they do but, man by the nature of God knows most of the time when they do is wrong. Animals and things that are prized by man and are the fittest may not survive if Man sees fit. We can decide to do the right thing are not. Now it seems like the desire for the right to be wrong is to strong. The fact we can think and reason give us no excuse for not making good decisions, making the pursuit of happiness possible.

                  1. junko profile image78
                    junkoposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                    wilderness, I was commenting to you concerning mans ability to think and reason which means the fittest can't aways survive because man unlike animals and things is made in the image of the Creator by intelligent design. Can you agree with me, or not?

    4. junko profile image78
      junkoposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Survival of the fittest is a primitive human concept. Such a concept has no place in a democratic civilized nation such as The United States of America. Its an animalistic concept Kathryn and is a sad attempt to bash empathy,  compassion, and charity.

      1. wilderness profile image98
        wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        Survival of the fittest is how nature works, not merely a concept.  It is a description of the basic driving forces of life and all the rationalizations and disgust in the world will not stop those forces.  Just change the environment in which they operate.

        1. Credence2 profile image81
          Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

          If it is meant for the human species to behave like wild dogs, then I guess this survival of the fittest theory will hold, but I had higher aspirations.

          1. wilderness profile image98
            wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            It is not meant for the human species to behave in any way at all.  There is no meaning to being the smallest dust specks in the universe; just that they exist.  We'll have to be happy with that.

            1. Credence2 profile image81
              Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

              I hear you, but if life and continued existence is a desirable state of affairs then we are going to have to get along and a sense of egalitarianism among people goes a long way toward that object. You would not want to dismiss the value of your life to an insignificant spec of dust, would you? Don't you want just a little more? After all, it is most difficult for us mere mortals to really appreciate their insignificance from a cosmic viewpoint.

              1. wilderness profile image98
                wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                But my life isn't even that speck of dust...to the universe as a whole.  I mean, how many tears did you shed when the ET 395,489,289 galaxies away died yesterday?  Maybe I'm just ego ridden, but I do think my life means more than that to certain people, but certainly not to the universe.

                And yes - we either learn to live together or go down, probably to extinction.  Which likely means survival of the fittest, in our species, means cooperation and tolerance if not outright altruism towards other members of the species.

      2. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        I am not bashing charity, empathy and compassion! I am bashing  government intrusions that prevent empathy, charity and compassion amongst individuals in society!

        1. junko profile image78
          junkoposted 3 years agoin reply to this

          My bad Kathryn, I thought you were saying that Government help enable weakness of the needy. How is Government intruions preventing empathy, charity, and compassion? Enlighten me, please.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Dear junko,
                 I amazed by your request. Thank you. The government prevents us from helping each other when it makes it harder for us to survive in four ways off the top of my head: Confiscating citizen's money, enabling negligence, preventing a percolating economy and devaluing the dollar.

              Consider:  What would happen in a society where the government,
            1. ) Allows its citizens to keep the money they make?

            2. ) Encourages a percolating economy by responsibly tapping into all natural resources and facilitating business and industry?
                 
            3.) Does not Enable Negligence: Consider how the government intrudes upon its citizens and prevents them from helping each other by doing it for them, thereby making it harder for them to do it themselves, (they get used to it and stop taking responsibility for their loved ones and community members.) Furthermore, when it attempts to to provide for them, it is done through taxation, (confiscating the very resources the citizen's require in order to assist others,)

            4.)  Does not borrow/ over-print money, (devaluing the dollar by making it worth less.)


            (P.S. Did you see my reply to the question you asked wilderness? see above.)

      3. junko profile image78
        junkoposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        IF! Its five years into an eight year term Kathryn. Nobody can answer that question. We can answer the question, "Since President Bush was given free reign how did he help us?" No President ever had free reign and no President has ever been as disrespected as President Obama. If he had the respect that Bush had your question would have more substance and points of reference. I guess you really had nothing say,( add or subtract ).

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
          Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

          I want to know what you are talking about! One can sit here and say "Really? Please explain!" can't one?

          I hope you will join the Forum I created just for this discussion.

    5. psycheskinner profile image83
      psycheskinnerposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Why d you consider a natural process and ideology?  Natural selection is a thing that happens in wild ecosystems.  Humans have long since given up living in that manner.  A situation I am very much in favor of as opposed to leaving injured people to die in their homes and disabled people fend for themselves.

      Nor do I equate the basic notions of compassion and charity purely with the left.  I am not sure where that idea would even come from.

      1. wilderness profile image98
        wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        Are you sure that it only happens in the wild?

        I've seen speculation that the Japanese are becoming smaller because women choose small men as mates.  Because living space is at a huge premium there.  And it makes sense, too.

        China has selected for males over females and there is thus a surplus of males.  American women have selected for height - the "tall, dark and handsome" actually carries some weight. 

        I think "natural selection" always goes on, it just changes as the environment does.

      2. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        WHO does want to abandon injured and disabled people?  No one I have ever met.
        Not those who work in hospitals.
        Not those who work for churches. 
        Not those who work for private charity organizations.
        Not loved ones within their families.
        Not those who call me nightly asking for money for such organizations as Wounded Warriors, March of Dimes, St. Judes Children's Hospital, Helping Hands for the Blind, etc etc etc... that I no longer have enough money to donate to, due to across the board increases of basic costs caused by the increase in taxation and the decrease in the value of the dollar.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
          Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

          http://news.yahoo.com/family-raises-mon … ml"It seems like most of the time, car-wash fundraisers are held for things like new football uniforms or tickets for the marching band's trip to regionals. Not this time, not in Cleveland, Texas.

          A family in the Houston-area town is raising money to help pay for a relative's funeral by offering car washes to people passing by the local AutoZone, KHOU.com reports. The family is also selling barbecue.

          Connie Chiado, cousin to the late Ray Farmer, who, according to KHOU.com, "died mysteriously in his sleep," told the news station the car wash isn't "for fun and games. We need to bury my cousin."

          As of Wednesday, they'd raised about $2,000. The family is seeking a total of $9,000 to pay for the funeral, according to KHOU.

          Farmer was reportedly found dead on Saturday morning by his wife of 22 years. He had three children and one grandchild.

          Chiado told KHOU, "We're not rich people. We flip burgers for a living. We work on cars for a living."

          Last month, a Holtville, Calif., family also raised money for funeral expenses with a car wash. Francisco Javier Rico died in a car accident. He was 22.

          The median cost of a funeral in the United States is $7,045, according to the National Funeral Directors Association."
          This is an example of individuals looking out for each other without requiring/demanding government assistance.

    6. wba108@yahoo.com profile image83
      wba108@yahoo.composted 3 years agoin reply to this

      It depends on the context of what survival of the fittest means. To the political left it represents the cruelty of the free market or capitalist system which if left unchecked will fuel inequalities that create wars and destroy the environment. What the left fails to comprehend is that a perfect world can't be created by imperfect people and that freedom in any form will always be abused to some degree.

      1. Credence2 profile image81
        Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

        On the left, we do comprehend that a perfect world is not possible, but if no effort is taken  to look after the problem presented in your second sentence what is the alternative?  Imperfect people must do their best to improve things within the circumstances they find themselves or do absolutely nothing in the face of the danger. Which would you choose?

  2. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    Countries, Nations, Communities and Cities.
    Q.1) How do these institutions help individuals survive? (After all, all we are trying to do is survive.)
    What specifically helps?
    What specifically hinders?
    Institution
    "An institution is any structure or mechanism of social order governing the behaviour of a set of individuals within a given community; may it be human or a specific animal one. Institutions are identified with a social purpose, transcending individuals and intentions by mediating the rules that govern living behavior." Wikipedia
    "A society or organization founded for a religious, educational, social, or similar purpose." Dictionary

    Q. 2) What is the difference between survival in the wild and survival within societal institutions?
    Q. 3) What is the difference between survival of the fittest for animals vs survival of the fittest for mankind?

  3. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    Ideally
    The government can assist its constituents in becoming fit enough to survive by:
    1. Keeping taxes low.
    2. Keeping the value of the dollar intact.
    3. Allowing people to plan and save for their own retirement.
    4. Allowing people to choose (and keep) their own insurance plans for the sake of fostering the competition of health insurance companies vying for memberships in order to keep prices low.
    5. Issue Welfare dividends as no interest loans as opposed to handouts.
    6. Keeping business regulations/requirements simple, inexpensive and "user friendly."
    7. Utilizing natural resources such as coal and oil/ (installing pipelines from Canada.)
    8. Requiring legal citizenship for those who wish to immigrate. (Facilitate feasible immigration procedures.)
    9. School vouchers…Tax credits to facilitate private school attendance.
    10. Freedom of choice in regards to public schools to inspire competition amongst schools in order to increase quality of education.
    11.?
    12.?

  4. lone77star profile image85
    lone77starposted 3 years ago

    Kathryn, you've touched on an open wound, but you need to step back a little further from the scene to see what's really going on.

    So long as you look only at the left-right paradigm, you miss out seeing that there is one group playing both sides -- a puppet master who is deliberately polarizing the masses to divide them and distract them.

    They play off of ego. People identify with a group and become sucked into that identity and cannot let go, because they think they are their ego. But ego is only a physical pseudo-self. Ego is vulnerable. Ego is an action-reaction mass of dichotomies and we see it react with the world through karma. Spirit is not reactive. Spirit is not made of this physical stuff.

    Government has many methods for weakening the masses. Sympathy is only one of them. Sympathy is deadly and evil; compassion is divine. The difference is that one steals energy and ability while the other enables the individual -- help without crippling with dependencies.

    If you study ego (not the Western psychological construct, but the Buddhist idea of false self), then you can begin to know each person by the "fruit" they bear -- by the product of their labors.

    The social programs of the "progressives" help to make people dependent upon Sugar Daddy Uncle Sam.

    But the psychopathic elite who run Wall Street _and_ Washington also pollute the right, as well, making it seem devoid of compassion so that more people will flock to the "humanity" of the left.

    The fittest will be those who don't react to their polarizing Corporate Party media garbage.

    The fittest will be those who don't react to the scaremongering of Global Warming that evolved into Climate Change with pictures of polar bears stranded on shrinking icebergs. Polar bears thrive in warmer weather, but you won't hear that from the Global Warming scammers. In fact, Global warming is a good thing. Cooling creates more deserts, less rain and more death. Warming creates more evaporation, more rain, more lush forests and more life. Warming also helps to stabilize the climate so that there are far fewer hurricanes and tornadoes.

    "Helping" the world by scaremongering and then charging nations $Trillion$ is a popular technique learned from the old days of Snake Oil salesmen who bilked people of their savings with false cures.

    The Snake Oil salesman mentality:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xat9xSos_7g

    The other side of the non-consensus on climate:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ

    Politics has become a game of tyranny, again. The ruthless psychopaths who don't mind murder and theft always rise to the top and they've gotten really good at it. Their silver-tongued pitch men, like Obama, can sell the public on manure as perfume.

    They can even sell many Americans on the idea that solid steel occasionally offers Zero resistance to collapse, as with the perfect free fall of WTC7 on 9/11. I'd like to see some of those brain dead or hypnotized Americans punch their heads through a solid steel beam to see if it really does offer some resistance. The lunacy of a government body (NIST) and its scientists peddling outright fraud is disheartening. It means that the government is so far gone, there's no saving it. The corruption is down to the cellular level. Better to scrap the whole deal and form a new Continental Congress.

    But so long as ego exists (what Christ called the attitude of being "first"), we will never be able to have a perfect system. Corruption will always rise to the top, and humanity will always seek the lowest common denominator -- the wailing and gnashing of scripture. That's why we need help. And those who ignore that help will be condemned by their own decision.

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
      Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      What I am trying to present is pure logic. Idealized logic. Not party-oriented rhetoric, I hope you can see that. I do not deserve any word lashing at all.
      ( But nice to read you here…Welcome!)

      Check it out:

      What if the government wanted/ desired, to enable/ facilitate our STRENGTHS…
      That is what I am exploring. Nothing else.
      At all.
      If you want to be helpful, please add, subtract, or comment regarding the list of things a government could possibly implement in enabling its citizens to be fit and robust enough to SURVIVE ! ! ! ! ! !
      PLEASE!

      List:
      1. Keeping taxes low.
      2. Keeping the value of the dollar intact.
      3. Allowing people to plan and save for their own retirement.
      4. Allowing people to choose (and keep) their own insurance plans for the sake of fostering the competition of health insurance companies vying for memberships in order to keep prices low.
      5. Issue Welfare dividends as no interest loans as opposed to handouts.
      6. Keeping business regulations/requirements simple, inexpensive and "user friendly."
      7. Utilizing natural resources such as coal and oil/ (installing pipelines from Canada.)
      8. Requiring legal citizenship for those who wish to immigrate. (Facilitate feasible immigration procedures.)
      9. School vouchers…Tax credits to facilitate private school attendance.
      10. Freedom of choice in regards to public schools to inspire competition amongst schools in order to increase quality of education.
      11.?
      12.?

    2. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
      Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I agree, LoneStar:
      We must cut the strings of the puppet masters who want us to be ignorant of the truth, unconnected to common sense, and in denial of our true state of brother/sister hood as citizens of the United states. We must somehow stand united through all our differences.

  5. psycheskinner profile image83
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    You set up the option of natural selection or "being liberal".  Whihc was confusing.

    If you actually want to discuss whether government should exist (no tax would mean essentially no elected government) or what form it should take (?)... well, you might want to set up a different pair of options other than living like wild animals.

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
      Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      How can the government enable strength instead of weakness? I admit it is a loaded question.

      1. janesix profile image59
        janesixposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        What do you think of as strength?

        Can you give a list of qualities that would help define that?

        1. psycheskinner profile image83
          psycheskinnerposted 3 years agoin reply to this

          I know there are times in my life when I was weak.  When I was a student, when I was in a car crash, when I worked long hours on a very low wage, when I suffered from mental illness.  I am grateful that the nation where I lived at the time (currently the US) decided to support me during those periods of weakness.  I labor and volunteer for my country now not just out of legal requirement or duty, but gratitude. 

          I will pay back what I was granted in times of weakness a hundred fold or more--and be happy to do so.  I pay my taxes knowing that I give far more than a receive, but now I am strong and prosperous and I feel this is only right.  because when I was poor and sick, I was looked after.  Those who are never weak, do they never learn this lesson?  Do they think my recovery was not worth the investment?

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Yay for the government. What about allowing and thereby enabling the citizens to help each other? Maybe this was not the way of the past. But, it can be the way of the future as people develop more strength and true compasion for each other.
            Does the government appreciate your gratitude?

            (Of course, the government can allow for a certain amount of assistance, but I really think they are overdoing it a bit and people are becoming conniving, dependent and weak. Believe me, I hear them chatter on and on about how to get this and that and if you don't, you are just plain stupid.)

            1. PrettyPanther profile image82
              PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this

              Citizens have always been "allowed" to help each other.  In fact, citizens--in the form of government--"enable" this by providing a multitude of incentives to charitable and religious organizations.

              The government is an institution, a thing, and therefore is not capable of emotion such as gratitude.  We, the people who created and now sustain the government, may or may not individually appreciate her gratitude.  I personally believe she is an example of why we, the people of this country, formed government programs in the first place.  Because we value our fellow citizens enough to help them when they are down.  Because we have compassion and recognize that the contribution of a citizen who may only be capable of being a janitor is just as important as the contribution of a CEO.

              My personal observation is that those who scorn government assistance for others have often received it but fail to recognize how much they have relied upon it, preferring to credit their success to their own brilliance.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
                Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                Repeating: (Of course, the government can allow for a certain amount of assistance, but I really think they are overdoing it a bit and people are becoming conniving, dependent and weak. Believe me, I hear them chatter on and on about how to get this and that and if you don't, you are just plain stupid.)

                1. PrettyPanther profile image82
                  PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  You are describing perfectly some of the wealthiest among us who, with their vast fortunes and immense power, connive and bully to make sure they receive ever more.

                  Pardon me if I view that with much more disdain than I would an unemployed single mother conniving to get food stamps or free cheese.  Or, even a homeless, drug-addicted freeloader.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                    How about those who immigrate here, either legally or illegally, and figure out every advantage they can with no appreciation or gratitude to the country what-so-ever? There is that element too.

                    Mostly I am concerned for society as a whole.

                    Perhaps taxing the rich would be just fine as long as they are motivated to earn money at the higher tax rate, after all they do provide employment and wages. Reagan's experiment with trickle down economics just doesn't sit right with people. I understand the theory, but maybe it just can't work in reality due to temptations and greed for huge wealth and unchecked power.

              2. wilderness profile image98
                wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                "Citizens have always been "allowed" to help each other.  In fact, citizens--in the form of government--"enable" this by providing a multitude of incentives to charitable and religious organizations."

                You need to finish the thought to present a true picture.  Government "enables" such donations (charity) through tax deductions; reductions in taxes which government must then make up by demanding more taxes from someone else if it is to maintain the same "income".  People do not truly support anyone by utilizing those "incentives"; they just force others to do so.  Only giving without expectation of return is actually charity at all.

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  Thanks Wilderness. (He hates to be thanked, but I can't help it, he isolates important details so well.)

                  1. wilderness profile image98
                    wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                    Here is charity, not some rich bozo cutting his taxes by giving the 10% their church demands.

                    http://themetapicture.com/definitely-on … the-world/

                2. PrettyPanther profile image82
                  PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  Can't argue with any of that.  If you are comfortable with no government programs to help the needy, then continue to advocate for it.

                  1. wilderness profile image98
                    wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                    And if you are comfortable with government forcing you to support people too lazy to do it themselves, then continue to advocate for it.

                    It really does help to read carefully, and not read something that isn't there.  I have never advocated not helping the needy any more than you have advocated supporting lazy bums that refuse to do it themselves.

        2. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
          Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

          It is a given as to what allows any creature whether man or beast to be strong. Consider the lion in the wild. He does what nature expects him to do: Chase gazelles, rip them apart with his powerful jaws and teeth, and share the carrion with the others in his pride.

          Humans act in accordance to each one's individual nature. If a man wants to be a good floor installer, he gets his contractor's license and contracts work by networking with those who need his services, obtaining insurances, business cards, etc.

          He needs a place to live which is affordable so that he can be healthy, (prepare good food,) and get enough sleep. Strength equalls robust health and is vital in being industrious and hard working.

          Furthermore, strength comes from when a man/woman has a love of his work and the outcomes of doing it, by having the pride of providing for himself and his loved ones, by having the opportunity mentor the youth and assist in caring for the poor, the sick and the elderly within his community.

          Money is the root of success at present time. The worst thing the government can do is make it hard for the citizens to obtain work, afford the yearly fees of licenses and insurances, own businesses, and keep the money they work so hard to make.

          Success is a wonderful thing when it leads to individual and societal survival. This type of success equals strength.

 
working