It no longer means anything in the world we have today. In the physical sense, there is basically nothing left to threaten the weakest, meekest or disease-ridden. Take the lion. The male lion can only maintain his pride as long as he's the strongest. The one most capable of protecting his lionesses and cubs. As soon as there is any sign of weakness, his throne is relinquished to the new strongest male and so on.
'The circle of life', to use a line from that corny Disney film.
Now if you're the weakest in society, you might not have a pride of lionesses, but you're still able to survive. There are prescriptions, treatments and cures for pretty much any of the things that can inflict a person. When did it become 'survival of the person with the best medical care'? To top it all off, they can then pass on their tainted DNA to their children. It's perverting natural selection for their selfish need to 'protect' their bloodline.
A mans' worth is now based either through fame, money or being physically attractive. Sure, it's good to have those attributes, but that doesn't measure any of the attributes you should truly be gauged on. Strength of character, the ability to think, the ability to empathise or strive forwards are a true measure of self-worth. I think it's the society we live in which has perverted the meaning of 'the fittest'.
Maybe we need to have a gladiatorial test of a man's strength, intelligence and drive to prove their worth as a prized catch. A similar thing would have to be devised for women, too. Then there would be a ranking system that would rate a person. Just as you have a credit rating, you'd have an eligibility or 'fittest' rating. It could be that if the rating was too low, you were no longer able to pass on your DNA.
Take Gattaca, one of my favourite films. The basic story revolves around a fixation of a man's worth by their DNA. Their future was determined by their strength of DNA which would determine what kind of role they were eligible for and who they could socialise with. The film concludes with a man, that despite having weak DNA, becomes a 'DNA elite' through subterfuge and strength of character. He is able to exceed all expectations despite being ranked weak within this society.
There's a quote that I think is brilliant:
'I never saved anything for the swim back'
His strength of character was such that he was so determined to reach his goal that he'd put everything on the line to succeed. Now that is a persons' worth that needs to exceed his lifetime.
So in conclusion, it's not that we save people who are weak, it's that the weak of character are able to continue their bloodline, destroying future generations in the process. The ability to procreate should be a privilege rather than a right. I think anyone who is willing to push their limits beyond what they should be capable of is worthy. Anyone who strives for a better future is something we should preserve. You can always do far more if you don't save anything for the swim back.
Damn you take on chunky topics.
ReplyDeleteStatistically you may be correct, but what about:
- Children raised by weak/dysfunctional parents often have strong character.
- Parents who are so focussed on their own success, make life easy for their kids thus raising them with weak character.
- A life changing moment (such as having kids) changes ones character.
The improvements above would be left out of earning the privilege. More often character comes from "achieved despite of ..." rather than "because of ..."
This would warrant a sequel: "Gattaca 2 - The Character Test"
I don't think Gattaca was just protesting about DNA tests, but more generally at one size fits all "Utopian" test.
I'll take that as a compliment. Why skate over light topics if you can go for the jugular?
ReplyDeleteI agree with your points. Just because you come from 'fit stock', doesn't mean that qualifies you to procreate. Each person has to prove themselves worthy.
I personally disagree with your view on Gattaca, but that's what makes us human, after all. Gattaca is about these tests not being able to measure the human spirit.
As a point of reference, the genetically elite persona that Ethan Hawk takes over is technically superior but fails because he never needed to try.
ReplyDeleteHe would fail under my concept of 'fitness'.
Hmmm... This is a big topic, and Im guessing you are trying to raise a bit of controversy(?). Anyway theres lots of things I could say...
ReplyDelete1) I think everyone has the right to exist equally and we are all here for a reason (we just might have to figure out what it is).
2) the world is a big place, with lots of areas un-inhabited. So if the "un-fit" people want to 'continue their blood-lines' as you say, then really there is plenty of space and if you dont want to be around them, you dont have to be.
3) I think in some parts of the world there is definitely "survival of the fittest" going on, e.g. places in africa and wartorn countries. Often those people dont have access to proper medical treatments etc. Or people with mental health issues, which might prevent them from holding down a job etc. I suppose drug addictions could trap people in self-destructive cycles they cant get out of etc.
4) I dont really rate things like appearance, wealth, fame etc. Sure if you are rich that is nice, but its not the most important thing in life. So I wouldnt rate someone as being "fitter" than me in that regards.
I havent seen that movie, but yes it is important for people to be free thinking, use their intellect etc.
Im not the most competitive person in the world, so I wouldnt go for gladiator battles to prove my right to exist ;-)
Although some competition can be fun e.g. sport or comptuer games etc. But thats another topic.
Anyway - not sure if I am on the same wavelength of what you are getting at, and Im probably rambling a bit here. Happy to discuss further.
Hey Dave, welcome to the party :)
ReplyDeleteIn response to your points:
1/ I'm not saying anyone should be killed
2/ There are now 7 billion people - end of argument
3/ I agree
4/ Sure. But anyone can have kids. The stupid goddamn b#### in america that had four kids and then had another eight should be shot in the head imo. She's so crazy and yet it's her right to procreate.
The term gladiatorial was used as shorthand for testing your strength - not necessarily on the battlefield.
Hey Steve,
ReplyDeleteinteresting one. You seem to think along the same lines as me in many regards, particularly in the way that our basic instincts still have a massive impact on us - even though we would like to think they don't.
I think the point you are missing though is that no-one makes a concious decision to keep themselves alive to pass on their DNA. Everything in our bodies is completely wired towards keeping us alive. The result of this is that the longer we are alive the more likely we are to reproduce.
I totally agree with your comment about survival of the fittest no longer applying (for the developed world at least), I just think that as with everything else it is totally tied to our subconcious and our basic instincts. We have no control over it. The fact that is has become easier to stay alive has gotten us to where we are.
Hey Scott,
ReplyDeleteI agree that everyone is programmed to want to have kids instinctively, but we surpassed basic instincts at the point where we became self-aware and conscious of the repercussions and impact of our decisions.
Everyone has a choice when it comes to having kids - nothing is involuntary anymore. Everyone is capable of controlling their destiny; especially when it comes to kids.
http://xkcd.com/409/
ReplyDeleteUnsafe vehicles, hills, and philosophy go hand in hand.
We should be coding in Assembly to ensure we continue to build our character.