In this episode we explore the meaning of the phrase ‘the survival of the fittest’, and why it’s so problematic now What does that phrase ‘the survival of the fittest’ actually mean? And what’s the connection to the deadly dysfunctions of possessionism and paediarchy that, as we’ve seen in
Another gem of an article, I had always thought the "Survival of the fittest" was related to a story I heard on a pride of lions, where adolescent males take on a dominant male in a succession conflict. The loser of this conflict is left to trail behind the pride, but when not invited to partake in a post kill feast soon loses energy and is picked off by other scavengers. The adolescent male is usually the winner in such a scenario and his superior genes are essential in ensuring a healthy brood of cubs to ensure the continuation of the pride. Seems quite a familiar story for modern business practices.
The standard interpretation of Darwin's "Survival of The fittest" which is also used here seems flawed. Darwin is right but the interpretation is shallow and typically biased. Survival of the fittest is not limited to the physical realm, intelligence, knowledge, understanding, and empathy are key. Survival is not about harming others. Collaboration is the highest productivity factor and the provider of the greatest force, solidarity. Most powerful tools for survival and thrivability.
"Possessionism" as used here seems more like over-possessionism as my food plate is mine. I can give it, share it, and eat it. Not only is it mine, but once I eat it, a good part of it becomes me. I possess it. It is mine because I acquired it and because I use it to better contribute to evolution, and that is key.
In a strictly causal universe where nothing is gained, nothing is lost and everything transforms and evolves, all that exists is fruit and tool of evolution. Hence, the meaning and purpose of existence (and life) is to contribute to evolution to the best of ones ability. So much so, that killing another being is morally acceptable if it serves the purpose of existence and contributes to evolution.
A simple example is eating where we can only feed on the living, reducing complex and evolved living structures to their full entropic energy dissipation. Yet it is quite acceptable and inevitable, as well as moral in proportion to how the eater effectively uses this energy to further and better contribute to evolution.
Possession is fine, it is the greed, the competitive greed, that is at issue, and mostly because, at this point, it does not contribute well to evolution.
Darwin was quite right, possibly more than even he realized.
Another gem of an article, I had always thought the "Survival of the fittest" was related to a story I heard on a pride of lions, where adolescent males take on a dominant male in a succession conflict. The loser of this conflict is left to trail behind the pride, but when not invited to partake in a post kill feast soon loses energy and is picked off by other scavengers. The adolescent male is usually the winner in such a scenario and his superior genes are essential in ensuring a healthy brood of cubs to ensure the continuation of the pride. Seems quite a familiar story for modern business practices.
The standard interpretation of Darwin's "Survival of The fittest" which is also used here seems flawed. Darwin is right but the interpretation is shallow and typically biased. Survival of the fittest is not limited to the physical realm, intelligence, knowledge, understanding, and empathy are key. Survival is not about harming others. Collaboration is the highest productivity factor and the provider of the greatest force, solidarity. Most powerful tools for survival and thrivability.
"Possessionism" as used here seems more like over-possessionism as my food plate is mine. I can give it, share it, and eat it. Not only is it mine, but once I eat it, a good part of it becomes me. I possess it. It is mine because I acquired it and because I use it to better contribute to evolution, and that is key.
In a strictly causal universe where nothing is gained, nothing is lost and everything transforms and evolves, all that exists is fruit and tool of evolution. Hence, the meaning and purpose of existence (and life) is to contribute to evolution to the best of ones ability. So much so, that killing another being is morally acceptable if it serves the purpose of existence and contributes to evolution.
A simple example is eating where we can only feed on the living, reducing complex and evolved living structures to their full entropic energy dissipation. Yet it is quite acceptable and inevitable, as well as moral in proportion to how the eater effectively uses this energy to further and better contribute to evolution.
Possession is fine, it is the greed, the competitive greed, that is at issue, and mostly because, at this point, it does not contribute well to evolution.
Darwin was quite right, possibly more than even he realized.