 |
||
|
Corrupt Australia presents an alternative to the politically correct channels of debate to reveal and scrutinize the skewed structure/design of modern Australian society. We also seek to encourage autonomous Australian culture which is free from the standardizing and overly materialistic clutches of globalisation and which encourages citizens to go further than simply contributing to a quantity over quality mindset and the banal and unsustainable conditions under which we may increase our love for and attainment of material mass. |
||
Survival of the fittest?At the time of mating, perhaps the two halves of the offspring's genetic information, inherited from its parents, link together in an 'abnormal' manner and the offspring is produced with 'retarded' mental or physical capacities in relation to other members of the same species? Perhaps the two halves of the genetic information link in a manner which directs more cells to brain functioning and the offspring turns out to be intelligent, fit and bold? Who knows? What is vital to bear in mind here is the occurrence of these random mutations. Depending on what they involve, these kinds of mutations provide the key for sustained change in life. For instance if a member of a certain species is produced with higher intelligence or more muscle mass allowing it to get a feed instead of its competitor, it will live to breeding age and pass its genetic information (including the new bits from mutation) on to its offspring, and they too will posses the newly acquired trait enabling increased chances of survival to their own breeding age, and so on and on. Now, I think it would not be going too far to label the mechanism whereby life on this planet changes as a fundamental 'truth' regarding life. Yes, as harsh as it might sound to some, survival of the fittest is a part of our reality. However, and this is the main point of the article, beware of some of the modern individualistic conceptions of this mechanism of evolution: they are sometimes tainted with a bastardised perception of the truth and thus everywhere we experience the celebration, not so much of the survival of the fittest, but rather the survival of the most cunning. This is, for instance, the celebration of the savvy business man: the man who convinces stupid people to want his product over 10 identical products of his competitors, who cuts his costs by hiring and firing waves of people at the drop of a hat or by perhaps dumping waste into the local bay, who sells pirated goods or Hanson albums, and who basically succeeds, man! I'm sure many people are starting to wake up and realise that our society is based, sometimes quite heavily, on a vicious and parasitic mentality of the survival of the most cunning. Marketing is but one prime example and one would look in disbelief on the amount spent by a calculating 'upper' class on convincing an almost chimpanzee-like 'under' class into basing their lives around certain goods and services for no good reason of their own. While the more vicious notion of evolution does play out an important role, in that the lion picking off the weakest and most feeble of the grazers maintains the grazer's gene pool and stops it from being dominated by weak and feeble individuals, I'm not sure we should be basing so much of our social philosophy on such a premise, even if unknowingly. For firstly, the individuals that fall prey to the cunning in the human realm are not extinguished and simply continue falling prey to them, on into the future. Secondly, this form of survival, the 'survival of the most cunning', does not necessarily completely coincide with the 'survival of the fittest' on a scale as vast as the human and may at times stand at odds with it. If we want to all be savvy business men - and succeed at any cost - for example, we will destroy our natural environment and die. That's not fitness. Anyway, I think it would be agreed that by discouraging parasites and people who want to succeed at the expense of the whole, we would not be throwing a spanner into the words of evolution and be jealously holding back the 'strong', as many pot-smoking hippies and lefties are accused by neo-conservatives. I think it would show more strength and encourage a better culture if the individual was allowed to prosper in life only by, for instance, producing a product which sells because it surpasses competitors' products in quality rather than by fooling dumb people into buying something simply due to sophisticated bullshitting techniques. In nature, predators most often target and pick-off the weakest. Do we want to celebrate this, the victory of cunningness, or celebrate victory attained through the adherence to higher standards? If the predator, say lion, was somehow forced to target stronger adveseries instead of the weakest, this would encourage stronger lions in the long run. At the end of the day, if we advocate 'survival of the most cunning' too much instead of survival of the fittest, we may as well begin eating our own children to ensure our next meal. The question we have to ask ourselves is this: do we want to live in a pride of lions or in a dynamic human community that is concerned with more than simply the next kill? We don't have to forsake standards and strength in a community and give up on survival of the fittest (quite the opposite: it is easier to create standards in a real close knit community), but we do have to give up on the celebration of the 'survival of the most cunning', or the places in which we live will continue to become havens for the sneaky and the devious. By David 
|
Think of it all - of the life that is! Study your friends and foes! - Henry Lawson |
|
(c)2008 Corrupt AU |
||