[Previous entry: "Human Evolution?"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "Special Edition 1"]

10/09/2002 Archived Entry: "I'm a Realist"

Recently, I've come to realize just how much of a realist I am (with a bit of naturalist thrown in on the side). I've been chatting with people and seem to find myself in civilized arguments rather often. -_- Now I don't like arguing often, but I can't help it. The people I talk to are just way too romantic. Their idealism sickens me. I guess it's just my view of life. I can't help but to think like this. I see the world as a harsh, unforgiving place; one with little regard to naïve ideals. I can't just leave people to believe in these false ideals, only to learn about their impossibility later, can I? I have to plant some realism in their heads.

Anyway, now I move onto replying to the comments about yesterday's post. Dang... I didn't expect so many counter arguments. At least I know people are reading this log now, don't I? ^_^; Anyway, time to provide my counter arguments:
Sure, medicine's been around for a while. I am well aware of that. I'm saying that it should have never been created in the first place. Sure, it has saved many lives and I'm sure it has saved my life many times, but I still view it as a hinderance to proper human evolution. Just because it has saved my life does not mean that I'm going to defend it.


I am not stating that creatures should only be able to live, if they are useful to the earth. I never said anything along those lines. What I am advocating is that it should be survival of the fittest. I'm saying that only creatures that can survive because of their natural ability should be able to live. They don't have to be useful to the earth, as long as they can survive on it.

Now you assert that my argument that judgment via physical ability is subjective, do you? Sure, I suppose I can agree with you on that, but I have to assert a point of my own. You argue that people should be judged by whether they are good or evil. Now I ask you, is this not a more subjective criterion? What exactly will we define as "good" and "evil?" Who is to say what is good or bad? There is no clear point of reference as to what is good and what is evil. Physical ability on the other hand, while still subjective, is much easier to concur upon. If a man is missing a leg, I'm sure most anyone will agree that he has a serious physical handicap. And besides, the concepts of "good" and "evil" are purely human in origin. I am not straying into the realm of human perception. I am staying confined to the concepts created by nature. The most basic of which, being survival of the fittest.

Your computer analogy fails to impress me. You say that medicine is something that "improves life." In one point of view, sure, of course it is. However, I have been talking in an evolutionary sense throughout my entire argument. In this case, medicine is--as stated earlier--merely a hinderance to the natural process of evolution. You state that there's a possiblity that the computer would not have been invented had there not been medicine. I cannot deny that. However, I do have to say that had the computer not been invented, no one would miss it. If humans have no knowledge of what they can have, then they will be content with what they already have. To bring up the old clichéd quote: "ignorance is bliss."

You try to prove me wrong by arguing that great individuals of the past could never have become great individuals; that many discoveries would have went undiscovered. Now I ask you: how does this relate to my argument? I never mentioned anything about the development of the human race in terms of scientific discoveries and the like. What I did argue is that the human race would be evolutionarily stagnant. These are totally different concepts.

Actually, to tell you the truth, I began thinking this way four years ago. It was my bio teacher who introduced the concept to me, when he happened to mention how medicine is preventing the evolution of the human race. This was before I saw any Kenshin. But because I felt this way, while I was watching Kenshin, I really related to Shishio. His philosophy is not wrong by any means. It may seem "evil" or "wrong" to many, but he is merely preaching nature's laws. I like it when I can relate to "villians" like that. Makes a show more enjoyable.

Aaa~... IMHO, the best counter arguments of the bunch. Thanks for giving me something meaty to work with and argue against, Saka. ^_^

I like your argument about a child. Yes, I suppose I would have to agree that if I had a child with Downs, I would not like him "eliminated." It's the whole emotional attachment thing I'm bound to have because I am human. However, the child is dragging down the human race because of this disorder, so in a evolutionary sense, he is quite worthy of being eliminated for the betterment of the species.

You argue that no one is perfect. I definately have to agree with you on this one. I know this all too well. However, I am not talking about "survival of the perfect." I'm talking about "survival of the fittest." Sure, no one will ever be perfect, but there will be those individuals that are good enough to stand above the rest because they are physically adequate to survive. That is what is important: whether they are able to survive. In your case, this extra bone of yours is not a major physical hinderance. It is nothing serious that would prevent you from surviving now, is it? In the case that it is, then through the process of natural selection, that trait would be eliminated from the gene pool in a matter of generations.

Yes, you are correct, "survival of the fittest" does not apply to the human race any longer. Thus all the physically flawed individuals present in modern society. I really cannot offer any argument with sufficient evidence to the contrary. However, I can assert my opinion. That being: natural selection should be present in the human gene pool. I personally believe that nature's law should be obeyed, for it is law that merely exists. It was not something created, such as human law. Rather, it is something that exists because it holds true in the real world. Humans are the only exception to this rule and I do not believe this to be "right." Humans should live with the laws that all other creatures must live with. Now this is merely my opinion and I am not trying to convince you or anything.

"If something can be done for a flaw, why not take it?"
Well... if one lets evolution run its own course, then the flaw should be eliminated from the population through natural selection anyway. Instead of "treating" this flaw and possibly have it passed on to many generations to come, why not not treat it and have it eliminated all together?

"I think that every person who thinks and expresses has a purpose for the human race, because as long as we're sharing our ideas, we'll evolve."
This is merely opinion. You may believe that those who think and express are worthy of living and will help the race "evolve," but that is entirely too debatable. What you cannot debate about is the theory of natural selection, and what this theory states is that only those who are physically superior can survive and help the race evolve. I respect your opinion, but I cannot agree with it.
All in all, some nice arguments ladies, but I'm afraid that all of you made huge, wrong, inductive leaps when it came to conclusions. Most of those arguments seem to have been about things I never even said. ^_^; But hey, it was fun. I should argue every once in a while. It's good, intellectual fun. ^_^

In closing, I'd just like to say to Shelly:
Yes, blow up the world goodly for me, will ya? ^_^

I don't wish to make another entry with more counter arguments, so I'll just add onto this entry.

What do I mean by "fit?" Simply put, "fit" will be determined by whether one is able to survive or not. Those who survive are fit enough to continue living. Quite simple really.

Aaa~... good argument about mental capacity. I was going to mention something along those lines last time, but I guess it just slipped my mind. ^_^; Yes, intelligence has a part in natural selection also. If a creature is physically weak, yet smart enough to survive, then so be it. What I am saying is that as long as a creature can survive using its own natural abilities, it should be allowed to live. Whether by physical or mental capability is not the point (however, it generally boils down to physical ability).

Now you bring into the mix the concept of morality. Joy. Now personally, I don't like to deal with morality. Why? Because morality implies religion. Religion is a touchy subject, so please folks, don't flame me or anything. Alright... so you state that those who have no perception of good and evil are morally lost, eh? This is still a matter of opinion. I cannot see how you can possibly state that the perception of good and evil is not entirely subjective. I am assuming you are tapping into your own religious beliefs with this statement, as religion is essentially what dictates what is "good" and "evil." However, there are many different religions and because of this, there are many, many definitions for the words "good" and "evil." I'm sure you've heard of instances where one religion accepts a certain practice, only to have another completely abhor it. You cannot force any one single definition of "good" and "evil" upon the entire human population. As I am agnostic, I care not for morality, and I am sure my definition of "good" and "evil" differs from your own.

You argue that nature is also a manmade concept and this is correct. However, this concept is a necessary one. Being that a concept such as nature is such an abstract concept, the human race finds that it must coin a term if only to be able to understand it. This is not dissimilar to the concept of "time." Both are terms that are human in origin, however, they describe abstract concepts that would otherwise be unexplainable.

You argue that nature itself is evil. According to your definition, sure. However, nature was never intended to be evil to begin with. Only with the advent of humans and their concept of morality has it become evil. There is absolutely nothing inheriently wrong with being selfish, uncaring, and opinionated, as these are all the basic instincts that every creature is born with. Even with the loss of who knows how many essential survival instincts in the human race, these instincts still hold true because they are essentially the most important survival instincts and ensure self preservation. Personally, I find nothing "good" or "evil" in nature. Please do not bring in your subjective concepts of "good," "evil," and "justice" into the discussion unless you can somehow prove that these concepts are inheriently true. Or at the very least, state that they are merely opinion.

Yes, you are correct when you say that humans have transcended the concept of "survival of the fittest." I will not argue with you about that. I have already admitted that in my argument to Saka above. However, I do not believe this to be "right." I believe that all creatures should live by the same rules. Humans should not be the only exception. This is my brand of "justice."

Let me just add something else to invalidate your "good/evil" argument further:
Alright, lets take into consideration if the world were rid of those supposedly "evil" people of which you mention. Would everything be just peachy in the world? No, because with the elimination of the obviously "evil" in the world, a new concept of "evil" would be created. What I am saying is that what is not currently considered evil will then be considered evil because of the absense of the "truly evil," the more extreme "evil." Without the glaringly "evil" individuals, perception of evil would be altered enough that tiny, currently acceptable forms of selfishness and the like will be considered evil. Thus, shouldn't the individuals exhibiting this behavior be eliminated also? It will be a never ending cycle. Well... that is until everyone on the earth is branded "evil" and subsequently killed. For no one is perfect and everyone exhibits "evil" behavior on occasion.

I suppose you got a point there. ^_^; Good job pointing that out. Yah, the theory of evolution is also quite debatable. I forgot about that. I guess it's because I'm a big science buff and forgot all about the whole evolution vs creationism debate. ^_^;

Replies: 3 comments

I just created an arguement didn't I? ::goes into the corner to slap herself:::

Posted by Hana @ 10/10/2002 03:57 PM PST

Actually, the theory of evolution in itself is entirely debatable as well. :P

Posted by saka @ 10/10/2002 07:28 AM PST

Ne, you seem to have triggered a philosophical chain-reaction in here. ^^;;

Okay, urm. Survival of the fittest, then, should determine whether a being is permitted to live? I have a question. What exactly do you mean, by "fit"? Bodybuilder? Sprinter? Bowler? ^^;; As you point out, this is also subjective, but how is it a more definite criteria? I believe there is good and there is evil. And yes, there is strong and there is weak. But among men and even some animals this system proves wrong.

A little about the recognition of good and evil. This is one of the founding concepts of morality. If you have no perception of good or evil, you are morally lost. To judge survival on physical skill alone is much too narrow. Bacteria have almost zero physical ability, yet they have survived from supposedly ever since the dawn of time.I can hear the arguement that bacteria are not sentient, so they can't possibly know what "survival" is, let alone perform it. So then, a sentient being that is equipped with the necessary physical abilities is not always guaranteed to survive as well. The Tasmanian Tiger was an apex predator, and yet it met it's demise to the hands of humans. Humans, lauffable enough, who absolutely had no physical advantages over the tiger at all. Without man's intellectual advantages, the tiger, if given the chance, would tear the human in two. The only reason, humans have "survived", if you can call it that, is through our inventiveness and mental capacities. If we based our survival merely on physical ability, we'd basically be a neanderthal civilization, where what only matters is strength. You say good and evil are manmade? Nature itself is a man-made word and concept. What exactly is nature? A tree? A bird? dirt? Good and evil have more definition. Those who are truly good are those who are selfless and defend the concepts of justice.I won't go into the whole thing XD It was bashed into my head in a certain forum, a while back. Anyway, I used to think that evil is unavoidable and "being good" was just something I liked to do, in truth we are all capable of evil, but there are those who choose to execise that evil for selfish reasons. These individuals/groups are those who must be punished/eliminated. Those that are evil live selfishly, uncaring, or unopinionated, bent on living only for themselves.

The concepts of nature, are evil, by definition. and survival itself is selfish. The word implies desire. The desire to continue living to please the self. Coupling this then with the concept above,those who desire something in order to advance themselves for selfish reasons are evil. By definition nature is evil. Man is able to deviate from nature, through his intellectual ability. Thus physical skill isn't a definite way to measure the rate of human survival.

A good person, deviates from nature, in that he/she is elevated from the system of survival, and has come to face a more intellectual type of survival. Evil stays within the basic realm of nature you have stated, the "survival of the fittest", and those who stay within this system are likely to parish, simply because they are confined to base their existance on the selfish desire of mere survival. Meanwhile those who are good and have deviated from nature to pursue a more enlightening form of survival, one not based on mere physical survival but justice, are already planning the demise of those who depend on the evil system of mere survival.

Evolution is simply the adaptation of an individual or group of individual's to further improve their chances of surviving in a given environment (oddly enough, man hasn't evolved at all that much, even more odd is that the human genome has "useless genes" that are merely garbage DNA strands, that have no real purpose, they're just there). Anyway, this concept of survival of the fittest applies in nature, but it does not necessarily apply to humans. Why not? Human's are able to transcend "nature" not the physical limitations, but the metaphysical ones, such as survival. Since we can transcend this natural desire, it invalidates the whole concept of "survival of the fittest" because humans dwell in an entirely different conceptual being. So then there must be a new criteria to base survival among humans. I believe this criteria should be whether one is good or evil. It get's mighty complicated from here, I will not deny that. There are those who may seem good or those that may seem evil, but bottomline: physical ability does not apply to human survival, since humans are able to deviate from the "natural state" of striving for mere survival.

Wanna hear more bout good and evil? XD I had a long chat with someone about this interesting subject, and got so much stuff mashed into my head XD Gomen ne, for boring you with useless babble.

Posted by Yuri-Chan @ 10/10/2002 01:46 AM PST

[Main Index]