Philosophy - Part 13 - The Survival of the Weakest

Philosophy - Part 13 - The Survival of the Weakest - by P.K.Odendaal July 2012

This part is about three philosophies - Humanism, Darwinism and Christianity (partly).

I am not a Humanist. The fact that I cannot suffer fools gladly proofs it - and also the way in which I despise corrupt politicians and politicians who make idiots of themselves, seals the argument.
Darwinism is a philosophy, elevated by some misguided individuals like Dawkins and Gould to a status of science, 'stealing' the tenets of the Science of Evolution, to make their philosophy have a shade of truth. Every science has at least one or more axioms to build on. Darwinism has none.

Evolution, a science quite opposite to Darwinism is a science in its infancy. We have just begun to understand the behaviour and evolution of particles from the Atom to the Boson particle, in reverse order of size. After that we will be ready to start to understand the evolution of the higher life forms. The whole of creation is in flux and changes by the second - in the case of stars, hyperbolically.
Christianity, which I touch on briefly here, is a philosophy - a philosophy quite the opposite of Humanism. In fact, Humanism was championed more than a millennium after Christianity started, as an antidote to Christianity, in order to counter the devastating effect of the human implementation of Christianity on mankind.
But nonetheless, I start off with a slogan of Darwinism borrowed from the science of Evolution. The name of the principle is 'The survival of the fittest.' It is an axiom of Evolution. We can all see it is true, and we have never been able to prove or disprove it. I will take it as an axiom to build on, a process any science is built on.
And whilst we all know it must be true, we apply exactly the opposite principle, namely the survival of the weakest. Our whole society, governmental, social and philanthropic programs are built on this. We believe the poor, sick, unskilled, feeble minded, physically and mentally challenged people should be supported, sustained, cared for, kept alive .. and so on. We even put them on machines when they are no longer alive, just to keep them at least artificially alive.
I do not say that this is right or wrong. I only say that this is in stark contrast with nature and evolution and the way of the universe, and we pay a very heavy price for it.
Let's take the governmental systems. The rich pays much more tax than the poor - if indeed the poor ever pay any tax, so that the government can 'steal' from the rich to 'waste' it on the poor. 'Stealing' from the rich to develop the country into something that can ultimately sustain the rich and poor is a noble task, but pouring it out on the ground to flow away into bottomless pits is a mean policy. And the price we pay for that, is that the 'social' countries like Greece collapse financially. There are many others countries on this 'fiscal cliff'. In South Africa, social grants are paid out to 40% of the inhabitants, and a further 40% is exempt from tax due to their low income. The remaining 20%, who are not even rich, must pay for the survival of the weakest - and of course for the survival of the corrupt politicians. It is debatable whether the corrupt politicians or the needy receive the most.
Healthcare is another one. The latest conflicts in 'Obama Care' shows this, as well as any medical aid scheme which bases membership fees on anything other than the health of the individual.
I do not want to go into all the dichotomies. I only want to try and save mankind from itself - a thing no one has ever accomplished, and that is why we have this interesting histories like 'The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire' and the Rises and Falls of a thousand other once strong empires or countries.
There is only one factor which was responsible over the millennia for the longevity of nations, and that was production. A case in point is that the USA won the Second World War solely on their production capabilities, a fact the Japanese knew very well beforehand, but the thought they could risk their chances with a blitz campaign before the USA war machine got into production.
Of course, a production orientated economy or nation cannot afford the survival of the weakest. In fact, that is exactly what wars were made for - to purify mankind from the weakest. Again, I do not say whether that is right or wrong.
If mankind cannot escape from the humanistic view of the survival of the weakest it will sooner than later face the ultimate financial crisis and concomitant Armageddon - two events closely linked to each other.
To conclude.
The philosophy of Darwinism teaches us that life is driven by the survival of the fittest. On the other hand government social and tax programs, philanthropy, charity, humanism and human rights ensures the survival of the weakest. Which one will prevail in the end? It is basically a contest between war and peace.
As I know mankind, the survival of the fittest (richest and most powerful) will prevail, because our world cherishes money and power. That is what wars are about and for. In fact, the slaughtering of citizens by their governments like in Libya and Syria has just begun this worldwide power play. Governments killing their citizens by using their own tax money for the war, is quite a novel approach, and has a bright future.