Does Darwin's Survival of the Fittest mean gentle Tibetans will be wiped out

Question:I see that EVIL has found at least one articulate person to spell out its position on Tibet. Let it be known that the "settlers" referred to are invaders sent to dispossess the Tibetan people and destroy their culture. Atheists all, they despise any form of religious belief......whether Buddhist, Christian or otherwise.

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: I see that EVIL has found at least one articulate person to spell out its position on Tibet. Let it be known that the "settlers" referred to are invaders sent to dispossess the Tibetan people and destroy their culture. Atheists all, they despise any form of religious belief......whether Buddhist, Christian or otherwise.

Possibly. Especially if no body's going to do anything to stop the Chinese.

If the Chinese mean to, the Tibetans won't stand a chance. For now, they just mean to wipe out the culture, not the people themselves. Yet.

No you evidently don't understand Darwin. This is complete perversion of his theory. He has repeatedly stated that selection is a genetic mechanism, not a 'human'. It's a completely other level.

survival of the fittest was referring to"all adults talking about the same things,What are the children doing if we are tking control of everytyhing" he just gave an idea that can go any where you you canb have more than one idea being a peice of one thing., i could make up things like all people belive in a feild except memory too,., but they still beliuve those others so i am not letting them think mine are theirs becuae they know what i mean by them

The gentle Tibetans? You mean the ones who recently rioted and destroyed any property that did not belong to members of their race? The ones who rough up the settlers who want nothing more than to do business with Tibetens and live peacefully (what shopkeeper WANTS conflict)? THOSE Tibetans?

Or maybe you mean the Tibetans who want to re-institute a theocracy. The one that sanctions eye-gouging as a legal punishment. At least that and many other human rights violations were credited to the Tibetans before the Chinese took over.

Survival of the fittest doesn't mean survival of the violentest. As long as narrow-minded racists like the Tibetans can convince people like you that they are innocent, helpless, oppressed pacifists, THAT may be an even better survival trait than the economic and military might of China.

China has been operating for years under the flawed theory that if they raised the standard of living for Tibetans they'll actually be grateful. The day they realize that it's pointless they can kill every ethnic Tibetan in their lands if they choose. MERCY is almost never a survival trait.

Go ahead and give me thumbs-down! Then go read a newspaper or something. It amazes me how little people know about what is going on in the world.

Maybe not.
Maybe "the fittest" is relative. That is, maybe it's more fit to be flexible, like the reed in the storm. The mighty oak, strong and big, stands firm and is broken in half. The little reed bends and survives the storm.
So, "fit for what?" is to be considered.

Not exactly.

Think of Tibetans as domesticated cattle. By embracing non-violence they give up the capacity to determine their own destiny.

I suspect China is more interested in servants than genocide, so Tibetans will likely 'survive' as cattle people.

The Tibetans most 'fit' at serving the Chinese will survive.

Their culture, on the other hand, will likely die by Darwin, much to the sorrow of cattle people world wide.

The cattle people will fight back though. They will use fire extinguishers to attack the flames of torch carrying joggers, because this is MUCH safer than going after gun toting Chinese.

The Dalai Lama in his struggle for the liberation of Tibet consistently has opposed the use of violence. For this he has received honorary degrees from prestigious universities, instead of the much needed logic lessons from illiterate Afghani freedom fighters.

Well, Darwin's theory applies less to humans, as we are not so bent on knocking off the competition, as we are usually well off enough to not have to worry about it. Also, the ethics of humanity as a whole will most likely prevent it.

We are not barbaric animals, we are intelligent beings...

I agree this is not a Darwinian matter. The Chinese have made themselves the fittest by adopting a code, in this case Marxism (mixed with centuries of many other codes that make them uniquely Chinese).

Gentle Tibetans are also human, and different cause and effect circumstances might have turned the tables. But if ifs and buts were candy and nuts, this would be Christmas and I would be Santa Claus.

Did Darwin's theory allow Alexander the Great to conquer all that he conquered? Hardly. Circumstances were right for a man such as himself to rock and roll across the landscape.

Circumstances were not right for the Nazis or the Soviets to conquer the world. The U.S. was a big factor in both of these matters — and may also be a big factor in enabling the Chinese (our trade with them, all the plastic junk we buy that drives their emerging technology and economy).

History is linear, a uniformity of cause and effect.

Darwin's theory is fake. People don't inherit physical strength or logic...

Aids was developed by a scientist who wanted to cure a disease, he blended stuff from (ape/chimp w.e you wanna call them) and put this stuff into humans...

If we evolved from them -- wouldn't we be immune?