Of course there must be safeguards for a civilized society, but it seems that we live in a welfare society where it is not only accepted as way of live, but encouraged!. Www@QuestionHome@Com
| Question Home |
Position:Home>Philosophy> Isn't welfare the opposite of Survival of the Fittest, and where will this lQuestion: Isn't welfare the opposite of Survival of the Fittest, and where will this lead us!? Of course there must be safeguards for a civilized society, but it seems that we live in a welfare society where it is not only accepted as way of live, but encouraged!. Www@QuestionHome@Com
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: Look at our origins!. Western Civ stems from Greeks, a very warlike society even though they gave us Democracy and Socrates!. Then came Rome, a military empire!. Looking at our origins from a different point of view, see Exodus!. Moses/Joshua stormed out of the desert on orders from a fierce male desert God to take the promised land by killing everything which breathes, specifically farmers with their female fertility idols!. Did we ever have a chance to think differently that we do!? The 20th century was the bloodiest ever but USA was able to help put down some cancers which would have destroyed the world!. (NAZI & Imperialist Japan & USSR communist slavery) Fortunately The Inquisition was over, the Native Americans had already been mostly put on the reservation after being decimated by European diseases and the horrors of slavery had mostly passed !. !. !. !. you know, now that I think about it I've decided that Europe was a bad idea!. What the heck good have they actually done other than Louis Pasteur's germ theory and some great art!? Www@QuestionHome@Com Welfare is probably the most Communist thing that we, as Americans have!. It is the opposite of "survival of the fittest" but "survival of the fittest" and welfare come from two entirely different means of life!. Welfare won't lead us anywhere because Americans simply would not accept such a radical change of the basis of society!. We are rooted in Capitalism, and it would take an enormous event that would have to change the way we think about everything to prompt such a change!.Www@QuestionHome@Com It requires intelligence to secure one's share of the desirable things of life!. It is wholly erroneous to suppose that faithfulness in doing one's daily work will insure the rewards of wealth!. Barring the occasional and accidental acquirement of wealth, the material rewards of the temporal life are found to flow in certain well-organized channels, and only those who have access to these channels may expect to be well rewarded for their temporal efforts!. Poverty must ever be the lot of all men who seek for wealth in isolated and individual channels!. Wise planning, therefore, becomes the one thing essential to worldly prosperity!. Success requires not only devotion to one's work but also that one should function as a part of some one of the channels of material wealth!. If you are unwise, you can bestow a devoted life upon your generation without material reward; if you are an accidental beneficiary of the flow of wealth, you may roll in luxury even though you have done nothing worth while for your fellow men!.Www@QuestionHome@Com If you apply a knee-jerk cartoon version of evolution to human society, you create a nightmare!. This was the thinking behind Nazism, and nobody ever talks about it!. Hitler said in Mein Kampf, that within 50 years (He was writing in the 1920's) the Malthusian Population Growth would reach the point where the earth could no longer support the population!. When that happens only the evolutionarily advanced people will survive!. His analysis was that the German people had the best chance of survival because of their long history of detached brutality!. It was the German capacity for violence that made them the master race, according to Hitler!. If I were prone to applying mock-scientific theories to human society, I would probably think Hitler was right on all counts!. But I suspect that the human race has improved its chance of survival by curing disease, helping the poor and integrating the disabled into society!. So you can't have it half-way, as I see it!. Either dealing with and overcoming human misery must be viewed as in some small sense evolutionary, or you go back to kill or be killed!. I don't really see any middle ground!. Www@QuestionHome@Com A dangerous philosophy!. Are you sure you would be alive!? Health care and health insurance keep the unfit alive!. Under such a paradigm of the "fit", we can then allow those people to die off!. $100,000 to $1,000,000,000 is spend on each case of newborn health crises!. We can eliminate the expense of these people who are unfit in favour of those who are fit!. I wasn't born to a wealthy family, so my public education was not based on being fit, but rather the shared resources of a community!. Neither of us would be healthy, educated or alive, if we simply relied on the survival of the fittest!. It is likely that each of us would never have been born, if we had adhered to a 'survival of the fittest' mentality!. Our mothers likely received prenatal vitamins while pregnant for each of us!. The government currently protects you -- nationally and internationally!. If it were just the fittest, you'd be left to fend for yourself!. Given what I saw in India this week, I doubt most would be advocating for only the fittest!. Www@QuestionHome@Com It will continue to lead us in the direction that american society is headed!. Gee, which group would survival of the fittest tend to favor in america, and which would it not!?Www@QuestionHome@Com I would abolish welfare!. These people are not truly members of a society!. You are only a member of society when you contribute to it's existence!. If you do not, you have no rights!.Www@QuestionHome@Com |