11:57 PM

Darwin and the Dodo


A colleague at work once happened to touch the topic of "Survival of the fittest". He said the same principles apply in the work place too. According to him it was not for the meek to inherit the earth. The earth belonged to the fittest.
I begged to differ.
What about the Quit India movement, I asked him. Were not the whites who ruled India at that time much more fitter than the natives who had nothing with them except for a weapon called "Satyagraha" devised by a man who was much ridiculed by the rulers at that time? The whites had fire power, they had money power, they were definitely on top of the survival pyramid than most civilizations. What could explain their downfall and subsequent expulsion from the Indian sub-continent?
To this, my friend did not have a ready answer. And I felt I had made a point.
Let us look at Darwin's principle of "Survival of the fittest" in another light.
Man is now the fittest living creature to inhabit the earth.
But what had he done to consolidate his position.
Right, he had made life easy for himself with his countless inventions and discoveries. He has made most of nature to his advantage.
But at what cost?
Factories spewing smoke into the virgin air, water bodies polluted with filth which would take ages to clean, non bio-degradable plastic dumped with the least caution all over the place, as remote as the top of the Himalayas!
True there are a lot of organizations who have woken upto this fact and are actively working to prevent such a disaster from happening. But what are governments doing? Most developed countries give a damn for the Kyoto protocol which is responsible for keeping in check climate change. The US in fact has not even ratified the treaty.
Is this how man is consolidating his position as the fittest on planet earth; as his own destructor?

2 HITCHHIKERS:

Dex said...

Wow. That made me think.
Totally agree with your second argument. Way man is going right now, it's certainly not going to survive - fit or not.
But I would like to differ a bit on the Quit India Movement thingie. I think it took place at a time when the English empire was at its lowest, when the second world war had nearly left Britain in a state of complete ruin. In such a situation, they couldn't have held on to all their empires across the globe - of which India was just one. And of course, all the protests and Satyagraha movements did not help them one bit. Which is why I say that Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was one shrewd politician - he hit England right when it was hurting the most.
So, coming back to the point... I think England was hardly one of the "fittest" at that time. Revolts were happening in all the nations they ruled, and more importantly - their first priority was to rebuild their fallen empire. If the circumstances were otherwise, maybe things wouldn't have worked out that fast for us.

CuppajavaMattiz said...

I do agree that there is no just pure black and pure white, but shades of grey in between too. Looking at things the other way, the English were not a very bad lot, they had a humane side too. And when Darwin's theory of "Survival of the Fittest" came from increasing attacks from philosphers and thinkers of their times, I guess they just let go...
Anyways thanks for sharing your thoughts.

munnar