why is Darwin convenient to the  people who wants to oppress the less fit and the oppressed?
537118
it gives them a rationale for their oppressive ways.
514352
I will be following this very closely, as this question is incredably nessisary to ask. Strange that is should be asked however, since we are all human beings. No one is less than anyone else. Why do we have these ideas that people can push others around or away because of ones subjective belief of right or wrong? Well said Asker.
916628
Actually that is somewhat true, but truly do not waste energy thinking about it, it will drive you mad, it is best to see how to help evolve man into one entity unified through unconditional acceptance of others differences. If we do not learn this soon we will find ourselves being exterminated or at least our numbers dimished.
226962
Although this is my personal opinion I believe that our inherent psyche is preprogrammed for survival.\nThis tends to afford the motivation for life.\nThis is my theory of natural selection or survival of the fittest.  Jose
491745
"Survival of the fittest" is indeed a misleading formulation. There is no absolute measurement for fitness - what makes you more likely to survive today might hinder you tomorrow and vice versa. So it is not like everything is striving upwards that previously determined fitness slope. Therefore many of the interpretations of Darwinism from early last century where wrong. You can't derive rules from evolution like "society should weed out weak indivudals" or stuff like that. \n\nIt follows that the only thing that really matters in terms of evolution is to survive, or more precisely, to exist. Personally I go as far as to say that "reproduce as much as possible" is not the only strategy. I consider stones as a special case of evolution - they manage to survive for a very long time, too. I see evolution as just "the likely thing will happen".\n\nAs for dropping dead: it is not the individual that evolution operates on. It is the population, ie the gene that evokes a specific behaviour. Death can also be predetermined by evolution, because it might be benefitial for the population.\n\nEdit: in reply to your additional comment, thanks, and I am not saying that death is necessarily always a good idea. Humans live quite long, probably also because they are costly to manufacture. Insects don't live very long, but are also very successful. We humans are free to set our own goals for life, and if it is to live long and well, so be it. The ones who figure out how to live longer will live longer ;-)
858651
I think the word you're looking for is "extinct" but I get your point. If we don't wipe ourselves off the face of the earth first... Let me quote one of my favorite lines (can't remember exactly what from); "The world might just be a little better place to live if we all just kept f$%^ing until we are all the same color." Then the only thing we'll be able to use to judge people with is whether or not they're a kind and decent person or an asshole.
1011094
Yes, you should try it.  Call your group the Darwinian Witnesses\n\nDW for short.
521702
no scientist like Darwin could prove that certain races were inferior through his theory. and he was able to figure out life. matter fact some of the most educated people are most bias on other people. hopeful some day we come to the day when racism is dead. looking forward
254303
No, the psychological phenomena are also in accordance with Darwin's theory. The theory of natural selection states that the fit variety shall survive, and the unfit shall become extinct.  Thus, only the psychologically compatible will be able to survive, and the psychologicaly distracted will be removed.  This is what happens.. the mentally ill don't develop enough in society, and are eliminated.  The result is a psychologically more compatible species of homo sapiens.
757772
I think there's a screw loose in all humans that acts as a form of population control. This, of course, is aggression. For all the sickness and famine and natural disasters, we're still spreading across the globe in a hurry and the failsafe to keep our numbers down is war. Nasty, but it seems to be the case. I could suggest alternatives (Olympic-style competitions to attain land or what have you) but I doubt anyone would adhere to them. Perchance the best hope we have is space travel, whereby the human race can spread as it needs to and will have less need to club each other to death for the sake of a patch of dirt.
203496
Humans are not perfect and can never be perfect. We are never fully in control of our own emotions, and the more opportunity we have for acting on our emotions the more likely we are to cause trouble. Therefore, all our ills stem from our imperfection and therefore prejudice, discrimination, and violence will never be eliminated.\n\nThat being said, they can be minimized. Prejudice, descrimination, and ultimately violence are expressions of the same problems: greed and a perception of differences, be they racial, gender, social, wealth, handicap, etc. Everybody has essentially insatiable wants: greed. To satisfy these wants, one group of people will inevitably resort to trying to take advantage of another: discrimination. The struggle of one group against another for dominance ensues time and again: violence.\n\nGreed is an immutable facet of the human being, as natural as hunger. Though greed can't be effectively curtailed, one might instead minimize differences between groups of people and thereby reduce the number of targets for prejudice, discrimination, and violence. To do this, one would have to create a single class of humans that is as all-encompasing as possible. The only way I think this is truly possible is for all governments and religions to be united as one (or, alternatively, eliminated) and either all wealth and means of attaining wealth to be as equally distributed as possible or hoarded for the state's exclusive use; either way, people are equally well (or poor) off. Attempted methods for creating a single group of people are myriad, ranging from Nationalism (allow only a single ethnic group to exist) to Communism (ascendancy of one all-encompasing economic class) to Anarchy (eliminate all major classes so everyone is equally insignificant) to various forms of utopianism too varied and unlikely to count.\n\nObviusly, these solutions don't seem very palatable to a democratic people, but prejudice and violence is the price we have to pay for diversity and freedom.
471947
You're taking evolution, which is a biological theory, and applying it to society. Now, that may or may not be valid, but that's what you're doing.\n\nAnother issue with your question is the answer may be different depending on your perspective. From the viewpoint of the species, the more advanced, smarter society tends to win wars, and tends to take over the land of the defeated peoples and spread successful ways of living and knowledge. So in that case, the argument can definitely be made that war is "good."\n\nBut, if you're coming from the perspective of a person in one of those weaker societies, or from the perspective of someone sympathetic toward those weaker societies or their members, then of course, war is bad.\n\n(To the guy who says there is no evidence for evolution, you need to open your mind and look at everything rather than being so biased as to write off the overwhelming amount of evidence contrary to your opinion.)
319591
Life is a evolutionary process. Hard times are to teach us to be better people. If you dont learn the lessons life offers, you end up thinking life sucks.
578608
They would have to be consistently better then my earthly friends. And have some aspect that proved they were more evolved/powerful than us. Dashing babies on the rocks don't cut it for me. Nor sending everyone out to slit throats.
30798
A philosopher from the 1800's said, Soren Kierkegaard, said that the nicer you are, the more that some people will despise you.  Kind of like the bigger the good, the bigger evil is attracted to it and then repelled by it.  \n\nBeing good may not always benefit you, but it will always benefit at least one other, so that makes it all worth it.
131619
Because when you are different people need a reason to judge you because it makes them uncomfortable.  Rather than accept that we are all of the human race people need a scapegoat for things that they don't 'agree' with.
1083056
Interesting you should ask that.There was a study not too long ago that determined that if a person 'had orders' from a person perceived as a higher up, they would inflict a substantial amount of pain on another human being.It's also human nature to want to remove those that are perceived as different.Culling the herd, as it were.Modern technology just enables us to 'cull the herd' more efficiently.I think that one way towards regaining some semblance of sanity is to educate a person as thoroughly as possible, and teach them that what works for 1 person might not work for another, but they are entitled to a basic level of respect by virtue of being a human.