The common concept of survival of the fittest refers to those who are most apt to survive in an environment, whatever environment it is, will deliver its genes to the next generation to ensure that survival is most apt for that generation. After all, The genes of a weakling will only result in extinction, will it not? Hence, this is why all females, humans included, will favor the predominant male who can express its fitness and capability to survive. In most cases, it takes more than just reaching maturity; males must fight or contest for the females. Sometimes it is physical assaults against another male, sometimes it is displaying pretty but pointless visual appeasements to generally show that this male has enough energy to waste on beautiful, useless feathers (as in peacocks). In humans, both are the case; sometimes, males will engage in physical combat, or else present something impressive but useless for survival (clothes, knowledge, excessive amounts of money).
Is it truly more content to become engaged in this reckless affair to advance the species, or is it better to live a calm life disregarding most of this? Well, take this into consideration. The human population contains about 6 billion+ so amounts of people. Not to mention most of them are Asian. Would advancement of the species be necessary? Perchance the only organisms in our animal kingdom that surpass our own population of species are insects, or at least most invertabrates. No doubt we are the most predominant advanced species (from Fish and up) in this world. So tell me, is it really worth becoming coupled and rearing a child when the human population is overflowing? To waste constant energy appeasing to a spouse's or a child's needs, all with the constant dilemma of having an already crowded planet? Human reason should be able to detect this quite quickly. Determine this yourself.
Alas, what a whole 3 hours of doing Review Sheets can do to you. :P
No comments:
Post a Comment