One of my professor is an ardent supporter of Survival Theory. Survival of the fittest. It implicates that the life is a test, designed to keep only the best specimen alive. He saw me as a survivor. One who can put all the virtues aside just to secure his existence. One who is competitive with the rest of the world to stay on top. My professor is a product of Capitalism.
My question is this. “What would a human feel being in the top, Professor?
– Exciting (Yes. For a while)
– Celebration (Of course. Excitement craves for celebration)
After enough excitement, celebration and other self eccentric pleasures ‘what is left’?
– Legacy? Legacy. What does legacy means in the eyes of a survivor Professor? Legacy is an excuse from accepting the perpetuity of Death. Losing the war to a formidable force. Calling for legacy is like running from the waves in a beach and rejoicing like you actually ran out of the ocean’s reach. Never my friend. Legacy is an extrapolation of a miserable attempt for the continuum of existence. A desperate attempt to seek meaning for an otherwise magnificent life which met an ordinary end.
I am not against surviving. ‘The fittest shall survive’ does not bothers me. It is the uncompleted second half of the statement. ‘The less fitting species shall cease to exist’ is what that bothers me. The Animal instinct we have is what that kept us alive when Humankind were Hunters. It tagged along when the Humankind were farmers, creators of a different life form. Now we are not farmers. Not that innocent farmer whose only mistake is to destroying forests but down this lane lies a whole different argument and I dont want to get there now. By theory, the Animal instinct has to be suppressed for we are all the key for a better human tomorrow. Is that so? All this knowledge(?) about how nature works helps us animals to find an alibi for the mistakes we do. The morality theology has taught us is becoming weak day by day as the god is being replaced by science. Let there be no god Professor, Just science. What does it warrants us to do? Knowledge is power they say. The powerful can be attributed to the successful survivors. If I say, a successful survivor is also a killer of the weak, can you refute that? Or will you blame it on science’s version of nature, The order of natural selection? I hope you wont blame it on science for you a man of science and a believer of that science is better than god. Even I share your vision in that. Except that I call for the responsibility that comes with science.
I believe that there is an equilibrium. L.H.S and R.H.S in the universe. The natural distribution of energy so that always the total energy is fixed but differs for individual entities. If the powerful one decides to share his power, the lesser powerful entities are need not to be taken out of the equation. If there is a god and he distributed the power equivocally, it means that the powerful shall protect the powerless as much as it means that the powerful will survive and the powerless will not. See my point? You could be wrong professor. The test of the life can not be the one that makes sure only the fittest gets through but also to test whether the fittest chooses to save the less fitting counterparts. This way professor, you may not stay at the top where you have nobody, but you can be among the people who loves you for life. These people will still respect your power, knowledge. But at the top, where you will be respected for your power and knowledge, will you be loved? There is a choice professor. There is always one.
If it is not god but the nature or the science’s version of nature, my theory still holds. Science creates a world for us. A more dimensional world where state – space is not just in the forward arrow (see arrow of time – Stephen Hawking) but also in the reverse arrow. In that world lives a revelation. Like the converse of Occam’s Razor, a simpler truth can have one or more complex interpretations which are still truth. That truth is that the cave man, a hunter, was drawing.
Creation is not just restricted to Humans. Birds can create nests, but that is to ensure their kind’s survival. Man is the only animal who creates because there is something inside him that makes him to create something else which is not at all essential for his survival. Man creates to feel alive Professor. A child is viewed as the most beautiful and loved form in a Human life cycle not because of its powerless (harmless in a fellow survivor’s words) nature but because it represents the beauty of creation. The art of feeling alive. Otherwise we will not feel love towards a child but a disposable threat and the disgust a powerless competitor represents. The caveman was drawing because even in the very few moments he had with no immediate threats to his survival, he wanted to feel alive. To feel the beauty of life. To revere the art of creation. Tell me professor, all these years of teaching, you never felt the beauty of creation? How can you feel that beauty and still practice this survival of the fittest philosophy?
If my survival means that another human is pushed out of the equation, let me practice Self Denial. I am just recording my arguments here hoping to create an ideology that leads to better human. May be someday I will mail it to you. Prove me I am wrong Professor. Anytime! Whatever differences we may have but the reasonable men of science is not one.. Humans.. A knot in the chain of events.. Insignificant yet Important.. The keys of a better future..
P.S: I is not essentially ‘me’ so as the professor. Lets just say these two people are agents of different advocacy..