I don’t mean this to be a debate about creation and evolution.
Today at work I was listening to a book and it mentioned that Basques are believed to be direct descendants of Cro-Magnon man and may possibly be the oldest Europeans.
From that the conversation turned towards evolution and survival of the fittest.
We were talking about what is “fittest” and more that it meant “best adapted or best suited” for life in that specific circumstance.
Then there was the talking about medications and surgeries, easing of life challenged and acceptance of what might perceived as weakness and disability.
There is the physical aspect of “best suited” and there is the mental aspect of “best suited”. Which is more valuable? To the extreme. Two types of separate communities. One physically advantaged and one mentally advantaged.
I am not advocating any type of selective breeding or eugenics program! Just was wondering about things.
With a civilized society have we hindered physical potentiation? On the other hand, has being civil promoted an intellectual evolution that we might not have experienced? But I guess that is assuming those folks benefitting from civility are mental giants.
So you’ve got the pro-physical side, one guy saying it may have been the thinkers that espoused great ideals but it was men of action that acted. But then how do you ignore the aesthetic value of life?
I certainly don’t see society changing to put malformed babies out to die or putting old people on ice flows, but how far the other way will things go? Or is it even possible to be too civil and compassionate?
yessss long ramble, but I am not sure how you would summarize that whole concept