This, again, is a post which is the product of a train of thoughts triggered by a statement made by a friend of mine, in fact, the same friend I’m indebted to, for the previous post. He was telling me that I was being unrealistic when I felt that every person deserved to be able to lead a good life and that some section of the human population would suffer anyway, if “progress” is to be possible- that it’s the “survival of the fittest”, just as in the case of any other living organism. I didn’t reply anything, but his statement made me think. And there are two points, I think, which make the statement untrue.
1. “Survival of the fittest”, is supposed to mean “Survival of the one which is most adaptable and most capable of successfully and instinctively overcoming the dangers to its survival in its natural habitat”, and not “Survival of the one which has the most control of its environment and fellow organisms”. All animals are born equal, except in their inherent biological capability to survive. On the other hand, a human being is born(in this day and age) rich or poor. And this difference is crucial in deciding who he/she becomes – as money determines his/her access to even basic necessities such as food and water – not just the biological qualities.
2. The main difference between man and the other living organisms is consciousness. Human beings are aware that a section of its population is “suffering”, and so if we are conscientious, we should do everything we can to eliminate this inequality, and help give everyone a chance to live. But people who are well-off(who already have an advantage for survival) are ready to dismiss this inequality as natural, as if they had nothing to do with it. I’d rather call it “survival of the richest”.
One’s survival is ensured only through the survival of one’s species, and this inequality is as great a threat to the survival of mankind as any other, perhaps greater.