Boysley “the 'fittest' are always the most violent, and aggressive, the least compassionate and empathic and the least respecting of human rights!”

Ah “and the meek will inherit the earth”

Ain’t gonna happen….. we both know that

When it comes down to “rights and responsibilities”

“Rights” always start at home and “responsibilities” always start with someone else…. That’s human nature

That said, plenty of the “unfit” (the welfare cases, social parasites, teen mothers, long term unemployed, organized crime gangs, the BLF and dockers and painters union members, labor party voters etc) can be more violent and aggressive and least compassionate or empathic and least respecting of human rights) as those who are “fittest”

It is why we have laws and prisons

Stupidity only reduces aggression when cognitive ability is seriously impaired

and for the intuitive, “survival as one of the fittest” can be secured by presenting something of value to others, which comes down to an exercise in marketing and persuasion more than any physical ability.

In this debate, “Chaos” and the laws of unintended consequences will always prevail over emotion, fairness and reason

Yabby,

I'd give you a little more kudos for engaging others in a "balanced" manner.

The law of unintended consequences also takes care of the "fittest". History is littered with "colossal wrecks".

http://www.online-literature.com/shelley_percy/672/

That said, plenty of the “unfit” (the welfare cases, social parasites, teen mothers, long term unemployed, organized crime gangs, the BLF and dockers and painters union members, labor party voters etc) can be more violent and aggressive and least compassionate or empathic and least respecting of human rights) as those who are “fittest”

The only reason that there is not a Libyan levels of violence in our society is that:

1) Our law enforcement systems are good enough that people know they will end up in gaol if they step out of line.

2) Most can get what they want without resorting to violence.

However this always breaks down when the number of people exceeds the supply of resources and wealth. And particularly when peak oil starts biting hard.

Poirot

That poem deserves the 'light' of the OLO blog:

"I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
`My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away".

Percy Bysshe Shelley

Darwin's "Survival of the Fittest" continues to be misunderstood. For the terminally corporate-minded, the following article may be of some assistance.

By "survival of the fittest" Darwin did not mean that the toughest will survive, the swiftest will win, the smartest will succeed, or the biggest will dominate. What Darwin meant was something far different. Darwin said that the organism that best "fits" its environment had the best chance of survival; hence, the term "survival of the fittest." The plant or animal best "fitted" to its natural environment, according to Darwin, would be the most likely to survive and thrive. The tough West Texas shrubs and bushes thrived because they were best "fitted" (i.e., best adapted) to the harsh, dry climate of West Texas. These same plants transplanted to East Texas (a forested, high-rainfall area) would quickly succumb to competition from the rapidly growing pines and oaks of East Texas. The slow-growing, dwarf desert species of West Texas would not have a chance."

http://www.decisionanalyst.com/publ_art/survival.dai

Ammonite, the survival of predators is Dependant on their ability to kill their prey without mercy or empathy. And for herbivores the biggest and most aggressive males nearly always mate with the females.

Therefore in the vast majority of cases in the animal world, the 'fittest' are the biggest, strongest and most aggressive.

That is even true in our modern western survival in that the most aggressive and unscrupulous inevitably rise to the top as CEOs etc. It is just that the aggressiveness and violence is modified in accordance with the rules and laws of our society. A complex society cannot function if aggression is not modified and channeled into less destructive forms.

But as soon as western society starts breaking down, and particularly when we no longer have sufficient resources to adequately police an enlarged population, this will break down. More and more individuals will revert to conventional forms of aggression.

If a lion, for example, has an attack of conscience and suddenly decides that wilderbeast should be put down humanely or not at all by his kind then he and his pride will end up starving to death!