Evolution: Unalienable Rights, trumps, "survival of the fittest"
Debate Rounds (4)
In this debate, Pro takes Thomas, Con takes Herbert.
Let's enjoy a mutual learning experience over a constructive debate.
Hello debatergorl (Con), and thank you for joining me (Pro) on an evolutionary journey on evolution. At least, I would like to think so, for the sake of those in the field of education inspiring future generations.
Imagine, what the world would be like today, if that popular political fad of Social Darwinism during the turn of last century, was based on the phrase "survival of the happiest" instead of "survival of the fittest." Perhaps, the world today may be a happier place.
Too bad, eighty some years after the US Declaration of Independence, Charles Darwin did not examine Thomas Jefferson's claim of Unalienable Rights being "self-evident" to all humans and not considering that it may apply to all life.
What is human "Happiness?" Happiness is an emotion based on positive-feedback from an event. Survival is a prerequisite for an event, where survival is also a form of positive-feedback.
We may generalize Thomas Jefferson's claim to all life, once alive, "Life" must have the freedom ("Liberty") "in the pursuit of" survival; otherwise, there is no life. Survival is a natural drive for all life, and the prerequisite for human "Happiness."
It would seem, unbeknownst to Jefferson, he discovered, not developed, a primeval working function found throughout all living-systems. He claimed a polished version of this primeval function, within the scope of humanity, giving it the label of Unalienable Rights in the celebrated form of, "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
Jefferson's objective was to sway opinion for independence and to upset His Royal Highness King George III with such a phrase, as it flew in the face of the prevailing political theory of the day. Also, Jefferson's term of Unalienable Rights became the foundation to the US Constitutional design of governance, which sparked a social experiment within a short period of 200-years, changed the world like no other society in recorded history, through the fruits of technology, food production, and medicine, the stables of human existence throughout the world today. A compelling example of what happens when our Unalienable Rights are free to flow within the awesome machinery of nature.
From a Social Darwinism perspective, the notion of "survival of the fittest," is more inclined to conquest, where "survival of the happiest" promotes innovation.
From a scientific standpoint, the examination of life's Unalienable Rights as an outgrowth of the Constructal Law, which is an outgrowth of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, provides a traceability path to the physical Laws of Nature. This examination is a new evolutionary step in understanding evolution.
My opponent has made an interesting argument, but I will refrain from directly rebutting to his arguments in this round until after I have stated my opening case.
First of all, I think my opponent has misunderstood his own prompt. Let's take a closer look at it, shall we?
"In this debate, Pro claims the Natural Selection Process and evolution, in general, is accurately portrayed by Unalienable Rights of "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" (Thomas Jefferson), compared to that celebrated phrase "survival of the fittest" (Herbert Spencer)."
While I stated that I will refrain from direct rebuttals until the end, I just want to point out that in his argument, my opponent did not fully address the terms "evolution" and "natural selection." Evolution by definition is the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of earth. Natural selection is part of this broader concept of evolution. I will go into greater detail of natural selection later on, but before we proceed any further, let me just clarify that evolution attains to all spectrums of life (whether that be animal, fungus, protist, bacteria, or plant). My opponent's statement that evolution is accurately portrayed by the unalienable rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" only applies to human evolution (ignoring the majority of life and organisms). In this debate, I plan to prove how "survival of the fittest" more accurately portrays all of evolution and natural selection.
What does "survival of the fittest" mean? This term is used so often that it is misused and misunderstood. Let's put this phrase in context with natural selection. I will use the example given in my second source listed at the bottom. Keep in mind that natural selection is only one component of evolution (others include genetics, migragation, and mutation). The source I listed at the bottom uses beetles for an example. We start off with two different types of beetles, green and brown. Now birds only eat the green beetles meaning that brown beetles are safe to reproduce with all their multitude. Unfortunately for those green beetles, part of their population is being eaten off by birds, so only part of their population has the chance to reproduce. Here's where that factor of genetics plays into evolution. Brown beetles only mate with other brown beetles, and two brown beetles cannot produce a green beetle (and vice versa for the green beetles). Since more brown beetles have survived and are able to reproduce, their population still grows. At the same time, the poor green beetles are being picked off, and their population is shrinking. As a result, the non-eaten are survivng. While both species are doing all they can to reproduce and keep their species alive, only the fittest are surviving. Hence "survival of the fittest."
We can also put this phrase in a human context. I will start with a lighter example, such as the NCAA tournament. While this example does not exactly pertain to evolution itself, it will help you understand something before I proceed to put it in human evolutionary terms. There are sixty-eight teams going into the tournament. They start out in four divisions, and they play other college teams. Each game, the winner plays the winner of another game and each team loses at some point until one is remaining. The best team wins all their games and is the champion of the tournament.
Humans are competitve by nature. All animals and organisms are. It is a natural instinct because organisms out in the wild are all competing for food sources. Technically humans compete with other animals as well for food sources. We just happen to be lucky that we are at the top of the food chain and therefore have an easier time accessing our needs. Other animals have to go out and hunt for their food. If they are not fit for this, they will starve and not be able to survive. Although the phrase "survival of the fittest" may sound rash and overly competitive, remember that it is a key component to species evolution. Survival of the fittest does not have to mean conquest, war, and fighting (as my oppenent said). Survival of the fittest is not our NCAA tournament with the goal of being the champion and the last man standing. Survival of the fittest is the natural occurence of which natural selection, genetics, mutation, migration, and competitiveness all factor in to help a species either thrive or die.
Now that I have made my opening case, I will directly rebut to my oponent.
"Imagine, what the world would be like today, if that popular political fad of Social Darwinism during the turn of last century, was based on the phrase "survival of the happiest" instead of "survival of the fittest." Perhaps, the world today may be a happier place."
While it would be nice if our world worked towards being the happiest, this would hurt the human race in more ways than you might think. As I previoulsy stated, survival of the fittest does not just mean the strongest, but it means the most hard working, the one with nature on its side. I agree that humans need to step back and enjoy the pleasures of life more, but we cannot turn away completely. What would happen if every human on this planet all of a sudden stopped working and decided to instead sit on their couch and watch TV all day every day? Economies would plunder. Sources of food would be cut off. Basics needs for survival would become almost nonexistent. Sure, you may enjoy the relaxation for a day or so. What happens though when none of your favorite TV shows come on because no one is there to record them? What happens when it's time for dinner and you run out of food because no one is there provide you with any in the store? What happens when you need a drink of water but become ill because no one is working in factories to purify that water? It is all a chain of events that would eventually lead to gradual exstinction (over a very long period of time). While this example is extreme, it is only to make you see my point. We could have elements of this on a more minor level if people take the idea of "survival of the happiest" too far. A competitve spirit and hard workingness are necessary traits in any organism for survival.
"We may generalize Thomas Jefferson's claim to all life, once alive, "Life" must have the freedom ("Liberty") "in the pursuit of" survival; otherwise, there is no life. Survival is a natural drive for all life, and the prerequisite for human "Happiness."
You're right, survival is a natural drive for all life. But we need a competitive drive to keep up alive, so our species wil survive.
"Survival of the fittest" has been misunderstood. I reinstate, it is not an excuse for wars and fighting, but it is the natural competive drive that keeps us going. "Survival of the fittest," as Herbert Spencer put it, is key to any organisms evolution and survival. Thank you.
Thank you Con for the overview on “survival of the fittest.”
The Life of the scientific community, has the freedom (“Liberty”) in research, via the scientific method during its evolutional process, in the pursuit of the objective to better understand the Laws of Nature, and once accomplished, there is positive-feedback for the world (aka “Happiness”).
For example, as Einstein did at the beginning of last century, gave the scientific community a better understanding by claiming Newtonian physics was incomplete and needed refinement. Hence, positive-feedback for the world in solar cells, GPS, iPhones, etc. In general, improving the standard of living throughout the world (aka “Happiness”).
The Laws of Nature are fixed, however, humanity's evolution in understanding these Laws is Conservative by building on the knowledge from the scientists of the past, advancing the state of understanding, by the scientists of the present and those of the future.
The knowledge from the scientists of the past (Darwin, Spencer), is being refined by the scientists of the present (Bejan, Takac) giving the world a better understanding of evolution.
The findings of the present concludes, Jefferson's logic is more complete than Spencer's.
Treating “Happiness” as a metaphor for “positive-feedback,” Jefferson's logic of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” includes Spencer’s logic of “survival of the fittest” and adds a refined level of understanding to both the Natural Selection Process, and evolution in life, science, technology, social systems, markets, etc.
Con mentioned “Evolution by definition is the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of earth.”
In part that is true, but the definition of evolution covers a greater scope (http://dictionary.reference.com...), where Jefferson's Unalienable Rights covers them all. Let's take a “living organism” for example. According Alexei Kurakin’s research (http://www.tbiomed.com...):
“...all proteins, and, consequently, the macromolecular organizations they form, remain flexible and open to adaptation, “learning,” and evolution. As a consequence, having found itself in the situations or environments encountered frequently during the course of evolution, the cell “recognizes” a “familiar” situation by virtue of rapid self-organization of its proteins into those macromolecular complexes, compartments, and structures that proved to be useful for survival or prosperity in similar situations in the past.”
In terms of the cell's Unalienable Rights, Kurakin’s observations suggest that once the cell attains Life, it also attains Liberty (it is “flexible and open to adaptation”) and uses “self-organization” to pursue the equivalent of Happiness (“survival or prosperity”).
In regards to “Natural Selection,” Con's discussion covered the eating habits of some bird and the faith of those “green beetles,” concluding with “lucky that we are at the top of the food chain...”
The world is one big restaurant. We humans are free to dine in a universe where we too could be the next meal from the appetite of viruses, parasites, cancer, and occasionally from lions, tigers, bears, etc.—bon appetite! We humans are also part of nature and we embrace the “Natural Selection” process by breeding stocks of cattle, selective harvesting of crops, our choice of a mate, etc.
Too bad Con did not see Pro's United States example, of implementing Jefferson's Unalienable Rights in our Constitution, changed the world's standard of living via innovation within a short period of 200-years, like no other society in recorded history. Instead, Con perceived “survival of the happiest” as mutating to a couch potato.
Couch potato perhaps, in a social system that encourages being on the dole at the expense of others. However, in general, taking a closer look at life's Unalienable Rights of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of positive-feedback,” at the human level, the desire for more freedom (“Liberty”), in a civil society, in a large part, is a function of money. That is, the more money one has, the more freedom they have to do and buy things. Also, money gives one more freedom of movement to live in more places, a nicer neighborhood for example, in the pursuit of one's Happiness. How does one get money? You have to work for it. On the other hand, there are those rare cases of being born into wealth or lucky in a lottery.
We may view life's Unalienable Rights as a primeval bio-program throughout all living-systems, including social systems. That is, once alive, or a social entity comes into existence, there is a natural tendency during the struggle of survival to support, prolong, and improve “Life.” At the same time, there is an inherent drive to increase freedom (“Liberty”), with an ongoing effort to reduce and optimize the energy expended during “the pursuit of” an objective, while increasing and exploring new levels of positive-feedback (“Happiness” for us humans). A bio-program, having an organically persuasive, self-adjusting, fine-tuning algorithm throughout the flux of life's Unalienable Rights; encouraging life to take the path of least resistance, in the attempt to satisfy the pursuit of its objectives, to maintain survival, or search for new levels of positive-feedback. Life's Unalienable Rights refines and enhances our understanding of evolution and the Natural Selection Process compared to the narrow scope of “survival of the fittest.”
Let's look at the evolution of a social-system. When two or more humans form a group, the group becomes alive as a separate entity with its own Unalienable Rights. The pursuit of group Happiness through goodwill and kindness leads to a mutual moral respect for the Unalienable Rights of all the members within the group. Goodwill is a conservative force that promotes order, stability, and harmony through the pursuit of group-wide positive feedback. Over time, group-wide positive feedback is the genesis of traditions, values, beliefs, language, etc., the norms of society. These norms are tried and tested, and conservatively pass down from one generation to the next establishing its culture. A moral order guides an individual in the prudent exercise of judgment relative to those norms. The individual in a civil society strives, albeit imperfectly, to be virtuous; that is, restrained, ethical, and honorable, respecting and embracing the Unalienable Rights of others relative to those tested norms.
Morality, an outgrowth of life's Unalienable Rights, is the thread that runs through the tapestry of a civil society. Empirically, throughout recorded history all isolated human tribes developed their own culture, language, beliefs, etc., the evolution of social-systems via Unalienable Rights.
In modern times, secularism is on the rise where the traditional view of morality rest with religious organizations or at the home. On the other hand, educational systems are becoming schizophrenic about morality and who is responsible for its teachings.
Morality is like a force that holds a society together. If a society does not have a good understanding of this moral force, it could fall apart. How long could a society function or achieve Happiness without morality? As morality declines throughout a society, more complicated laws emerge to keep the peace, institutional public surveillance becomes commonplace, an increase in armed law-enforcement is noticeable, and more convoluted regulations appear to circumvent economic corruption. Complicated laws morph into plundering dictates, while regulations kill economic freedom. In addition, the leaders of a social institution (the government) controlling such a society are also part of this population having similar moral standing. If the government controls education, then the moral decline may result in tyranny.
John Adams, one of the Founding Fathers of the United States, once said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other” (http://www.john-adams-heritage.com...).
Today the US is in a post-constitutional soft tyranny era. For example, my Friend Con probably did something “illegal” today. If the government wants to incarcerate Con, or spoil her day, or freeze her bank accounts, etc., they could because there are so many laws on the books, on the average we commit 3 felonies a day.
Funny how many in the US, think they live in a free country. The price a nation pays for lack of moral education, for lack of understanding life's Unalienable Rights, for lack of understanding evolution in social-systems.
Morality, which is an outgrowth of life's Unalienable Rights, which is an outgrowth of the Constructal Law, which is an outgrowth of the Second Law of Thermodynamics; and this being the traceability path to the physical Laws of Nature. And in saying that, all science classes throughout our educational system should also include the study of morality being a force in nature, and when properly understood, advances the evolution of a civil society; otherwise, the cycle of tyranny takes hold.
"The Life of the scientific community, has the freedom ("Liberty") in research, via the scientific method during its evolutional process, in the pursuit of the objective to better understand the Laws of Nature, and once accomplished, there is positive-feedback for the world (aka "Happiness")."
What is the simple key to survival? Reproducing to keep your species alive. When plants, bacteria, and protists are trying to keep their species alive, they are not taking into consideration who is the "happiest" or who is enjoying life the most. They are working hard to stay alive, and only the fittest do. Just for comparison, you have ten times as many bacteria on your body than human cells. You said that once their goal (here, of surviving) is completed, it sends a positive feedback to the world. So we won't mind the fact the bacteria is the cause of bad smells, infections, and diseases...such a positive impact. This is only bacteria and only on a human body, so think of how much wider the gap is in all of life when we talk about all the kingdoms of organisms. (http://www.sciencedaily.com...)
"The world is one big restaurant. We humans are free to dine in a universe where we too could be the next meal from the appetite of viruses, parasites, cancer, and occasionally from lions, tigers, bears, etc.""bon appetite! We humans are also part of nature and we embrace the "Natural Selection" process by breeding stocks of cattle, selective harvesting of crops, our choice of a mate, etc."
Thank you for your very true but irrelevant point. If in any case, this helps my stance that it truly is the survival of the fittest in our dog-eat-dog world. We are a fortunate species to be very fit and have an easier time keeping our population thriving, but viruses, parasites, and etc are (in many ways) more fit to sneak around and infect us all. In the end, it is all about which population stays alive.
"We may view life's Unalienable Rights as a primeval bio-program throughout all living-systems, including social systems. That is, once alive, or a social entity comes into existence, there is a natural tendency during the struggle of survival to support, prolong, and improve "Life." At the same time, there is an inherent drive to increase freedom ("Liberty"), with an ongoing effort to reduce and optimize the energy expended during "the pursuit of" an objective, while increasing and exploring new levels of positive-feedback ("Happiness" for us humans). A bio-program, having an organically persuasive, self-adjusting, fine-tuning algorithm throughout the flux of life's Unalienable Rights; encouraging life to take the path of least resistance, in the attempt to satisfy the pursuit of its objectives, to maintain survival, or search for new levels of positive-feedback. Life's Unalienable Rights refines and enhances our understanding of evolution and the Natural Selection Process compared to the narrow scope of "survival of the fittest."
This is a misunderstanding of the phrase "survival of the fittest," for it covers a much broader spectrum than you might think. This phrase is the overview of how life has evolved. To help you better understand, let's take a look at the root word, fit. To be fit means to be adapted, prepared (meaning for the environment), qualified, and in good condition/healthy. An organism that meets these standards is fit to reproduce and keep its species evolving. Not all species are concerned with their freedoms and pleasures in life. They are concerned about meeting these "fit" expectations to stay alive. (http://dictionary.reference.com...)
"Let's look at the evolution of a social-system. When two or more humans form a group, the group becomes alive as a separate entity with its own Unalienable Rights. The pursuit of group Happiness through goodwill and kindness leads to a mutual moral respect for the Unalienable Rights of all the members within the group. Goodwill is a conservative force that promotes order, stability, and harmony through the pursuit of group-wide positive feedback. Over time, group-wide positive feedback is the genesis of traditions, values, beliefs, language, etc., the norms of society. These norms are tried and tested, and conservatively pass down from one generation to the next establishing its culture. A moral order guides an individual in the prudent exercise of judgment relative to those norms. The individual in a civil society strives, albeit imperfectly, to be virtuous; that is, restrained, ethical, and honorable, respecting and embracing the Unalienable Rights of others relative to those tested norms."
How are bacteria or protists or fungi worried about ethics when they are reproducing? How are they worried about who is happiest? I reinstate, survival is all about that competitive drive to keep your species alive. Without keeping the species alive, there is nothing to evolve. At the end of the day, when we are trying to keep the species reproduction going (in a scientific sense), we are not worried about ethics or happiness, but instead beating the odds and winning over mother nature.
"Funny how many in the US, think they live in a free country. The price a nation pays for lack of moral education, for lack of understanding life's Unalienable Rights, for lack of understanding evolution in social-systems."
I will concede to the fact that your phrase more accurately portrays evolution of the law. There is no stance against that as the phrase was written for one of our country's most important law documents. But we have to look at evolution on a broader spectrum. While the unalienable rights may apply more accurately to law systems (law systems only pertain to a population of about eight billion people), survival of the fittest applies more accurately to all the other trillions of organisms that exist in the known world.
My opponent's arguments have only constantly proved his misunderstanding of the phrase "survival of the fittest." He still sees it as a harsh, narrow-minded idea, but in fact- survival of the fittest is a broad concept that fully, accurately portrays how species stay alive and keep evolving.
Thank you Con for arguments based on the classical logic of "survival of the fittest."
Earlier Pro gave an example of Einstein giving the scientific community a better understanding by claiming Newtonian physics was incomplete and needed refinement. Shortly after Einstein's claim, the scientific community took a defensive position in defending the classical understanding of Newtonian physics and this is a normal process in the evolution of going forward in knowledge.
This debate is a microcosm of the same resistance in going forward from the classical "survival of the fittest" paradigm to the more comprehensive Unalienable Rights. The drawback concerning the "survival of the fittest" paradigm for evolution is its narrow scope fails to address evolution before life. Evolution started right after the Big Bang. The foundation to evolution is the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and in part, this Law deals with flow. That is, the natural flow of heat moves from high temperature to a lower temperature. When dealing with pressure, there is a natural flow from high pressure to a lower pressure. Everyone could relate to a pressurized aerosol spray container. Did anyone ever notice, the spray from a hair spray container going in the opposite direction? That is, back into the can. The answer is NO. To continue, electrical current flows from high resistance to low resistance. Water flows from the height of a mountain to the lowest level in a valley or the ocean. And so on.
Flow within the matrix of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is the key to the current evolutionary state of the universe. Since humanity is a product of the Laws of Nature, it is fascinating to see symmetry in populations of human behavior relative to the Second Law. That is, the desire to take a path from high to lower resistance. Do less work for the same result. Population migration from the high resistance found in tyranny, to the low resistance found in freedom. The desire to move from a higher taxed area, to a lower tax community having the same standard of living. The enjoyment of the transition from high emotional stress to lower stress. Choose the lower price supplier for a given product. And so on.
Flow is the key to evolution. According to the Constructal Law, for both animate or inanimate (Bejan http://www.amazon.com...):
“Given freedom, for a finite-sized flow system to persist in time (to live), its configuration must evolve in such a way that provides easier access to the currents that flow through it.”
Please see the youtube video overview on the Constructal Law (https://www.youtube.com...).
There is symmetry, correlation and mapping between Constructal Law and life's Unalienable Rights. For example, the term “freedom” in Constructal Law (CL), maps to the term “Liberty” in Unalienable Rights (UR). The phrase “(to live)” in CL, maps to “Life” in UR. The phrase “easier access” in CL, maps to “the pursuit of” in UR. The phrase “flow through” in CL, maps to “positive-feedback” in UR (Takac http://www.amazon.com...).
Pro fails to see any symmetry, correlation or mapping between "survival of the fittest" to Constructal Law.
In general, evolution is a slow process based on easier access relative to flow within an environment. Such a process took us from the Big Bang, to the formation of the elements found in the periodic table, to the configuration of DNA, evolving to more complex life forms. The flow of life, within any environment, includes taking the path of least resistance in maintaining survival from threats, while optimizing the energy in the pursuit of food. According to Bejan:
“Life is movement. Every living system performs better when the power that is required for maintaining its movement is minimized. Just as lightning bolts and river basins should generate treelike structures to reduce thermodynamic imperfection and increase flow access, animals should have evolved to cover a greater distance for less effort, which means per unit of useful energy derived from food.”
The evolution of complex life forms includes us humans. We are still evolving through life changing science, technology, social-systems, markets, etc., all having its roots from easier access relative to flowing in that desired direction maintaining positive-feedback. Evolution encompasses a deeper understanding pertaining to the currents of flow relative to the simple classical view of "survival of the fittest." In fact, the concept of "survival of the fittest" may be completely wrong. Take for example, the weakest among us, a premature human baby who would have died years ago, but through technology and positive-feedback from the baby's parents, thousands are saved each year to grow up to healthy humans. In other words, there are thousands of cases of “survival of the weakest,” therefore, challenging the concept of "survival of the fittest."
In fact, one of the nine Properties of the physical Laws of Nature is the True Property. That is, for an observable phenomena to become a Law in Nature, must pass the test of not having any“... repeatable contradicting observations.” (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Since thousands of premature humans were the weakest to survived, contradicts “survival of the fittest;” making this paradigm more philosophy than part of evolution.
There are other examples of the weakest within a civil society, through the force of morality, resulting in “survival of the weakest.” One cannot argue humans are the exception, because humans are part of nature, part of evolution.
Morality maintains the primitive of doing something Right, or the immoral primitive of doing something Wrong, relative to the Unalienable Rights of other living-systems resulting in either positive-feedback embracing a group, pack, flock, tribe, life, etc, or negative-feedback embracing conflict, dispersion, chaos, distress, death, etc; these are the forces of good and bad respectively throughout the universe of life.
Again, Morality is an outgrowth of life's Unalienable Rights, which is an outgrowth of the Constructal Law, which is an outgrowth of the Second Law of Thermodynamics; thus, the traceable link to the physical Laws of Nature.
With that said, one may argue that it is immoral to kill life for food. Nature is not cruel or kind, just indifferent as it gives all life the Right to “Life” through freedom (“Liberty”) in “the pursuit of” survival (positive-feedback, aka “Happiness”). Survival includes the evolution of reproductive quantity, self-defense and hunting skills. This balance in nature seems to be sustaining life throughout the ages of evolution, up to and including, the hallmark of humanity and beyond.
The evolution of science, technology and knowledge is not one of "survival of the fittest," but one of “survival of the happiest.” Personal happiness from the emotional outcome of positive-feedback when unlocking the secrets of nature. Happiness from the recognition of discovery from your peers. Happiness from income compensation, resulting in more money, equating to more freedom (“Liberty”). Happiness in the potential improvement of the standard of living throughout the world, etc.
In free-market capitalism, it is easy to trivialize such a market as “dog-eat-dog” or applying the simple logic of "survival of the fittest." In fact, a free-market system is dependent on “survival of the happiest.” A supplier of a product must embrace the “Happiness” of a customer, before a customer will voluntarily pay the supplier for such “Happiness.” In return, the supplier is financially Happier; hence, everyone is Happier.
One may point out the “dog-eat-dog” competition within a free-market system. Competitors who morally follow the laws within a civil-society, are dependent on the Natural Selection Process. That is, customers who are looking for Happiness, will Naturally Select those producers who will satisfy their Happiness, putting the non-happy suppliers out of business. The beauty of free-market evolution based on “survival of the Happiest,” advancing the standard of living to a Happier state throughout the world.
The relatively new science of Happiness: http://www.pursuit-of-happiness.org...
In any debate, it is expected for Pro and Con to pursue positive-feedback (aka happiness) from supporting voters. The additional happiness for Pro in this debate, is sending a message to academia throughout the world about morality being part of the Laws of Nature, clearing a path for better understanding of moral evolution from man's scriptures of the supernatural, and processes of good and bad events in group formation throughout the evolution of live. Finally, aloud me [Pro] the pleasure to hand you, your students, and Con, the key to utopia:
--- Survival of the Happiest ---
In closing, I thank Con for her time on this important subject. On the other hand, Pro has mix feelings whether to wish Con successful “dog-eat-dog” conflicts during her life of "survival of the fittest," or should Pro wish Con a long and healthy “Life,” with ample freedom (“Liberty” aka money), in the moral pursuit of Happiness?” Whatever she feels comfortable with, I tip my hat on a good debate and looking forward in meeting Con on the debating floor again.
My opponent stated that "survival of the fittest" does not pertain to evolution before life. I believe he was incorrect with this statement, for the Big Bang (if this was the true beginning as science believes) created the first micro-organisms of life. These micro-organisms and stardust came together to form the planets, stars, and everything else in the Cosmos. Planets and stars with lives. Survival of the fittest is not always an action by choice. Survival of the fittest, as I have previously stated, can mean that the elements of nature are on the organisms side. Planets formed because the elements of nature was on their side to bring the specks of stardust together to form that planet. Life is a constant battle with mother nature for any organism or species. The ones that play her game and win are the fit ones that survive. (http://www.bbc.co.uk...)
Flow, as my opponent mentioned, is the game. We are constantly a part of the game of Life (think of the board game for this purpose). The ones that have the luck of nature to land on the winning spaces earn the money. Money makes them fitter in the society and fitter to win the game. Therefore, the wealthiest (or the fittest to win) has won.
In his next argument on "survival of the weakest," my opponent again took the phrase "survival of the fittest" too literally. There are always those exception cases, but we are looking at which phrase most accurately portrays our evolution. If we look back on our human history, "survival of the fittest" is constantly the drive for life. We can look back on empire upon empire. Early life and civilizations were all about who could keep growing and keep their legacy alive. We still see that idealism today. There are exception cases as well for my opponent's phrase. What about the city-state of Sparta? The state that thought a robotic, military society was the key to existence. They spent years hammering that freedom (or "Liberty") into their brains. Yet today we remember those 300 Spartans who were heroes. They helped Ancient Greece fight against the Persians to eventually claim victory.
I now want to address my opponent's point on how it is immoral to kill life for food. Unfortunately, we all kill life for food. Even vegans are killing life for food because a plant is just as much of a life as an animal. We just don't think of as so. We think of the plant as less fit for life. So even vegans target the weakest. It is all in our struggle to keep the species evolving and reproducing. We (again) are just lucky to have such easy access (for the most part) to the food we need because we are at the top of the food chain.
My opponent said that companies should be looking to make the customer happy. You may read in the link below some of the strategies companies use. While they are striving for these goals, this is all in part to stay on top of the market. If they are not satisfying their customers, they become weaker and weaker until they eventually die out (meaning go bankrupt). Therefore, those that satisfy the customers are the fittest and are able to stay profitable. As helpful as a company might seem, remember that in the end of the day, it is all a tactic to stay in business and make that profit. (http://www.isharad.com...)
My opponent even brought our argument to the voter experience level. Yes, we want to satisfy the voters. But aren't we just trying to look the most "fit" to voter opinions? Aren't we trying to be the one coming out of top? Aren't we only exercising "survival of the fittest" as we speak?
As I wrap up my case, I just want to leave a few thoughts with the voters. First of all, my opponent made a very strong case, so he deserves much respect. Second of all, his case was strong, but he never fully proved to me how his phrase could pertain to all life. And finally, "survival of the fittest" is a very broad phrase as I hope you have taken away from my case. Whether it be in the sense of striving to be the best, having the luck of the draw in mother nature's game, or struggling to keep the species alive, "survival of the fittest" accurately portrays all of evolution. Thank you, Pro, for a wonderful debate, and thank you voters, for sticking with us until the end (yes, those of you that have read all this way).
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro used more sources so that point goes to him. Con missed several commas where there should have been commas so that point goes to Pro, but due to Pro's case not entirely supporting the resolution so that point goes to Con. Conduct is tied.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's case did not coherently support the resolution. The attempts to equate living with the "right" to life failed on their face. As such, the arguments seem to clearly go to Con. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.