Survival of the Fittest
The Key to the Human Race
By Thomas
There are two ideologies that have been waged over since the beginning of society and the introduction of government, and almost any conflict concerning the civilization, community, or species as a whole can be factored down to these two contradictory ideals. These two concepts are egalitarianism and elitism. While neither can function successful if put to extremes, it is even more unrealistic to find a perfect balance, forcing societies to lean one way or another, and although in a world of complete balance and harmony creating complete equality on a community and global scale would be an obvious decision, the world we live in today is far from that. I believe for the modern human race to advance forward and to continue to innovate and create new technologies, the wealth must rest within the elite, small percentage of the population.
To be civilized, I believe, is to act accordingly in the best interest of the civilization, and in most, if not all cases, this is to entrust those who have naturally gained wealth to help move the civilization forward. Andrew Carnegie, a wealthy British man, was a strong advocator of giving power to the wealthiest, and believed that if there was a dominant upper class, the wealth would, in the long run, benefit the lower classes and “insure the survival of the fittest in every department”. This theory correlates greatly with Darwin’s theory of evolution, and the concept of natural selection which has proved to have been successful in human history. While those who cannot succeed fall out, those with wealth will put it to beneficial uses and ensure the human race moves forward in the future. This is the basic ideology of Charles Darwin, and whether the mutation occurs randomly or not, there is no doubt that the best equipped has and will excel above the rest and provide a better future for the species. In my opinion this represents a completely civilized community, where those who gain power use it in the best interest of society, rather than dilute the responsibility.
George Elliot Clarke on the other hand, believes in complete equality. This is based on the fact that since all humans were born and created equally, that we are obligated to treat each other with complete fairness and equality. While his idea that we are all the same, that we “[look] at the same stars, the same moon, and the same sun” may have proved effective in early primitive societies it simply is counterproductive in today’s world. A perfect example is the Bushmen who live in southern Africa today, completely isolated from technology and modern civilization around them. They live in complete egalitarianism, but this is only due to the fact that the resources they have availability to are so drastically low compared to us, making a social hierarchy virtually impossible. With all of the scientific and technological advances we have made today, it is only natural for some to take larger advantages over given resources, and completely unrealistic for everybody to enjoy the same privileges, when the distance between the upper and lower class is so vast. Complete egalitarianism in today’s world would be the slowest way to advance our society, and if early hominids supported the dying breed of primates, the advancement to the end result of homo sapien-sapiens would have become much slower.
It is a natural phenomenon that one way or another, one human will rise above another, and it simply does not make sense to bring the power back to the level of what would essentially become the “lowest common denominator”. This, like it or not, would lead to an uncivilized community, where our species would not advance and the less intelligent would be severely holding back those with higher intellects. This greatly correlates with the philosopher Fredrich Nietzsche who believed and expressed through many of his works, that humanity must realize that the idea of a "god" was a burden to the species that restrained humans from acknowledging their true power. The centre pole of civilization that sets the social hierarchy should rather be on an intellectual basis such as technology or science and for civilizations to truly progress forward we must understand as a whole, as Neitzsche would say, that "god is dead".
While it is pleasing to hear that we were all made the same, the sad truth is that we are not. Some will take more advantage of others, and the elimination of negative traits such as selfishness and jealousy is biologically impossible, making a world of total equality unrealistic. Although Clarkes ideology may be the most ethically right in theory, Nietzche's philosphy of eliminating ideals that restrain the capable and Carnegie’s idea of letting those with wealth take full advantage and making the end justify the means is a much more civilized way to live, and is and will be the only way humans as a species can move forward.
