The debate "Equality is one of the many things humans struggle with but is very important to our survival" was started by
March 20, 2018, 7:58 pm.
9 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 9 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
There is a tie in this debate, post your arguments, call some reinforcements and break this tie.
RavenclawOwl posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
DavidStorm posted 1 argument, Matt354 posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
RavenclawOwl and 8 visitors agree.
DavidStorm, ChangeMyMind, brontoraptor, Matt354 and 5 visitors disagree.
Equality is only brought up once a country is developed for a finer quality of life, while "survival of the fittest" is the principle rule opposite of it for an individual's or wild creature's survival.
Darwin never used the term survival of the fittest, and evolution has nothing to do with survival of individuals. an animal that evolves to die minutes after procreation but leaves a million babies is more "fit".
ChangeMyMind, Darwin had any number of causes of selection recognized, and many more have been observed. Moral rules have been demonstrated as useful in most situations; indeed, you could argue morality is simply a subset of symbiotic behavior.
Ants are an excellent example: in many species, the workers call most of the shots, (making them very close to an egalitarian society,) and loss of social instinct in one would be a death sentence---the only means to genetic legacy for a worker is the group.
So like many functions, loss of the function can, depending on circumstances, mean extinction. It could mean simply cutting it closer to extinction. It could mean nothing at all.
Was Darwin thinking that "survival of the fittest" was based on equality?
I would say the answer depends on how technical you want to be. Technically, equality is a useful trait that can help optimize our survival chances, compare to, at the very least, most societal models, but it's hardly *necessary.* We've survived thousands or even tens of thousands of years as a species without it.
About world war 3, generally inequality is more a cause of civil wars than other kinds of wars? I must admit I'm not sure where you're coming from.
I'm afraid that argument doesn't work here. if you want to make a point, you need you back it up. it isn't our job to research it for you.
what research suggests inequality will start ww 3?
I mean that World War 3 is moat likely to destroy the human race and research suggests that inequality will be the cause of it.
Equal start and opportunities is what's essential. Treating people equally after proven different is a mistake of the modern world. There is no progress of treating and encouraging a useless individual as equal to a person at it's best form, it changes the moral by encouraging people to be lazy.
I agree that equality is important, but I don't see how it is related to our survival. humans have survived for a very long time without even the idea of equality. Kings, emperors, Khans and chieftains were not exactly equal.