The idea of race began to be shaped and used regularly during the 1800's when Europeans began classifying different parts of the world. They used the idea of race to explain what makes them different from other people around the world that they began conquering. When Charles Darwin introduced his idea of evolution, many scientists use this idea of evolution to justify their mistreatment of other groups. This idea that some races were better than others became known as Social Darwinism.
Essentially this idea means that the "fittest" races and civilizations should survive while others will die. After clicking the link above, answer the following question
To what extent do you believe that the idea of survival of the fittest is true when it comes to people or civilizations? Should those groups of people who are not capable of surviving on their own be allowed to "die off"? As always, respond to one other person's comment after you make yours.
I don't believe that the theory of the survival of the fittest or the "kill or be killed" system should be applied to people or civilizations because in the theory it says that the stronger one or the capable one is going to be the better one and this shouldn't be the reason to descriminate people because people can be a different ethnicity or have a status of either or low/middle class or a high class. For this reason I also think that people shouldn't be killed off , I think people have a right to catch up with the rest of the people because you will never how others will turn out.
ReplyDeleteI think the survival of the fittest is not true because I I think everyone who works hard enough gets to be called the "the strongest" I think people who are handed "the strongest" title is not fit to survive if something does happen. I do not think people who are not capable to survive on their own should "die off".Because I think everybody to capable of surviving when they put their minds to it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Megan, why should a person "die off" because of there skill. The real skill is never to give up and keep trying.
DeleteHonestly, I don't believe in that whole "survival of the fittest" madness because people know that if they were in the actual situation without this competition, they wouldn't know what to do and instantly panic. This is exactly what that is too ... A Competiton for the title of the "strongest" or the "fittest". These titles only make them look good for the hype, but the question that should be asked is are these people really the "strongest" or "fittest"? Now say that whole thing about surviving to win & be the fittest never existed, people would then have a 50/50 chance of deciding to instantly panic or to think it through before reacting. If you actually have an ambition to do anything and know that you'd actually do this not to show an audience that you're better than anybody else, but genuinely, you can achieve that goal. A title is nothing but it's name. Anyone could be the strongest or the fittest, but its those who put their actual all into it continuously and not for the moment. So let's see who the ACTUAL the survival of the fittest.
ReplyDeleteYaaaaaass! I agree title ain't nothing lol!
DeleteI believe that survival at the fittest is not true. Life should be based upon strength to keep trying and to not just "die off" because you don't have the skills another person does. Being a survivor is when you die saying "I never gave up I was strong and fought all I could."
ReplyDeleteLia I agree with you because no one should have the right to kill someone just because they are falling back from society on the other hand you should have the right to catch up on society because nobody starts at the same level as others. In conclusion , your statement was short and to the point.
DeleteI agree with you lia! noone should have th epower to kill another because they are not successful in their life!
DeleteI believe that the idea survival of the fittest isn't true. I think this because we shouldn't decide that the more powerful or sturdy civilization or maybe more efficient civilization is not always the best. This is because everyone isn't the same so they shouldn't be penalize because they're an unfit civilization. They shouldn't be left to die off to, they should combine the civilizations because it would probably have a better outcome.
ReplyDeleteGood work Jonny, I agree, no one should be penalized just because they are "unfit"
Delete- Naaaaaat <3 <3
I personally don't believe in "survival of the fittest", there shouldn't be a fight for the title of strongest one, it should be based upon on who never gave up and tried the hardest. They should not go based upon a title you are given, but of how hard you know you tried and succeed. Overall this shows that people shouldn't be killed off , I think people have a right do what they can do and try there hardest, and not be wrongly "titled" because they're not the strongest.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Rachel. I feel that everybody has a chance and no one should be killed just because someone else is "stronger" then them.
DeleteI believe that the idea of survival of the fittest is false. Those groups of people who are not capable should not "die off". Just because they are not the strongest people in their civilizations, doesn't mean that they won't be useful in some way. They can help in other ways. Also all life is precious and no one should die because they are not strong enough. Everybody is strong in their own way with their smarts or physically.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with the survival of the fittest. I don't believe with this because everyone isn't fit to survive like others. People should not just die off just because they aren't fit like everyone else!
ReplyDeleteI don't believe in survival of the fittest because every has their strengths and weaknesses. Rich people have their money so they can survive, and poor people probably have more skills than rich because they don't have to pay people to take care of them. Poor people have to fed for themselves, so overtime they gain more skills in life. This shouldn't be a competition of who's stronger
ReplyDeleteI do not believe in the survival of the fittest theory because, it is not all about being physically strong, being mentally strong is just as important and satisfying. I also believe that everyone has or should have their own perspective and interpretation on "survival". Some may think that being a survivor is to die knowing they gave it all they had without giving up and that is what I believe in. People shouldn't have to risk their lives for a title that is nothing but a title, but if a title is needed it should be based upon those who never give up.
ReplyDeletei 100% agree that survival of the fittest should not be based on race but how hard someone works. many people can have the same capabilities even if they are from two different races.
DeleteI disagree with the theory "survival of the fittest". The people who are physically strong aren't always the ones who actually "survive", but the people who never give up, and who kept believing in hope. Survival of the fittest proves nothing, and causes outbreaks of fighting and death. Strength should not be a competition on whether you live or not.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with the survival of the fittest because i dont believe that innocent people should just have to "die off". Some people may not be the strongest or the smartest but they shouldn't have to die off based off of what their capable on.
ReplyDeletei believe that the idea of survival of the fittest is true to the extent where civilizations and people should should survive by protections and through hard work and security. however groups people who are not capable of survivng own there onw should be helped by others.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with survival of the fittest because people vary in terms of intelligence, strength, and other qualities that define them. All people shouldn't have the same personality. People should be different from one another because some people could be able to complete certain tasks, while others can complete other tasks.
ReplyDelete-Luciano Cardoza
I don't agree with the idea of survival because having mental stability is stronger than physical strength. Yes, physical strength does play a huge role in survival and it is very acknowledged and needed, however, it takes a lot to actually develop a powerful mind.
ReplyDeleteI think you might of misinterpreted the Darwinism theory, to be "fit" also means to have a good amount of intelligence along with strength.
DeleteI disagree with the idea of survival of the fittest I believe that's everyone has greater strengths and they could be used in different circumstances so I disagree with this comment.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with survival of the fittest, if you have a negative state of mind it can bring you down no matter how physically strong you are, a strong mind can get you through more than a strong body.
ReplyDeleteI completely, and utterly disagree with the "evolutionary theory" of survival of the fittest. I don't care how much proof is given that this theory works, all I know that this statement is one of the most ignorant things that changed the world in the worst way. how can their be justification of mistreatment for anyone? Its cold blooded evil wicked minds that think of these type of things, and because of this, it has went into the wicked hearts, and minds of many people to believe this evil mistreatment.
ReplyDeleteThe saying survival of the fittest has been around for some time. Some claim it's a barbaric saying that is inhumane. But I don't see it that way exactly. It might be kind of narrow minded but it has some truth to it. This is how nature has been working for countless years. The strong survive and the weak don't. When the strong survive they reproduce and that improves human races odds for survival. But, i do still believe that all have the right to prove themselves and should have opportunities.
ReplyDeleteBy:Matthew Villa
I disagree with the theory "survival of the fittest" because it was created by a person who clearly thought he was superior to other people based on what nationality he was. His name was herbert spencer. He was a well respected philosopher who's views greatly impacted and influenced other peoples views. He endorsed and encouraged racism which is a very ignorant concept that breeds hate and animosity. Survival of the fittest teaches that peoples culture/nationalities overrule there true characteristic such as strength, intelligence, along with many others, which in my opinion is very ignorant
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Caroline on the fact the Social Darwinism is ignorant by disregarding the potential of others in different groups or races/nationalities.
DeleteI believe that to certain extent survival of the fittest is true when it applies to people or civilizations. For instance if certain regions don't have the resources or good living conditions then compared to other places they will be behind. Also their economic stability plays a key part in it. If they don't have enough money then they can't get resources,aid, or any other things that they need to sustain their society. Although I do feel that leaving them to die out per say is not the best idea. Countries that are capable and more advanced should help them gain some stability.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe in the so called "survival of the fittest" because people shouldn't be discriminated because of their physical strengths. Everyone has different abilities some are physically stronger then others and some are mentally and id rather be mentally stronger
ReplyDeleteI disagree with "the survival of fittest" because a person or creature may be stronger or tougher physically however another animal or person could out smart them and survive in the long run. Being strong isn't always enough to survive sometimes the person/animal that is the most cunning but weakest survives.
ReplyDeleteI think that survival to the fittest is true to a point where it doesnt mean anything anymore. Nobody should be looked at their physical strengths and not their mental strengths there are somethings that other people dont have that might make them survive. and just because that some people are physically weaker than others doesnt mean that they wont be able to survive.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with "survival of the fittest". Although this could be true most of times it isn't. I believe those who survive are those of good mental state not how physical they are
ReplyDeleteI strongly disagree with this statement because is was developed by Charles Darwin a man who obviously was very narrow-minded and only had one view of human kind. Charles Darwin believed in a theory that mainly separated people by their race and not as actual individuals. "survival of the fittest" is not always true in comparing physical abilities with mental abilities. Sometimes the strongest people can be the weakest ones mentally.
ReplyDeleteI agree. I believe that physical strengths should never be compared with mental strengths which is mainly what this statement is saying. Yes in life there is always going to be competitive people but in that competition there should be fairness.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the saying "survival of the fittest" because no one should be said to be better then another person, just because of how strong they're, even though some people can do better thing then another doesn't mean they are better then them in anyway. Survival of the fittest I think is uncalled for and isn't anything important in anyway.
ReplyDeleteI believe that most of it is true. Because no matter how much people deny it there will always be those who are stronger than others physically and mentally and in a time of survival or crisis their abilities will allow them to most likely survive rather than those who are not as fit. I think that the others who are not as strong should be given a chance to prove of what they are capable of and if they truly cant maintain themselves they should be given assistance from others who can.
ReplyDeleteSocial Darwinism is a confusing theory, because if it said that only the “fittest” survive then there would be an everlasting chain of death. If we were to revert back to tribes and small groups of nomads hunting for our food keeping among our people Darwinism would be more than just, it is nature and cannot be changed. But we choose to be “civilized” which in turn forces us to leave behind Darwinism and its beliefs. To have social Darwinism would be to let all the “weak” die off. In the economic classes of the U.S. it would be impossible to use such a theory, the middle class is the working class, they manufacture and create the products in use, that are sold by the upper class. Once the lower cast dies off from a lack of government aid (welfare, social security) the middle class would be next and then where are the workers of the upper class? Social Darwinism is ineffective and crude theory to support racism or even genocide.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Charles Darwin's theory because first of all its a theory not a fact, and I don't believe that the fittest survive just because of their race or how physically more powerful they are because everyone should be equal and fairness should maintain in the world because no person should be better than another person in terms of surviving because the are more fit,
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Charles Darwin's theory because it is a theory not a fact and also I do not believe that people who are more fit will survive because of their race or their physical attributes instead of their mental ones. The human race should all be equal so that everyone is fair and no one is better than any other person everyone should be equal.
ReplyDeleteAt some extent I believe the fittest will survive because of how they developed as a community. Although should survive would be something different. All civilizations deserve to live and prosper. There are different types of civilizations in different types of environments that they have adapted to. According to social Darwinism there is a supreme race. I disagree with this mainly because there can only be a supreme group of people not necessarily of the same race but of the same social ranking.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Darwin's theory because it is not a fact, its a thought.I do not believe that people who are more "fit" will survive because of their physical attributes instead of their mental ones. The human race should all be equal so that everyone is fair and no one is better than any other person everyone should be equal.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure whether I agree or disagree with survival of the fittest because it depends on what type of situation is thrown at you. You really cant take a side because you need a certain situation to happen. Your not experiencing this event so your emotions and actions cant really be exposed until you are in that predicament. Also if you have loved ones, all you will care about is keeping them safe so that also takes a huge toll. So I'm neutral about survival of the fittest.
ReplyDeletei dont agree with survival of the fittest because some people can survive because of how physical they are. But also that some people can survive in the wild
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with the survival of the fittest at all. What aspects should make you any better then any other individual. And who should be the one to decide that. Just because you are stronger then someone else does not mean you have a greater chance of surviving not everything is about being the strongest but maybe just the wisest.
ReplyDeletei agree with you Claudia, that not everyone has to have the same level of success
DeleteI agree because strength doesn't mean anything in the circumstance of surviving.
DeleteI believe that survival of the fittest is true because if you have all the factors and capabilities you need to survive, you should with no problem. However, I don't think people who aren't fit to survive should "die off" because there's always hope for everyone.
ReplyDeleteDepending on the situation i do think they should die off. mainly because they can slow down the fittest and endanger the survival of the others, give a life to save the other 10 or 100, but in any other case they shouldnt die off cause human life has a lot of value and humanity is about helping each other.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Darwin theory of people who are "weaker" should be cut off from the society, and die. Its unfair to humans to set a standard of right and wrong, and to have people live under the pressure of having certain things and being able to satisfy your peers. Why can't we all live in a society where even if one person is weaker than the other it can still be accepted. Or even if someone is less successful does not mean that they should die, or be eliminated from there society. That is unjust, and completely unfair. We are all humans, we all are the same.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the idea of Darwinism, mainly because your race has nothing to do with how you may or may not be able to survive in a civilization. I also do not agree with "survival of the fittest" because it shouldn't have to come down to who is the weakest, who is the strongest, and who will be able to hold their own if it comes down to it.
ReplyDeleteTo what extent do you believe that the idea of survival of the fittest is true when it comes to people or civilizations? Should those groups of people who are not capable of surviving on their own be allowed to "die off"? As always, respond to one other person's comment after you make yours
ReplyDeleteI disagree completely with "survival of the fittest" because we are just people and it's not like we make who we are. who we are no matter what race, strength, or economic value we are doesn't determine who we are completely. I wish darwin's theory came to be because this is not who we would be today. We wouldn't be racist of we wouldnt discriminate anyone ever.
i disagree with the idea of survival of the fittest because this idea so created for animals and not humans ,In the wild a strong animal is need to better a species but as human don't need this because there a medication that could help us bettering us so we all could be fit .
ReplyDeleteI believe Survival of the fittest or social Darwinism should not determine if you live or die. We as humans might have physical inclinations, but there are many more aspects needed to be taken into consideration before arguing survival of the fittest. Mental fitness, the ability to know right from wrong, or even judgement on simple questions should all be considered in the "fittest" not physical aspects or race differentials. I disagree with survival of the fittest. However if it were socially acceptable, I would live because i am perfect.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with the statement of "survival of the fittest" because the thought of is something that is meant for animals who can't do things humans can do. As said throughout history all people are created equal and it shouldn't have to come down to who the strongest and who is the weakest is.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Luci because people shouldn't be seen as unfit just because they are weak and unfit.
DeleteEven though I do agree with the statement there have been cases when this statement isn't true. Throughout history the whole Mediterranean has been conquered so many times like a country like Egypt and it is still here today. But usually a country doesn't just die off, they get conquered and there people leave to go to the other side and the nation may just "die off".
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with this statement because all people were created equal, so why should people fight each other in order to "gain dominance"? It's absolutely ludicrous, we shouldn't kill other people just people their not fit to govern themselves.
ReplyDelete