Survival of Strongest

World is no fair, only Strongest Survives

Yes, but there are many ways to be strong.

Isaiah 40, 30-31: Even the youths shall faint and be weary, and the young men shall utterly fall: But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint.

ant is living in the same world where you are living ..

Can't be true. Tigers are stronger than rabbits, but there are much more rabbits than tigers.

Bu.

Originally posted by Raghunandan Mamidala:
World is no fair, only Strongest Survives

World is no fair, only Strongest amongst like Survives

Ant lives but never knows when it will be crushed to death..

Nothing survives.

Originally posted by Burkhard Hassel:
Nothing survives.

Or as George Bernard Shaw put it: Don't try to live forever, you will not succeed.

Why is that not perfectly "fair"?

I have a lot of slugs in my garden. They don't seem very strong to me, but they do seem to be surviving.

Woody Allen wrote in one of his books that one must be strong to survive in this world. How strong? "Being able to lift fifty pounds," he added, "should do it."

Does that mean all the weak should die ..., There is difference between ants,flies ,tiger and Human beings!! Humans can understand suffering they can correct their mistakes thay can think

Hi All,

World is no fair,only strongest survives!!

For me ...It does'nt mean (totally) that you have to be strong physically
but it means you must have a courage to face every difficulty
in your life ...be ready for ups and downs in your life
no matter how world treats you
than only you will survive(than only you can live your life
to the fullest).......!!!

Life is beautiful,just like a rose but still carries
some thorns with it...........

The worlds fair: only the fittest survive. After all if you are able to get the strong to do work you can't. Why do you need that strenght?

Then why are strong people killing weak people in wars

I was under the impression that strong people kill other strong peopel, although also some weak peopel, because of orders from weak people.

And in todays wars strenght doesn't matter so much as does technological superriority. And guess where that comes from? Maybe strong peopel. But certainly smart people. And they don't need to be strong^^

It becomes so important not to have weak people in Great Autority or have power in their hands .., Some wrong decisions can ruin everything in Minutes .. or may be seconds

Yeah but then that isn't strenght. That's intelligence, wisdom, and a whole lot of other things. A person who is phisically strong or has great strength of will, can still lack those and make bad decisions.

Unless of course you define strength as the above qualities.

But then it's always the definition isn't it? And if we define one thing as strength is the opposite weakness?

That's why fittest is so nice. For that position there is somebody/thing that fits it best. For whatever reason.

In todays world physical strength is of little important, What does matter is your mental ability and technology at your hand and your position and that makes you strong comparitively

Originally posted by Raghunandan Mamidala:
In todays world physical strength is of little importance...

That depends on whether you consider junior highschool to be part of today's world.

Any weak person with a strong weapon not available to Strong person is more stronger,a High school little with a black belt is more stronger than a college kid who doesnt know them.
Thats what is happening in todays world entities with greater technologies at their dispense are able to crush weaker ones they dont care even if its their mistake
[ October 01, 2007: Message edited by: Raghunandan Mamidala ]

Hi...

I think when Drawin coined the phrase "survival of the fittest (Or Strongest) " - It was meant for as

The speed of reproduction of a species should be greater than the rate of death in that species.

In that way the organisms evolves and better adapts to its environment

This idea can be seen in case of organisms such as virus and bacteria's which have evolved to be vaccine and drug resistant. Where it can be seen that they have evolved and adapted to the drugs and chemicals that affect them.

Unfortunately this very idea of Survival of the fittest was high-jacked by sociologist and politicians and has caused a lot of blood-shed in 18th and 19th century.

The idea of survival of fittest for human social behaviour is really ridiculous and absurd. The idea of survival of fittest is applicable only on species level on a comsic scale.

It was meant for as

Looking at the world around it can be applied to lot of things unlike the limitiation said may be darwin hadnt thought of social and economical conditions but it still applies and its proved every where

Skill and strategy every time. Sun Tzu Anyone

However "Strongest survives" should be in most healthier situations, Not to cover mistakes or attack the weak. Because God has put something called brain into humans and ability to think which he hasnt given to other forms of living beings

Originally posted by Raghunandan Mamidala:
has put something called brain into humans and ability to think which he hasnt given to other forms of living beings

You mean to say animals do not have brains or compassion for other animals...?

Originally posted by Raghunandan Mamidala:
World is no fair, only Strongest Survives

I bet this is what the other swimmers thought when they saw you as the only one who got in.

It's the more adaptable, which survives.

It's the more adaptable species, which survives.
Bu.

animals cant think rationally like humans

Originally posted by Raghunandan Mamidala:
animals cant think rationally like humans

Since when do humans think rationally ?

You thought Rationally when you asked this Question

Hi...

Is it because animals don't have brains or they don't have consciousness

Originally posted by siva kumar:

Unfortunately this very idea of Survival of the fittest was high-jacked by sociologist and politicians and has caused a lot of blood-shed in 18th and 19th century.

The idea of survival of fittest for human social behaviour is really ridiculous and absurd. The idea of survival of fittest is applicable only on species level on a comsic scale.

Altruism is a trait provided by evolution and it does increase the survival rate for a species. It is unfortunate that "Survival of the fittest" is equated with "Survival of the Strongest". Those who use that pretense to bully fellow humans do not understand evolution. Helping others is not a weakness. It increases our survivability. Social behaviour is definitely a part of evolution.

animals cant think rationally like humans

It's a common belief that does a lot of injustice to the diversity and complexity of life. Animals can think and make decisions. They know what to eat, whom not to kill (fellow members of their species) etc.. Some animals like dogs can can understand human behaviour.. The vital thing which they do not have is language.

Originally posted by Satish Chilukuri:

It's a common belief that does a lot of injustice to the diversity and complexity of life. Animals can think and make decisions. They know what to eat, whom not to kill (fellow members of their species) etc. Some animals like dogs can can understand human behaviour.. The vital thing which they do not have is language.

Language is more than the mere ability to vocalize complex sounds (even parrots can do that). There is a level of abstract reasoning and use of mental symbols that is also much more highly developed than in animals. Animal intelligence is more like that of a human who is severely retarded -- but the sensory-processing elements of their brains are often much superior.

Morally, there is no reason to treat animals not of our own species any better than do other species. But our highly-developed symbolic processing tells us that if we kill other animals too quickly it will backfire against us. Whereas animals are unable to break out of their cycle of:

Lots of prey to hunt => lots of breeding => lots of prey killed => shortage of prey => lots of predators dying of starvation => fewer predators => lots of prey growing to maturity => lots of prey to hunt, etc.

(Or are we able to break out of that cycle?)

My comment was out of current social conditions and the wars round the world, it looked Strongest was attacking the weaker no matter how mean the reasons are..

Originally posted by Raghunandan Mamidala:
it looked Strongest was attacking the weaker no matter how mean the reasons are..

If humans think rationally -as you posited earlier- then that's the only sensible thing to do. A rational weak player would naturally be very hesitant to attack a strong opponent.

We could debate at length whether there should be any attacking, of course, but that's a different issue.

Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:

(Or are we able to break out of that cycle?)

Don't know. Try a computer simulation.
Bu.

Yes, weak will be rationale enough not to attack stronger till he is equally or more strong, but its endless. Do you think one should fall into this cycle, when there are better ways to deal than attacking, thats where humans can think more rationally