I think the mighty eye of superficiality doth take too much upon itself when it proclaims to clearly and already know who is the least fit to survive — as if this could be clearly observed by ‘common sense’. After all, evolutionary processes themselves do not operate with such foresight, but rather adapt species as a whole to specific environments. There are all sorts of levels to this feature of evolutionary or social adaptation — which are not necessarily the same things. Forces of social adaptation may considerably exert pressure so that those with too much higher brain are maladapted to the vulgarities of modern cultures which enshrine dominance and submission as primary values, rather than originality. Forces of evolution may select for those who are not geared towards the stabilising and flattening forces of Modernity at all — the pressure of global warming is a veto against industrialised production, which may turn out to favour the hardened and enduring civilisations of Africa and the Third World. On an individual level, many may be down and out and yet — by evolutionary standards — not at all the “least fit”. Their minimalistic standards of living, adapted to hardship, may be exactly the key to enabling them to survive whilst others continue to lead society, through a number of false-steps, to the brink of absolute disaster.
|You are 49% geek|
|You are a geek liaison, which means you go both ways. You can hang out with normal people or you can hang out with geeks which means you often have geeks as friends and/or have a job where you have to mediate between geeks and normal people. This is an important role and one of which you should be proud. In fact, you can make a good deal of money as a translator.
In the culture I come from boys and girls were treated almost exactly the same. The only difference is that boys received corporal punishment at times, whereas girls did not. Girls grew up to be tomboys. Almost all of us did, in this colonial culture. The western version of femininity still comes as a shock to me in many subtle ways.
That is why the western troll culture really betrays what is wrong with western culture in general. In my day and place, girls were boyish, and boys were rugged to a point of near impossibility. They actually had lives. You get a life by going out and finding one. You get one by taking risks, by thinking on your own terms, by having fun. These are lessons I learned in my colonial culture. I am a female, but young males in this culture need a book to educate them on what I already took for granted as a child. (We all did.)
In my day, it would have been impossible to even imagine a boy or any male thinking that harrassing women online could help to make them more macho, or attractive. Actually, the males of my era really did have independent lives. Like myself, they chose to do what they wanted to.
Darwin himself only expressed a biological theory. So, it is not obvious at all how humans should understand “survival of the fittest” in Darwinian terms. Humans are the animals which have historically learned to control their environments and can’t avoid doing this, rather than being controlled by them. So, unfortunately, the social darwinists, when they put their values into action, tend to create the kind of environment which is not fit for any human animals. In order to “adapt” (and to the degree that people can adapt), they must turn themselves into rank beasts, just to fit in with this manufactured environment. The lie is that this need to degenerate is “natural” rather than being an ideological imperative.
Let’s have a word or two about social darwinism, since many still embrace it, even though the writing is on the wall. I speak as one who has trained the eye to acutely observe social darwinistic tendencies around me and in the world at large. (The ideological embrace of social darwinism does seem to be a western, rather than eastern tendency — or at very least, if various Easterners have a version of it, this does not seem to reduce them down to ape-like gestures as it does with their western counterparts.)
Let me begin by saying that, to my mind, to embrace openly social darwinism is to proclaim loudly and most vulgarly your social submissiveness. After all, under a system of dominance and submission — which is what social darwinism actually is — there is room for only one large hairy ape at the top of the totem. If you are not he, then by golly, there is not a single doubt at all that you are a submissive.
Not only are you a rank submissive out of necessity, the need to earn a living having impressed itself upon you, giving you a certain sense of the logic of obedience to your boss 9-5. Not at all! Rather you are a submissive out of choice, a submissive out of ideology, right down to your trembling white socks, and your hideous bootstraps! You have embraced a religion of submissiveness, and now you have no way out of it. Your only choice is to survive apelike, day to day, on the basis of a dull and vulgar pragmatism.
The social darwinistic creed does not allow the cream to rise to the top, as commonly imagined. Rather, it keeps humans at an ape-like level, to ensure that no cream emerges in the first place. What you see is what you get in a milieu infected with this ideology — and that is a bunch of gesticulating apes.
Finally, and not least, social darwinism makes men ugly. It is not just the rank submissiveness that you tacitly profess to — the immorality of surviving at any cost, no matter what the humiliation level may be, or how it extracts its toll. It is also the vulgar mannerisms which develop out of this experience, the inability to string a logical argument together, the various tics and involuntary jerks of the body which a woman like myself recognises as below her.
According to what can be understood from listening to the ideologues of social darwinism, the religion of social darwinism is totalising, and consequently there are no women like me — that is, women who do not feel the urge to bend an inner knee at the sight of a gesticulating ape. I assure you, this ideology is not so totalising.