I don't think it's quite that simple anymore. According to Darwin's theory, the strongest survive because they're more fit to. In today's world that doesn't always mean being stronger. More often than not, it means being smarter.Pirate Kitty said:So I guess the strongest is the one who survives best -- that meaning different things to everyone, I know -- regardless of how they do it, or how 'good' or 'bad' it is. The servant who is treated badly, beaten and paid next to no wage is stronger in their own eyes than the rebel who takes to arms and dies for change. The owner of the former who pays no wage and mistreats his workers is only strong if they do not lose a rebellion or, and perhaps these mean the same things when you think about it, is imprisoned by their peers for crimes.
But if the point of life and thus survival is to procreate and spread your genes, wouldn't the rebel be stronger in an objective sense if they had children who survived to procreate, than the servant who does nothing but lives longer?
If the school shooter fails to kill the people who abused them (if anyone did) and is found guilty, sentenced and spends time in prison (assuming they don't want to be in prison) they are weaker than the bully, yes?
Life, eh? Ha. What a confused mess we humans make of it.
I think you'd have a better time going along with Nicci (spelling?) who was the one that basically said, "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger." It's not that you go through shit growing up, it's what you get out of it and if you use the experience to become a "stronger" person because of it. I took martial arts to learn how to defend myself better and to learn discipline. I'm a fairly intelligent person. I'm a hard worker. I could use any one of these things and more to secure myself a better standing in society/nature.
Anyone can spread their genes provided that they're fertile and have the opportunity. It's whether or not they pass on genes that benefit the species that matters. Will there be a mutation that allows people to be immune to AIDs or cancer. Will we be immune to radiation or some such thing. It's these mutations that matter more than the act of being strong. This is all going back to Darwin though. We've stopped going by the rules of evolution though. I sometimes think it's a bad thing, but sometimes, I think it's ok.
The Spartans would leave a deformed baby to die. It wasn't because they hated the baby. It was because they didn't want that deformity to carry on through the bloodlines. We've seen similar things done countless times throughout history. With advances in technology, we've been able to use our minds more than our physical bodies to get whatever results we wanted.
Put a boxer in a ring with Bill Gates and have them go five rounds? I think Gates will lose. Does that make him the weaker man? In that situation, sure. But give Gates a computer and tell him to make a program or something and have the boxer try to do the same? It all depends on the situation.
I've been able to avoid most people picking on me because of my size. I'm just a big guy. Those few that I have had to fight, I knew how to put them down. Sure, I'm strong, I've cracked ribs with punches without much effort. But every fight you get into, evolutionarily speaking, is a chance for you to die. If you die you can't reproduce. Only the strongest would live. The strongest tend to be the first to wade into a fight. It seems like a paradox to me, but it seems to be fairly common. That's why your first string of guys on a team are better than the second and so on. But they are also more likely to get hurt because they're in the field/court/what have you.