Ghostiger,Apr 6 2006, 09:00 AM Wrote:Consider this points.
(snip)
The wealthy may surivive at the highest rate, but that has always been the case - in ancient times it was because they had enough food.[right][snapback]106386[/snapback][/right]
More red herrings out of an egoist attitude. The poor and wealthy are attributed to a class, not a family line--you're arguing a repeat of Social Darwinism, which has been frequently disproven. The matter of who holds material wealth changes, and is not relevant to survival as a species.
Oh yes, there are hordes of unwashed villagers, and the survival is built on the backs of them.
Poor become rich, rich become poor, neither status necessarily contributes any more to survival of the species.
Tell me, do you need to win a nobel prize to help the human species live? Be a doctor? Superintendent of a school district? I believe nurses and teachers as a whole are generally materially compensated poorly, yet they have a signifigant impact on us.
Methinks the qualifier for what makes success is too narrow and too ill thought out, especially when success against the myriad requires diversity.