Survival of the fittest. Translated to our world it means - to kill or to be killed. step over the feelings of the people next to you, do not take care of anyone, thats how you survive, thats how you get big in modern society. It leads to a point were mankind is consuming itself in trade for money, power and prosperity. Stop it? hahaa... It would mean to take a deep breath, and leave behind your ego - and as sad as it sounds, no one will ever do this as long as there are plenty of ressources, animals and other peoples pessesions, lifes, feelings to consume. Not as long as you can stroke your hand into your heart and trade a little part for a soiled old piece of paper which sadly is worth more to people than their very own beeing.
thx a lot! No, it's all done on paper - Staedler permanent markers overpainted with very dry aquarell color, the smudges on the edges come from the diluted marker
I know it's been stated, but "survival of the fittest" does not equal "kill or be killed" It's a common misconception and misinterpretation of one of the main mechanisms of Evolution, Natural Selection.
Darwin's theory was Natural Selection and Decent with Modification. Both parts of his theory can easily be viewed just by looking outside your window.
I know it's not what you mean it like that, however being a Paleontologist and interested in Evolutionary Theory, I'm a stickler for such things.
Darwin had the theory of natural selection, not survival of the fittest. They are distinctly different theories. Can't remember the name of the guy who said survival of the fittest... Anyway I just thought I'd add my two cents.
Well, I didn't quite mean this "survival of the fittest" with the context of the image. Rather that evolution is seen as personal evolution nowadays, and that people are able to do a lot of things for this personal evolution
Although, many people confuse "survival of the fittest" as a suggestion to live selfishly and for their own advancement, as you described. However, "survival of the fittest" refers to the genes of a species, not necessarily their behavior. Humans are a social animal, and are better benefited in the long run through altruism than they are through selfishness. If selfishness became a valued principle by society, society itself would fall apart because it would be every man for himself.
Individuals throughout society exploit this necessitated devaluation of selfishness, becoming selfish themselves and preying on everyone else, those who do live for others around them according to that necessity and natural sympathetic instinct. Obviously on a much smaller scale than the species as a whole, groups of people from the size of nations down to families and friends will turn against each other because that, too, is human nature; no one lives their life thinking "this or that will benefit my species, I ought to make sure I'm benefiting the future species as a whole" when they need security or resources, if they even feel they are maybe threatened in any way, even if that threat is imagined.
It doesn't matter if they already have resources or security, it's instinct to want to consolidate and attain more just to be sure. For that reason it's also human nature to be greedy and ambitious, and furthermore, to act on passions rather sound judgment, which I think, was what you were getting at, if I'm not mistaken?
I only comment because people tend to reject evolution on grounds of moral indignation, and clearly this is not the case; human corruption lies not in our genetic origins, but our psyche and its failings to curb instincts that wouldn't be helpful in all circumstances. I was attracted by the picture, but when I saw the title I was afraid this confusion between genetics and human frailty was the case. Anyhow, sorry for the wall of text. :<
No problem, I'm always happy when someone takes time to discuss a picture.
It's been quite a time since I drew this, and nowadays I wouldn't completely agree with myself anymore. I think this metaphor wasn't right to express my point.
And I do have to agree with you. I would even say that the one who isn't selfish is "the fittest". The ability to group and to share, social interaction and taking care of another is crucial for human survival. Specially on a small scale.
I'm certainly not rejecting the idea of evolution, looking at it again after 3 1/2 years I think I just didn't quite used the right title and text to describe my idea
Is this a digitally coloured ballpoint pen picture, or what medium did you use?
No, it's all done on paper - Staedler permanent markers overpainted with very dry aquarell color, the smudges on the edges come from the diluted marker
Darwin's theory was Natural Selection and Decent with Modification. Both parts of his theory can easily be viewed just by looking outside your window.
I know it's not what you mean it like that, however being a Paleontologist and interested in Evolutionary Theory, I'm a stickler for such things.
Too ironic that this is the most popular piece in my gallery
Individuals throughout society exploit this necessitated devaluation of selfishness, becoming selfish themselves and preying on everyone else, those who do live for others around them according to that necessity and natural sympathetic instinct. Obviously on a much smaller scale than the species as a whole, groups of people from the size of nations down to families and friends will turn against each other because that, too, is human nature; no one lives their life thinking "this or that will benefit my species, I ought to make sure I'm benefiting the future species as a whole" when they need security or resources, if they even feel they are maybe threatened in any way, even if that threat is imagined.
It doesn't matter if they already have resources or security, it's instinct to want to consolidate and attain more just to be sure. For that reason it's also human nature to be greedy and ambitious, and furthermore, to act on passions rather sound judgment, which I think, was what you were getting at, if I'm not mistaken?
I only comment because people tend to reject evolution on grounds of moral indignation, and clearly this is not the case; human corruption lies not in our genetic origins, but our psyche and its failings to curb instincts that wouldn't be helpful in all circumstances. I was attracted by the picture, but when I saw the title I was afraid this confusion between genetics and human frailty was the case.
Anyhow, sorry for the wall of text. :<
It's been quite a time since I drew this, and nowadays I wouldn't completely agree with myself anymore. I think this metaphor wasn't right to express my point.
And I do have to agree with you. I would even say that the one who isn't selfish is "the fittest". The ability to group and to share, social interaction and taking care of another is crucial for human survival. Specially on a small scale.
I'm certainly not rejecting the idea of evolution, looking at it again after 3 1/2 years I think I just didn't quite used the right title and text to describe my idea