What is this survival of the fittest? I think it is nonsense.
No,
IÕm not opposed to evolution or Darwin or any of that. Generally, I
believe it is true for all animals and humans. However, I think
evolution is broken.
Animals undoubtedly adapt (especially
over generations) to their environments and those which have certain
advantages live longer, reproduce more, their genes get passed on, and
they make Darwin famous and ingenious.
But what about us? I know
that now we have different teeth and other little changes that seem to
indicate evolution. But there are so many physically strong people who
suffer stupid, pointless, devastating illnesses that weaken them or
kill them that it makes me think evolution is nonsense.
Cancer
for one. Older and elderly people suffer from this disease, but so do
many younger, fertile people who are strong and could still reproduce
and contribute to the survival of the fittest also are afflicted. Were
they not strong enough? Did they have some trait unneeded by their
surroundings? I donÕt think so. And the doctors who save others who are
much too weak to survive naturally allow the unfit to survive. They may
not reproduce, but they survive.
These arguments arenÕt very
scientific; I donÕt mean them to be. I really just mean that in our
society, I can see evolution being justified and possibly rightly so,
but at the same time, I see more of a trend toward inner-strength and
the will to live as necessary in survival. It seems like everyone
suffers from a disease at some point. Those who donÕt have any
particular desire to Òkeep going,Ó though, may allow the disease to
enter them and control them. The disease almost becomes a means by
which the sufferer can control his or her life. He can just give in and
acquiesce to his fate. Or he can fight it and at least try to pull
through.
ÒLet
it also be borne in mind how infinitely complex and close-fitting are
the mutual relations of all organic beings to each other and to their
physical conditions of lifeÉÓ (Darwin in Bump 234). Although I assume
that Darwin meant for these Òmutual relationsÓ to refer to physical
stimuli, I think this quote can be interpreted in another way. It has a
meaning to me similar to the idea of the ÒItÕs a Small WorldÓ song.
Everything is connected: people to people, our present to our past and
future, our mental state at this time last semester and oursÕ right
now. However, I think the lack of these relations can be the most
devastating, hope-dashing experience of all. ÒWe shall best understand
the probable course of natural selection by taking the case of a
country undergoing some slight physical changeÉÓ (Darwin in Bump 235).
Once again reading into the quote, the changes that happen (physical or
not) would utterly devastate someone who did not have any strong
connections within parts of his or her life.
Finally,
I think this was one of the main problems with Pecola. She didnÕt fight
anything. She let herself become the burdened and thus she lost herself
entirely in other charactersÕ issues. She had no connections outside
her family (and really none within) with which to ground herself. Since
she lacked any Òmutual relationsÓ until later, she could not cope with
slight changes or pressures. She had no one to dump her problems on.
She had no way to lighten her burdens. So eventually she succumbed to
the peaceful detachment found in insanity and isolated herself.