You, an omnivore, reside in the east side of the grassland, home to many herbivores, and harmless animals such as prairie chicken. Yet, the west side houses vicious bobcats that hunt on the east side annually everyday. You, even as a human, are completely naked, have no weapons, no real house, and you're stuck in the middle of a grassland while the bobcats are out to hunt you. Even as a human, you must rely on your natural skills to prevent being hunted. Are you quick enough to run from a wildcat, or are you tough enough to fight for your life? Surely, simply because you've originated in Western culture doesn't mean you'd automatically build skyscrapers over the wilderness. When you step within those boundaries of nature, no matter who you are, you become a part of nature itself, just like any other animal. Also, because you've originated in Western culture doesn't mean you're more 'fit,' you're just lucky. Seriously, go to the wilderness right now, and see how 'fit' you are. Back to the scenario, do you think you're playing a game, or are you fighting to survive? Remember, that cat requires your flesh for survival, and you need to escape that cat to survive.

Darwin stated animals 'compete' to reproduce. I agree. Also, the reproduction of organisms happens as a result of avoiding predators or catching prey, since, after fulfilling their requirements, they actual live to have sex. In the case of survival however, the only reason why it seems these animals are 'competing' is because they were 'placed' in an area with animals that 'have' to eat them for survival, whereas they live off plant consumption. If no carnivores existed within those areas, no 'survival of the fittest' would exist. In contrast, social Darwinism, therefore, wouldn't exist without an agent required to outdo another group to survive. Racially, unlike animal carnivores, Blacks, Whites, Hispanics, etc. aren't required to outdo each other to survive, proving the term is bullshit. People often change the definition of SOTF from hunting and reproduction competition to simply having more efficient characteristics for survival to correspond more to human life. In that case, survival of the fittest also cannot exist in human life without a goal. Just as humans have various characteristics, humans have varying personalities, which adds variety to human livestyles, creating different goals.

Therefore, SOTF can be applied to any instance, such as, for example, the NBA and making the 'All-Star' team, which is the goal. The All-Star team is determined by voters, and players with the best ability are chosen. Players with better characteristics, such as speed, physical fitness, ball-handling, court vision, and ability to make baskets would more than likely be selected to an All-Star game rather than a player lacking those abilities. If a player wanted to make the All-Star team, but failed, he didn't fulfill his goal possibly due to his lack of skill. However, if a player didn't make the team, but never wanted to, SOTF shouldn't count for him because he never had the goal. If social Darwinism existed, we'd all have the same goal. Even though the setting is the NBA, it's technically 'survival of the fittest' upon a basketball court, which is, therefore, 'social Darwinism.' Yet, would anyone call it SOTF? It's possible, but I doubt the majority would do so.

That proves 'survival of the fittest' is natural as the air we breathe, and doesn't require a term because, long as we have different traits and personalities, people would always outdo each other. That also means people would always have good and bad lives. However, consider this; in the NBA, 'Darwinism' is competition because basketball is an actual game. Life is not a game. Regular humans don't have a goal; we live simply because we fear death, but while living, we develop personal goals, such as having a family and well-paying job.

Some people refer to survival as earning a well-paying job, for money is a requirement in this society. Naturally, because education is required for many well-paying jobs, intelligent people are more likely to graduate from school, finish college, and get the job, rather than the less intelligent. That's not 'survival of the fittest,' or social Darwinism, that's natural common sense. It also has nothing to do with hunting or reproduction, making it even more meaningless. Also, survival of the fittest, contrary to popular belief, doesn't mean an 'unfit' organism shouldn't be helped. In the case of the nonsense term 'social Darwinism,' technically, the mentally impaired could be considered 'unfit' because they can't survive on their own. Yet, for that, that doesn't mean leave them to die. In the wild, many animals don't have the consciousness to help the 'unfit' like humans. I believe people should be helped in society.

Unfortunately, many people also use social Darwinism to support their racist beliefs. Can't accept the fact people of other race are human? Nonetheless, people, usually racist Whites, say, mostly Blacks and Hispanics, are a 'failed race' because they fail at life. Francis Galton, cousin of Charles Darwin, once said, "Social institutions such as welfare and insane asylums were allowing 'inferior' humans to survive and reproduce at levels faster than the more 'superior' humans in respectable society, and if corrections were not soon taken, society would be awash with 'inferiors.'" People also apply this same belief to different races. However, looking back at the real meaning of survival of the fittest, it never said the so-called 'inferior' individuals shouldn't, or can't be helped. It says they fail as a result of lacking the skills and characteristics needed to survive and/or achieve their goals. Therefore, I support welfare because, even if people cheat the system, it still helps the people in need. As for 'inferior' races, they're supposedly not intelligent enough to work well-paying jobs and raise healthy families. In that case, they're wrong. Firstly, the racists base their beliefs on a non-single or physical entity, which is the Black and Hispanic race, and stereotypes of how Blacks and Hispanics are impoverished.

Secondly, when determining the 'Black' or 'Hispanic' race as 'poor races,' you must notice many poor individuals of that race firsthand. Therefore, it's correct to refer to the individuals only as poor rather than the race, which isn't a physical entity. Oh wait, so ummm, motherfucker, you don't believe me? Okay then, well, I have a task for ya. Point out the 'Black' or Hispanic' race for me. Ya can't! Ya can't do it without pointing to a few Black or Hispanic individuals.

Anyways, continuing, because of that, no race is 'failed,' because each individual is capable of doing their best in life based on their abilities, characteristics, and environment. However, Blacks in the ghetto may do worse than, say, Whites in the middle and upper-class suburbs, since education isn't valued in the 'hood.' Yet, that doesn't mean race is the main issue, as the same applies to Whites in poor rural counties. Therefore, common sense explain this; if you have an advantage, you're more likely to achieve your goals. No goals, no real achievements. This whole 'social Darwinism' crap, and even survival of the fittest whether for the animal or human world is complete bullshit.

Back home!