let's all stay on topic, shall we?
Darwin didn’t say ‘survival of the fittest.’ He said ‘survival of the most adaptable.’ Because we have big brains, humans are highly adaptable. But still, we’re fallible. From disease to famine to harsh changes in our environment, humans with DNA that has adapted and refined itself over time are the likeliest to successfully continue the human species. Survival of the most adaptable. Keep in mind, this well-adapted DNA has nothing to do with ethnicity (at least not for the purposes of this irrelevant argument) since we accept the human animal as physically universal. Nor does well-adapted DNA favor a specific gender. However, because human females require nine months to gestate, a woman with well-adapted DNA doesn’t have the same impact on Darwin’s theory as does a male. Which begs the question – for the sake of the human race, shouldn’t society encourage men from ‘good stock’ to reproduce?
My wife is going to kill me, I can hear it now. But the fact is – I’ve got really good DNA. No, it’s true. People in my family are like workhorses. However, I’m a monogamous swan – so unless my daughters have litters of children, my work on earth is done. Nonetheless, I also know enough about my family tree to know that we are definitely from hearty stock: Irish, Welsh, French, Scottish, Native American, and some of the far off bows of the tree there are whispers of African. Regardless of the geography in my own human tree, most of what I know about our family is that we’re not from royalty. Basically, we were peasants. So, not unlike the resilient cockroach that has endured every chemical known to man – human DNA that has endured more opportunity to adapt over time becomes equally resilient. Thus, I guess I’m more like a cockroach than a prince. So I’ve got that going for me. Which is nice.
Call me Gregor.