Mereja Forum

[Naga Tuma]

The term "survival of the fittest" is often associated with the British scientist Charles Darwin.

He may not have invented the term but popularized it through his book published in 1869. Some historical notes indicate that the term was first used by Herbert Spencer in 1864 and suggested to Charles Darwin in 1866 for use in his then-forthcoming book. Darwin accepted the suggestion to replace his earlier term "natural selection" and popularized it.

This may be how he has been widely associated with this term.

In his second inaugural address on March 4, 1865, Abraham Lincoln, the 16th President of the United States of America, stated: "With malice toward none; with charity for all ..."

So, it wouldn't be unfair to say that Charles Darwin subscribed to the idea of the survival of the fittest and that Abraham Lincoln subscribed to the virtuous ideal of malice toward none and charity for all.

Even though both ideas sprang around the same time from the faculties of individuals who lived on two different continents, they don't sound resonant at all.

It is true that Darwin's term was imperative for multispecies whereas Lincoln's term was imperative for one particular species, humankind.

Then again, there are many that apply Darwin's term, at least in their rhetoric, in intraspecies propensities. It is also not entirely clear to me if Darwin himself didn't imply that the term that he popularized didn't apply in intraspecies propensities. So, it is not at all unlikely that there may be some overlap there. Hence this reflection is entirely for the rhetoric in the sphere of this overlap.

If it is entirely plausible that Lincoln's and Darwin's terms can not be resonant, one is bound to discredit the other. In my view, Lincoln's discredits Darwin's. As a matter of fact, when I first put the two ideas side by side and thought about them, what came to mind was that Lincoln destroyed Darwin. That is to say that the idea of one man totally debases the idea of the other man.

Whether it is called natural selection or survival of the fittest, it appears that the figment of the imagination of this kind in that sphere of overlap emanates from a faculty's conviction of the scarcity of natural resources instead of its abundance that can be charitable to all.

Just imagine that such nonresonant figments of imagination sprang from the faculties of two individuals, one of them who lived on an island, even if he had traveled widely, and the other who lived on a vast continent.

Be that as it may, the litmus test here is whether natural resources combined with human ingenuity are in abundance to be charitable to all or so scarce to be fought over for the fittest to survive.

Needless to answer this question in the affirmative or negative in order to be reminded of the generosity of natural resources combined with human ingenuity. This is not to suggest that planning is unimportant.

When the expanse of space and time appeared daunting to communicate among the earliest humankind that walked our planet, ingenuity invented scripts that transcend both space and time.

When traveling on foot and horseback became arduous, ingenuity invented the wheel, one of the greatest inventions of all time.

When ingenuity helped humanity reckon with gravity as a natural deterrent against any take-off of the ground, ingenuity also reckoned with aerodynamics and made objects heavier than air float in the air.

When making countless computations quickly appeared daunting to the human mind, ingenuity discovered the power of electrons and the speed with which they can be mobilized to do those countless computations countless times very quickly.

When humanity got concerned with running out of ancient deposits of fossils in order to keep its wheels rolling in every corner of the world, human ingenuity just reckons with the power of solar energy that it has lived with throughout its history. The abundance and power of this particular natural resource are especially mesmerizing.

I am specifically attached to the reckoning with the abundance and power of this natural resource because of two occasions, which I keep talking about when I hear about its potential.

The first one was in Boston in the summer of 1996 when I was taking a TOEFL. A passage in the test was about the potential of solar energy, which Africa could use for itself and export to Europe if the body of water between the two continents wasn't a big deterrent for transmission lines. Although I got a comfortable pass on the test, I genuinely think that the captivating power of that passage may have marginally affected my score on the test. As soon as I started reading that passage, it captivated me so much that I had to later remember that I was taking a timed test. I am not exaggerating it.

The second one was in the spring of 1997 in Denver when I was with an American and a German scholar looking at the news in a daily newspaper. The Denver Post. I wasn't an active participant in the discussion about the daily news when I heard the American say that in the future, the world would congregate into three or four economic powers: North America congregating around the U.S., Asia congregating around China, Europe as the European Union, and potentially South America congregating around possibly Brazil or Mexico. When the German scholar heard Europe, he would interject passionately to say wait until the Euro becomes a common currency. Note that the Euro was in the works then.

The American later turned to me to say that he really didn't know what would happen to Africa. I found myself pathetic at a moment's notice. Then the German scholar countered quickly by saying they have solar. The American quickly responded, oh yah.

The German would later add that the oceans have more food supply than humanity can consume and that food shortage is not a problem.

I couldn't erase from my mind what I read and heard about the potential of solar power ever since.

Just a few weeks ago, I came across a news headline that solar power can cover up to 40 percent of energy needs in the U.S. The passage that I read in 1996 suggested that the northern and southern hemispheres are naturally more removed from the direct hit of solar energy year-round. So, hearing in this news headline that the U.S. can actually get up to 40 percent of its energy needs from solar energy was another good news.

I listed here a small albeit important sample of the power of a combination of the abundance of natural resources and human ingenuity.

This sample suggests that the maxim of malice toward none and charity for all is visionary and survival of the fittest may be characterized as visionless. After all, doesn't Gandhi's maxim suggest that the thought of survival of the fittest makes the world unfit? In fairness to Darwin, he subscribed to the survival of the fittest theory before others became conscious about more of what natural resources have to offer.

I submit that an unfathomable greed for monopoly over any combination of natural resources and human ingenuity can easily make the world artificially appear less resourceful than it is naturally. When such an unfathomable greed for monopoly bills itself with In God We Trust while standing on the shoulders of preceding giants, it only means forgetfulness of the historical fact that generosity, among others, made God One.

If the earliest inventors of the scripts envisaged unfathomable greed for monopoly over it, the world would have fewer stories to tell. If the earliest inventors of musical notes envisaged unfathomable greed for monopoly over it, the world would have fewer melodies to hear.

In sum, even if some may not be ready to assert if Lincoln's or Darwin's maxim is more convincing, many of us may not fail to conclude that the two can never be resonant in the sphere where they overlap. Subscribing to which one convinces more is an individual faculty's calling.