Social Darwinism

Man is quite foolish when he deceives himself into thinking he can follow a bare-bones model of nature and seize property and capital resources to determine who is fittest to prosper and lead the species into the future. Mutational improvements in genetics are random, and so in nature, there are no dynasties of rule among animal species. That is why competition is constantly shifting from one part of a given population to another. Yet human authorities are desperately trying to prove that less fortunate people in our society are so because of their genetic make-up, and therefore deserve to be in that condition, and therefore that it is a waste of energy to help them. This twisted line of reasoning stems from those who wish to construct a society of elite plutocracy, and their forays in attempting to substantiate this false doctrine will always amount to the contortions of a pseudo-science. History bears out the lie in their arguments. Humankind's greatest thinkers, creators, leaders, just as often come from the "common gene pool" as they do from any "aristocratic one". Let me compile a list of some of the indispensable commoners from the legacy of human progress: Archimedes, Socrates, Seneca, Aesop, Shakespeare, Lao Tzu, Jesus of Nazareth, Thomas Edison, Nikola Tesla, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, Charles Dickens, Benjamin Franklin, The Beatles, Mozart, Beethoven, Alexander Graham Bell, Geoffrey Chaucer, John Keats -- I could go on into profundity. It is in the interest of the survival of the human species that all portions of its population be nurtured equally. If it boils down to survival of the cleverest at being greedy, what is the lasting quality of such a gene pool? Would the human race really be noble enough to be worth saving in the eyes of any fellow sentient race across this great universe of ours -- let alone in the eyes of a Supreme Being?