|
This is a really good question, Sushi.
It's a bit late for any sort of resolve at this point, but the question remains.
Is it better to let something fend for itself - learn how to do things on its own - become stronger and be all the much better for it? Or is this abandonment (in a sense) too harsh for young things? Perhaps it is only too harsh if the creature dies? I don't think I need to quote Nietzsche at this point. You get the gist.
Where does strength lie though? As humans, we are [typically] very, very social creatures. Most depend on their parents for the first 18 or so years of their life, and it's often completely situational where this dynamic is forfeit. In other words, we encourage this sort of dependency because... well, I dunno - can we answer that? Naturally, an infant is too physically weak to effectively fend for itself, but by 14 or 15 or so, I'd say a human being can definitely defend itself from the dangers of the world about as well as a full-grown adult - the only thing that is lacking is the psychological aspect, no? So socialization has become the new stipulation for adulthood - but how necessary is it to "survive" in one's society? With humans, it's fairly important. People who cannot socialize cannot get a job, cannot raise a family, cannot pay taxes, cannot enjoy reality television and Starbucks coffee. For humans, mere survival, in a naturalist sense, is nowhere near enough.
Is this community sense some sort of point of evolution though? If we did not have help from others and a complex social system, we wouldn't have anywhere close to the sort of supposed "intelligence" we possess as human beings. We would simply have no way to effectively access and communicate our ideas on a species-wide level; every man would be an island, and that is not a point of particular strength, despite the spike of self-reliance. I find it so interesting though, how humans interact with creatures outside of their own species. I don't feel that other animals do this. It's fairly unique. Of course there are examples of symbiosis in nature, but humans do not have some sort of dependency agreement with the creatures we domesticate - cats, dogs, lizards, birds, ....tarantulas (though the jury is out on whether they are actually animals of this world, not just the seed of Satan on 8 legs) - all of these creatures we consider "pets". It's the empathy complex in action - that same reason we look at a young human creature and extend a helping hand when it is in need, but shun a man in rags on the street when he asks for change. That alien sort of empathy we replicate from others, where we can only see the helplessness of something in the scope of our great society. Naturally, there are many varying shades of it, but in general, we take an offset sort of pity upon creatures that are physically unable, yet hold a quiet sort of reverence for those creatures that are exceedingly capable in a very basic sense.
So what's the verdict? Empathy comes naturally to us. Is this a good thing? Or are creatures better off being weeded out so that only the strong and cunning survive to reproduce? Or is there a supreme strength in the dependency of all living things? Creatures working together towards a common goal accomplishes "more" (on a scale...define your scale), but then when on its own, the individual is weak. In the end, are we all alone?
___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
|
