Since the human species is a sociable "animal", and by far, the most "intelligent", it has always been trying to "save" the majority of the species. But why is it, that in some cases, people are trying to save the minority (doomed to fail anyways...or too fragile to follow the species' evolution). So should it follow the natural or "human" laws?
Off Topix: Embrace the Unexpected in Every Discussion
Off Topix is a well established general discussion forum that originally opened to the public way back in 2009! We provide a laid back atmosphere and our members are down to earth. We have a ton of content and fresh stuff is constantly being added. We cover all sorts of topics, so there's bound to be something inside to pique your interest. We welcome anyone and everyone to register & become a member of our awesome community.
Collective or Individual?
- Thread starter Naiwen
- Start date
Ashera said:that evolution in general has law for the majority, and the humans have made laws and rights (that didn't exist before) for minorities.Kirito said:Could you elaborate? I really have no clue what you mean.
Aha so essentially survival of the fittest vs society rules?
Kirito said:Ashera said:that evolution in general has law for the majority, and the humans have made laws and rights (that didn't exist before) for minorities.Kirito said:Could you elaborate? I really have no clue what you mean.
Aha so essentially survival of the fittest vs society rules?
yeah. jungle's law or "humans" law...? I think it's the same, really.
Similar threads
