Since Darwin’s theory of evolution dominated the field of biology 150 years ago, almost the entire world has embraced the concept of “natural selection, survival of the fittest.”

All theories are meant to be questioned, without a doubt. To accept a theory as truth without critical thought is a desecration of truth itself.

Most truths, even when questioned, remain unchallenged because they are sufficiently rigorous and scientific, allowing future generations to repeatedly question and still acknowledge their validity.

Within my understanding, there are three types of truths, categorized by their purpose: those serving the interests of the ruling class, those serving the interests of the common people, and those serving the interests of all humanity.

For example, the idea that “Are kings and nobles born with a divine right?” is a truth for the common people; the notion that “A society is always ruled by less than 5% of its population” is a truth for the ruling class; and other truths that do not fall into these two categories are classified as the third type.

The principle of “natural selection, survival of the fittest” clearly leans more towards describing the will of the ruling class. The ruling class always uses any theory that can be exploited to educate the masses, subtly exerting influence.

Darwin’s theory of evolution primarily belongs to the field of biology. However, after the ruling class recognized its significant value, the theory successfully transcended its original domain and entered widespread social use, being regarded by many as a life truth.

In the evolution of natural society, we can imagine that the Earth is balanced, with each species countering another. No single species can dominate the Earth entirely. Even the dinosaurs of the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods cannot be said to have completely ruled the Earth; they only dominated their own food sources.

However, since the industrial society, humanity has created a terrifying balance in the biological world. Humans are almost omnipotent, capable of deciding the life and death of other species, allowing them to live or perish at will.

In such a state of terrifying balance, does the concept of “survival of the fittest” still hold any rationality?

Humans can effortlessly eradicate certain species. Should these species then adapt to humans, rapidly evolving some ability to counter humanity?

Impossible. The speed of human evolution is unmatched by any other species (excluding microorganisms). In such a terrifying balance, if we continue to arrange the world according to the principle of “survival of the fittest,” the only outcome will be humans turning against each other.

If modern society were reduced to only “survival of the fittest,” then people would inevitably become worse, as they would not adapt to such a moral environment; the poor would remain poor, as they would not adapt to such an economic environment.

“Survival of the fittest” is a zero-sum mindset. Under this concept, if you do not adapt to societal development (which is actually a social model created under class rule), you must be eliminated.

Hundreds of years ago, the Enlightenment proclaimed that all men are born free. If someone chooses not to follow the crowd, not to engage in competition, why is that not acceptable?

Sadly, “survival of the fittest” has been accepted by ordinary people as the logic of modern social life. This might be the reality of what Rousseau meant when he said, “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.”