|
|
Science has taught us that evolution tries to always to choose the best solution to a problem. If it didn't, evolution would not exactly work, stagnating the growth rate of new species on this planet. So it would seem that we should always try our best to follow what evolution has decided upon for us as a species. Yet there are examples abound of man going against evolution's decisions and doing what he thinks is the best thing to do in that situation. A perfect example of man going against evolution's ruling of what man should do is vegetarianism. Evolution has dictated that mankind is an omnivore. That means that we eat both meat and fruits & vegetables. But vegetarians go against the credo set forth by evolution. Vegetarians say that we should not eat the flesh of other animals; that doing so is wrong. The most often given reason for this belief is that it is not right to kill an animal to eat. It is unneeded pain for the animal and that we have no right to take an animal's life. Well, evolution has already ruled, and has said that we should eat the flesh of other animals. It is actually hard on our bodies to go without meat; our bodies are designed to have a certain amounts of nutrients found only in meat. Vegetarians contend that we have transcended this and that we know enough to realize that it is morally wrong to kill other animals. But hasn't evolution already dictated that man should eat animals? This quandary squarely places the question of whether nature takes precedence over our moral beliefs in the front of us. Both sides can argue for their side. People who favor eating meat can just simply say that if we were not meant to eat meat, evolution would have caused us to not want to or be able to eat meat. Vegetarians can argue, though, that evolution has allowed us to no longer have to eat meat by giving us brains that can think critically and can feel compassion. Thus evolution has given us the tools to make our own decisions, and deciding not to eat meat should be one of them. This leaves us at an impasse as to what plan evolution has for us. This clash with evolution does not stop here. Medicine also has this direct clash. Saving someone with a genetic disorder directly interferes with evolution's way of eliminating unhelpful genetic mutations and tendencies. We are essentially de-evolving our species. You can read my full rant on this subject here. How about the extinction of animals caused by man? Is man right to interfere with evolution by killing off a whole species for its skin or because the species causes some hinderance to us? Or are we just another component to evolution that a species just has to learn to deal with? The superbugs that have developed antibiotic immunity is a perfect example of man trying to eliminate a species, and evolution preventing our attempts. Genetic engineering also comes into play under this topic. Is man just helping along evolution by genetically engineering bacteria, or are we interfering with evolution? And if we are interfering, should we continue down this path? Each of us must decide at what point does evolution's control over us and the world end and our supposed superior intellect's control over our species and others begins. |