[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by alatar

People continually get the 'survival of the fittest' idea wrong (not saying this of anyone here). Fit...this doesn't mean the strongest, prettiest/handsomest, fastest, etc. Fit...able to survive well enough to get offspring into the next generation. A platypus is not the prettiest creature, the three-toes sloth not the fastest, nor the echidna the strongest, but each survives well enough in its environment.

Of course, but the point was that the "bonus" to the survival of the fittest is for the humans to include even those who are not contributive at all. You are sort of giving answer to yourself right in the second part:

What we have 'learned/evolved' is that, by forming communities, we as a species can survive better - be more fit. As stated, alone we are vulnerable. As ants have formic acid that makes them resistant to predation (except by anteaters), we have 'community.' And that community includes the weak and frail as well as the strong and swift. Not that it was always the case, but the toothless hobbled elder contributed to the community just as much as the hunting males and the gathering females.

The point of what I had in mind was going to the extreme and including even the absolutely uncontributive and "unfit" members. Okay, a cripple who isn't capable of doing anything in the group of stone age hunters may contribute still in some way, perhaps by telling stories or whoknowswhat, but what if he doesn't do even that? There are and have been people who cannot, but still are cared about. I wonder - does it mean, then, if holding this theory you propose, that keeping these disabled is somewhat contributive in itself, let's say, strenghtening the bonds within the society and giving them more chance to accept even those who do not seem to be contributive, because even though we don't see it now, they eventually could?
I must say, anyway, that I dislike the idea that it would be so "just" because it would be advantageous or anything like that. Because, wouldn't it be just blind determinism again? And if there is something I am strongly against, it's determinism.

Some may see a reason for subordination here:


God may have created them equal, but things went awry shortly thereafter. And note that to me, both are 'equal,' though equal isn't the right word - I can't bear children, and I'm not 'the same' as my wife. Think that 'halves of whole' is better.

Yes, that sounds good. But "equal" in the other sense - I actually like the formulation in the abovementioned Genesis 2,18 woman is defined towards man "knegdo" (KJV: "meet for him", though I wonder what exactly is that supposed to mean), sometimes translated as "equal to"; but simply it means something like "a counterpart to", literally "as opposite to him", meant, like when you are standing face to your reflection in the mirror. That would go more or less around the lines you said.

As for the subordination, it's been interpretated like that many times, and not just that place, of course. The more given the context of the society (most of the important biblical characters are male etc.). But it is clear the thing cannot be taken one-sidedly like that. The verse you quoted is interpretated a statement, not as an order, after all, it's a part of the description of the results brought by the sin. And indeed it's the way it went.

Anyway, were we not supposed to turn this discussion back to Tolkien?