Thursday, November 03, 2005

Survival of the species and survival of the self

I assume my earlier discourse of love was rather interesting, or at least thought provoking. Now there are two things I’d like to call attention to: survival of the self/individual, and survival of the species.

If you ask me what the relevance of fear is, there is no direct answer. However, I can speculate that it somehow supports the survival of an individual. Yes, fear creates panic, which in turn gives us a sudden impulse to escape a situation of danger or threat to survival. It does not make sense if you extend this to a group which has many members in it. It fails to make sense there.

Now if you ask me how love is relevant to an individual, there is again no direct answer. However, it indirectly supports it's survival by surviving the species. How is this so? Well, it is actually a complicated process. Now imagine there is one predator that cannot be defeated by an individual alone. However, this predator can be defeated if it had to confront an army. No love, can imply cannibalism is a common phenomenon. Once that is true then how do you make an army if you keep consuming your soldiers the minute they are born…? No army means, not enough of defence to resist that predator. End result is that that individual can die due to predator attack.

Love and fear – together they make little sense. But with the idea of survival they seem to agree, but on different terms. In spite of this difference I see them both as constructs to survival, because they are elements or entities that aid in further survival in a way.
Post a Comment