When you think of evolution you are likely to have an image of a monkey turning into a man over millions of years. While creationists may argue against this concept, personally I would rather view things on a more fundamental level, highlighting the fact that evolution takes place on a daily basis in one form or another.
We don’t have to look at a caterpillar morphing into a butterfly in order to grasp the concept of evolution. If you were to accept that evolution is simply adapting to ones environment, then each time you put on a coat because it’s too cold, one can say that you have ‘evolved’ to suit your environment.
Now, you might argue that wearing a coat is not evolution because of its level of simplicity; but you will most likely accept that this is adaptation.
It is this thin line that separates us from all other animals. The fact that we can use artificial enhancements to alter our environment, and thus adapt at an ‘unnatural rate’.
From a medical perspective, this is seen as totally acceptable. If we are in pain, and there is a substance that can be created to relieve that pain; then so be it. I have nothing against this approach, but the fact that this option is only readily available to ‘rich people’, creates a completely different balance as far as evolution is concerned.
Let me ask a question: How did the first human beings survive?
Permit me to make a few rational assumptions. Let’s say there are 20 human beings, all with basic fundamental needs. Food, water, shelter, and some form of protection against other animals.
15 of these humans realise that the best way to survive is to stick together. So they allocate duties – some go hunting, some watch the cave and others rest in the day so they can take on the night shift.
The other 5 people are ‘lone rangers’. They don’t want to be a part of the group, so they live on their own, and in a number of years they eventually die out.
The group of 15 expands in numbers; and eventually large pockets of separate groups move to various lands.
Moving on from primitive times to what we have today, human beings are still dependent on each other for survival; but now that money has been introduced, those that actually profit from the system are those that have the most of it.
My logic is fairly simple. You might argue that developed countries offer a national health system that does its best to offer free treatment to the general public. But the poor who have been through more serious illnesses will be the first to acknowledge that private health care offers a much better chance of survival.
It’s no longer about survival of the fittest; it’s about survival of the richest.
Once we can recognise this backward version of evolution that has been created. We will then begin to see how those with access to money and medicine live on and give birth to generations; while the rest of society dies out.