In Good Company

Charles Darwin said, "A tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always ready to aid one another, and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes, and this would be natural selection."

So why is it that ‘Social Darwinism' claims just the opposite? Made popular by Ayn Rand, the notion that moral excellence is measured by accumulation of wealth rather than benevolence towards others has become a new religion. Rather than a crucifix, ‘Ayn Randists' carry the dollar sign around their necks. For many people, selfishness and greed have become a religion. Although our species tolerates such psychopathic behaviors as long as its violence is controlled, we could not long survive if everyone behaved this way.

Natural selection has different effects under different conditions. Garden slugs as well as rats and cougars are fit for survival. While some species thrive by greedy, cut-throat behavior, Homo sapiens took a different and unique path. As Darwin indicated, natural selection favored those of us who were beneficent and compassionate. As has been the case throughout human history, Randist behavior remains a pathology, not a survival advantage.