CreateDebate


Debate Info

0
1
Yes. No.
Debate Score:1
Arguments:2
Total Votes:2
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 No. (1)

Debate Creator

Impirum(266) pic



Is human mal-evolved? (See below)

In nature, only the strongest survives. Human has to be evolved to be strong. Theoretically, only those whose body systems meet the requirements of being strong can survive and thus human should be evolved to be like this. But the reality is not so. Being strong requires being tough and even fierce, but being tough or fierce doesn't promote one's health. Being strong also requires hard work, but working hard doesn't promote one's health. Neither does pressure, which is also required. In contrast, being happy (maybe goofing around) promotes one's health. So does enjoying weak animals, such as cats. Why is this? Is human mal-evolved?

Yes.

Side Score: 0
VS.

No.

Side Score: 1
No arguments found. Add one!

In nature, only the strongest survives. Human has to be evolved to be strong.

In fairness I think this is a myth. Who were the strongest of all creatures? The dinosaurs, right? In comparison to many animals humans are very physically weak, yet they dominate the planet.

Strength won't keep you safe from a meteor. It won't save you from an earthquake or a flood. Technology does these things. That saying about "the strongest survives" should probably therefore be changed to "the one with the most advanced technology survives".

Unfortunately, to date it has been a double edged sword because, while we have the technology to hold nature at bay for the most part, traditionally we have turned it against ourselves also, and those with power use it to control those without power.

Side: No.
Impirum(266) Clarified
1 point

You are right, technology makes human strong. But grasping technology requires hard work, while working too hard doesn't promote human health, as I have said above. If human has evolved to be adapted to being strong, working hard should be good for human health.

Side: Yes.