This is perhaps the most pointless concept I’ve written about to date, but hey, it’s my blog! 🙂

Premise: The ‘social ideal’ is clearly an average of all things, and therefore cannot be labelled one way or another. It’s neither good, nor bad, neither right, nor wrong. But no-one is average, and that’s where the challenges start. We humans need labels for context, and very, VERY few of us are perfectly content for things to just ‘be’. Too few to make a difference anyway.

Unless you’re a creationist, you believe in Darwin’s theories of evolution in some form; that of natural selection. It stands to reason – or at least argument – therefore that ANY human trait that provides a distinct advantage, should eventually become more common.

For most of human history, physical strength was the preferred trait, then cunning made its play, and now it seems to be a combination of intelligence and earning potential.

But what happens when new traits fall too far outside the socially acceptable norms? At our current level of evolution (I think we’re actually going backward now) we know what happens; we attack and destroy it because we fear what we don’t know.

Then there’s the law, which sets as many of the societal norms’ as they can lay their hands on. Yes, it’s for the common good, and yes, law should have replaced organised religion a long time ago as our moral barometer, but we still have both, and they are – in my opinion – mostly opposed in almost all facets except the biggie; a way to control the masses.

If those with a genetic pre-disposition to obey the societal norms (i.e. the laws) thrive, totally unhindered, should that trait not take precedence? Or from the other direction; if we lock up all the criminals thereby taking them out of the gene pool, would not those traits become less prevalent?

The thing with genetics is that you are always going to have vast differences between individuals, and you will never eradicate those genetically predisposed to rebel against ANY norm, no matter how good that norm is for society as a whole. I don’t think anyone will argue a case for convicted murderers or rapists, but what about those on the fringe? Where do we draw the line between acceptable and that which must be eradicated? More to the point; WHO can draw that line?

Religion had its place once (even the concept of marriage made sense by making men responsible for taking care of their offspring), but in my view, once religion BECAME man-made laws, there can be no higher purpose than that of the betterment of the species. If you read the news this is clearly not our current goal. The Matrix said it the best;

“Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is?

A virus.“

If you accept that we are VERY far from perfect, then surely the new genetic combinations that happen every day should be nurtured, not shunned? And I’m not saying it’s the law’s FAULT that we demand ‘normal’, but the constant striving for average / normal / acceptable will surely slow down our growth to a more advanced (and sustainable) species?

Of course I’m not saying that we should embrace violent criminals, but we should certainly embrace both the different, and the changes necessary to get where we need to go.