Isn't Democracy at odds with nature's rule of 'Survival of the Fittest'?
601820
The survival of the fittest is a principle that has been overturned by modern medicine, among the human race at least.  These days, the infant mortality rate in developed countries is very low.  That might not be a good thing for the long-term evolution of humanity!\n\nAnyway, the survival of the fittest refers to the laws of Biology and not to social philosophy.  A majority of the population is always stronger than one individual.\n\nCommunism was an attempt to stop the strong dominating the weak by asserting that all people were of equal value, a principle that had been advocated by the Christian religion but not always applied to the distribution of wealth.  Communism failed because of bad economics more than anything else.  Capitalist societies generated more wealth and the west won the cold war because it was able to out-spend the Soviet Union.\n\nDemocracy also asserts that all people are equally valuable and, therefore, everyone's vote is counted equally.  However, it doesn't insist on fairness of any kind, merely that the majority can dictate to a minority.  The majority of citizens is always stronger than the strongest individual!
135820
No. For some more enlightened and less idealistic-minded people we realize that the democratic system is simply a guide line. That every and any rule set can be circumvented or bypassed. Vote? As long as there are electoral colleges your vote means almost next to nothing. Our government is corrupt and run by influence and pay offs. You're kidding yourself if you honestly believes a flawed and corrupt system such as ours is effective. Look at Katrina relief. Look at the poor inside our country. Look at the homeless child rate. Then look at the golden umbrellas all the CEO's, senators, justices and governors retain even after retirement. There's what they want you to see and then there's the truth. Take the blue pill Neo.
534835
one might be made to think so. democracy itself, is not all what others might want to adopt.for example, democracy exited long time ago in Africa before the west adopted it. democracy in Africa, was through the kings and chiefs. today in some parts of Africa, it still exits. African governments have adopted the western way of democracy, but does not work for them. so I personally, does not think so.\nit does not improve economical performances, but rather make people in power or in high offices to become more corrupt.
1004503
Hm mm. very interesting point of view.I feel the human race as a whole is closer to the stars than the jungle.However some would like to halt progress in the hopes they can dominate and control the masses.India is one of the more developed cultures in our time with knowledge and reason they dealt with the Taliban destroying 3,000 year old religious shrines.They dealt with the Islamic intrusion in Cashmere region.So I personally feel the odds of India becoming a welcome member of democracy is better than 50/50.Once the seed has been planted it will grow slow at times fast at others but you will never undo it's growth now that it has been tasted it will fight to survive.India's best days are yet to come.I can't say for sure if it is a true democracy however it is trying hard to be one,give it time and it shall be
917161
no, if it became a democracy it would be the end of us all, the founding fathers knew this when they formed the government.
838250
Not one world government, one style of government... Democracy.
423903
Yes democracy is.The people are the legislature in a democracy.
462026
Democracy is the best of bad choices for government we have.For me, a benevolent dictatorship would be my choice. Democracy is too messy, takes too long to get going, or for people to understand, look at Iraq. Just too many disparate opinions have to be weighed for it to be effective. Sometimes, countries need a strong man{or woman} with a single vision. FDR and Lincoln come to mind in our history.
496022
It cannot be wrong to let nature take its course.  Nature, by definition, is the "natural course" of action.  Live and let live, but remember to live and let die.
1096462
A is incorrect because this statement is usually attributed to Malthus however, Darwin was aware of this and it is one of the driving forces of natural selection-- that there are more organisms (not just humans) that can be supported by available resources.  \n\nB is incorrect because the adaptations that are favorable are not always biased towards being swift and aggressive.  There are passive, defensive adaptations that are effective.  \n\nC is incorrect because evolution is not directional.  There is no such thing as devolution.  A trait that is advantageous under one set of conditions may be a liability under different environmental conditions.  The most successful organisms on this planet are bacteria.  Also, individuals do not evolve.  Populations evolve.\n\nD is correct.  It is even right there in the title of Darwin's book on natural selection.  Look it up and read it.
865490
No ... How can someone force democracy on someone else? If it's forced, then is it really a democracy? If there is ever to be democracy or peace over there, then they will have to resolve it themselves.
107398
This is because there is no system that can ideally order society. Traditionally the purpose of democracy is to prevent tyranny (the accumulation of too much authority in the hands of one or a few). That is, democracy is not intended to give us "good" government, but to put some limits to the abuse of power.\n\nIt is important to recognize that democracy is not morally ideal. At the heart of democracy is the belief that if a majority is in agreement, it is legitimate to harm the minority. While a clear improvement over tyranny (in which the decision of a minority of 1 person makes it legitimate to harm the majority of all others), this coercive power is still cause for concern. For this reason, some countries (such as the USA) have created constitutions that set protect particular issues from majoritarian decision-making. Generally, changes in these constitutions require the agreement of a super-majority. This means a majority can still legitimately coerce a minority (which is still ethically questionable), but as a practical matter it is harder to get a larger proportion of the people to agree to such actions.
109704
To control the world thru "democracy"
374819
Now a days people misuse the term democracy to mean capitalism. Sometimes they go together, but they are two very different concepts that can exist indepent of each other too.
498454
There is no way for democracy to exist in a religiously centered regime.  The religious regime will require that certain rules have to be followed no matter how much the people may oppose those rules.  Since the people can't reverse the religious rules, there isn't a democracy.  I would doubt that democracy can really thrive in arab nations as long as they are Islamic regimes.
226962
Although this is my personal opinion I believe that our inherent psyche is preprogrammed for survival.\nThis tends to afford the motivation for life.\nThis is my theory of natural selection or survival of the fittest.  Jose
488322
All governments created by mortal men are imperfect. the problem with many of them is greed. our own democracy is suffering now. whether we care to admit it or not.when you consider the fact that we now live under the golden rule he who has the gold makes the rules this is very clear with lobbiest provideing campaign money that ultimately gets there man in office. Democracy may be the best form of government there is but greed and corruption can kill the goose that laid the golden egg.