tomorrow I have a politics mock – nothing serious – so i’m feeling rather political.

I’ve been pondering the vonservatism vs libralism debate. The conservative ethos seemss highly flawed to me: it preaches independencee; the state should hsve a minimal role; the rights of the indevidual outweigh those of the community. this would lead ultimately to a group of indeviduals rather than a society. in such a socciety, selfishness would rule, and only the “fittist” (whatever that is) would survive. this is social darwinism, annd would see the gene pool decreaseing as what is termed fit in our society -i.e selfishness – is not herreditarry. the gene pool would evaporate, and, with nobody caring for one another, we will die out. this would also happen in a zenophobic society, as fear of other people would ultimately cause inbreeding. likewise, fear of change would cause stagnation and ultimately relapse. in darwinian terms, there is no advantage to conservatism.

A liberal society, on the other hand, (and perhaps one on the left of he spectrum) is one that preaches acceptence. every member of that society – not just the fittest – is encouraged to blossom. Moreovver, a person who is not fit iin one field could be am expert in another, and hence were the rules of sociaal darwinism applied, the society would set itself at a ddisadvantage. thus surely it is better to promote a societyy which accepta people of all religions, racees ad abilities, as such a society is more adaptable.