What is this survival of the fittest? I think it is nonsense.
No, I’m not opposed to evolution or Darwin or any of that. Generally, I believe it is true for all animals and humans. However, I think evolution is broken.
Animals undoubtedly adapt (especially over generations) to their environments and those which have certain advantages live longer, reproduce more, their genes get passed on, and they make Darwin famous and ingenious.
But what about us? I know that now we have different teeth and other little changes that seem to indicate evolution. But there are so many physically strong people who suffer stupid, pointless, devastating illnesses that weaken them or kill them that it makes me think evolution is nonsense.
Cancer for one. Older and elderly people suffer from this disease, but so do many younger, fertile people who are strong and could still reproduce and contribute to the survival of the fittest also are afflicted. Were they not strong enough? Did they have some trait unneeded by their surroundings? I don’t think so. And the doctors who save others who are much too weak to survive naturally allow the unfit to survive. They may not reproduce, but they survive.
These arguments aren’t very scientific; I don’t mean them to be. I really just mean that in our society, I can see evolution being justified and possibly rightly so, but at the same time, I see more of a trend toward inner-strength and the will to live as necessary in survival. It seems like everyone suffers from a disease at some point. Those who don’t have any particular desire to “keep going,” though, may allow the disease to enter them and control them. The disease almost becomes a means by which the sufferer can control his or her life. He can just give in and acquiesce to his fate. Or he can fight it and at least try to pull through.
“Let it also be borne in mind how infinitely complex and close-fitting are the mutual relations of all organic beings to each other and to their physical conditions of life…” (Darwin in Bump 234). Although I assume that Darwin meant for these “mutual relations” to refer to physical stimuli, I think this quote can be interpreted in another way. It has a meaning to me similar to the idea of the “It’s a Small World” song. Everything is connected: people to people, our present to our past and future, our mental state at this time last semester and ours’ right now. However, I think the lack of these relations can be the most devastating, hope-dashing experience of all. “We shall best understand the probable course of natural selection by taking the case of a country undergoing some slight physical change…” (Darwin in Bump 235). Once again reading into the quote, the changes that happen (physical or not) would utterly devastate someone who did not have any strong connections within parts of his or her life.
Finally, I think this was one of the main problems with Pecola. She didn’t fight anything. She let herself become the burdened and thus she lost herself entirely in other characters’ issues. She had no connections outside her family (and really none within) with which to ground herself. Since she lacked any “mutual relations” until later, she could not cope with slight changes or pressures. She had no one to dump her problems on. She had no way to lighten her burdens. So eventually she succumbed to the peaceful detachment found in insanity and isolated herself.