Social Darwinism, abbreviated as Social Darwinism.
It is believed by many people, and it is also criticized by many people.
Criticizing Social Atta is either stupid or bad, but Social Atta is not worth advocating.
To understand why this is the case, let's first talk about what Social Eva is.
In everyone's opinion, the axiom of social attainment is that natural selection at the social level and the survival of the fittest.
That is, opponents either do not endorse the concept of society or the concept of choice.
But I must say that the concept of society is not unique to human beings.
Sociologically speaking, as long as it is necessary to form a group, it is a society.
More strictly, I think it's group formation outside of non-mating periods.
Because as you know, insects and all kinds of seafood will get together at mating time, such as bed bugs, salmon and so on.
And what is the purpose of social behavior?
It is by rallying the power of the community to ensure that individuals can survive better.
In other words, if the collective does not protect the interests of the individual, then the individual is preferably not dependent on the collective.
So, social Darwinism is actually hierarchical: one is to screen the group in the society, but the individual is to be screened within the group.
Whether it is a group or an individual, there is a risk of being screened.
Individuals need to find a better group for their own interests, and groups also need to give up benefits to individuals for their own survival.
But what is the essence of Darwinism? It is natural selection.
The core concept of social development is social progress, not the progress of groups and individuals.
Society is built on groups and individuals, so you will find a very sharp contradiction, that is, social progress is not completely equal to the interests of individuals and groups.
Because the greatest demand of individuals and groups is survival and continuity.
And, because of technology, social progress will be faster and faster, and the speed of eliminating individuals and groups will also be accelerating.
Here, I introduce a concept, thresholds.
The ability of people to grow is limited, and the cost of social development is getting higher and higher.
As technology continues to evolve, low-end workforces will continue to be phased out.
This low end is the low end relative to the previous cycle, not the absolute low end.
In other words, in the future, individuals will be able to make products and services that surpass AI, and the time may range from 10 to 20 years, 30 years, or even a person's lifetime.
This is still based on the fact that the person has the talent and enough cost for him to learn.
Until the threshold of a lifetime, it is difficult for technology to rely on a single individual to advance.
Because the wisdom of the group is seriously depleted, not only because the three views cannot be completely compatible, but also because everyone's knowledge is not broad enough (because a person's life is only enough for a small piece of knowledge to reach the AI level).
At this time, the human species will be eliminated.
At that time, human beings had to access external brains and the Internet to prolong their lives, and in this way constantly connect their consciousness with the electronic world.
Either way, eventually, AI will completely replace humans.
The difference is whether AI directly replaces humans, or whether humans gradually evolve into AI.
Therefore, we have found that screening and social progress are not subject to human will.
Even if the human will is unwilling to admit this fact, it will gradually develop to completely replace the human race.
It is nothing more than a simple and crude substitution or a gentle evolution.
In other words, social Darwinism is in fact futuristic nihilism.
He doesn't think about everything after his demise, and only thinks about pure materiality.
Future nihilism is divided into two realms on an individual level.
The first level is that you think you should base your life on the basis of what you should strive for.
The second realm is more pessimistic, and you only strive for this moment in the moment.
Because you see how it has been said throughout the ages, the poor are not passed down from generation to generation: they are born because some of the children of the rich have fallen.
Of course, the richer the family, the more secure it will be when it falls.
This specific reference to the sub-feudal system, everyone changed the common people in the sub-feudal system to the poor, which is the best portrayal.
And I think the answer to the ultimate question of philosophy is:
I am a combination of matter and consciousness, I come from entropy, I go to entropy.
I've always held the view that increased entropy isn't entirely bad.
The progress of society depends entirely on the increase of entropy.
If there were no part of this disorderly and chaotic waste, the [fixed number] would overwhelm everything, and there would be nothing new.
Then everything will be completely enslaved by time, forming a closed loop, turning endlessly and silently.
The universe is actually lonely and cold.
There will always be people who say that the heat death caused by the increase in entropy makes everything lifeless.
Is it true that a world trapped in an endless loop is the way to live?
But it's the difference between a chronic death and an acute death.
Doesn't this deny the existence of the individual?
Therefore, I believe that the greatest meaning of the individual in this world is experience.
Focus on the process, but also on the results. Everything is for the sake of the experience.
Nothing comes and goes. 
Online Literature Awards