What Does “Fair” Mean?
Survival of the Fittest
Fair – in accordance with the rules or standards; legitimate
Is survival of the fittest a fair rule? What does “fair” mean anyway? This question really asks – is “survival of the fittest” a rule that is in accordance with the rules (i.e. fair). This question answers itself – it presupposes that survival of the fittest is a rule; if it is a rule, then in must be one of “the rules”; thus the question amounts to asking whether survival of the fittest is consistent with our observations of the world. I argue that it is, and so evaluation of its “fairness” is meaningless. Indeed, the question is like asking
“Is the law of gravity a fair rule?”
“What do you mean?”
“Well let’s say that there’s a passenger on a plane, and the plane’s engines malfunction through no fault of the passenger. Is the law of gravity fair in its pulling the plane to the earth, thus killing the passenger?”
“The law of gravity is a law of nature; the concept of fairness is a human concept, which cannot apply to physical laws.”
A perfect example of this sort of “rule” is in Godwin’s The Cold Equations. There is nobody to blame for Marilyn’s death – except maybe herself – it was simply a rule that she must die, because the alternatives were worse.
Survival of the fittest is a rule, and those who understand that shape the world, for better or worse. Those interested in “fairness” will immediately be surrounded whispering snakes who want power, who will do anything they can – including paying lip service to “fairness”– to get that power. Talking about “fairness” does not institute it; challenging power structures and the concept of what is “fair” by exercising one’s own power has been the only way significant change has actually been made in any cause – labor rights, civil rights, women’s rights, etc. – not by perpetuating the myth of “fairness,” which like true democracy, is something to be fought for, and not a divine right (of which there are none anyway). In short, you can only achieve some measure of equality/fairness if you are willing to make risks for it – those who are willing are those more fit to survive, because capitulating to the power of others and not exercising your own is a voluntary perpetuation of an inborn Stockholm Syndrome, a life not worth surviving.
The levels of inequality brought on by the powerful maintaining their power is apparent in both Down & Out on Ellfive Prime and It’s Great to Be Back. In fact, both worlds eerily mirror our own. In Down & Out on Ellfive Prime (1979), Earth is such a cesspool that individuals are willing to fake their own deaths to avoid being sent “earthside.” It’s very clear that those with enough money are the ones who can make it to the moon. Case in point, the slovenly character Weston has a higher ranking in Orbital General than the protagonist, Almquist: “It was a sling-cast irony that he, Ellfive Prime’s top technical man, did not have enough rank in OrbGen to be slated for colony retirement [but Weston did]. Torin Almquist might last as Civil Projects Manager for another ten years, if he kept a spotless record. Then he would be Earthsided in the crowds and smog and would eat fish cakes for the rest of his life (182).” In this world, where the rich are to be served and the miserable poor sequestered on Earth, nothing can be done but to leach off of the system. To fake your own death, live underground, and establish an alternative society that must always live in the shadows (“That would be the time to ferret out a secret conduit, to contact Zen. The scams could use an engineering manager who knew the official system inside out (195)”) – there’s never a mention of actually changing the system, only subverting it. This is not surprising considering this story was written in 1979 – a period of time when the wealthy were becoming wealthier, the poorer becoming poorer, those who wanted to have decent lives needed to live off of the scraps of those who accumulated money and power – by which time most opposition to institutionalized disparities had long been stifled. Today’s society is a clear outgrowth of that situation.
In It’s Great to Be Back, there are similar stratifications, covertly between rich and poor, overtly between the smart and stupid. Those intelligent enough to make it to Luna are paid handsomely (… we don’t want people lured back by the high pay (114)) for benefiting corporate enterprises (“Artemis Mines, Spaceways, Spaceways Provisioning Corporation, Diana Recreations, Electronics Research Company, Lunar Bio Labs, not to mention all of Rutherford (111)). Fittingly, Heinlein wrote this story in 1947, during the beginning of major increases in state-sponsored scientific research and other investments (using taxpayer money) for the benefit of private enterprise – e.g. atomic energy, the computer, the highway system, NASA, etc.
One could make the argument that through education, humans could rise above “survival of the fittest.” To this, I’ll say just that we can only change the context in which this rule plays out, which is crucial. To truly eliminate this law of nature is impossible, even in human relations where one could argue there is supposedly some measure of conscious control. Heinlein’s and Ing’s worlds don’t look much different than our own from a social perspective – if we take these stories to be predictive of the future (as good science fiction is), then such stratification is inevitable. The questions we should ask ourselves: are they, and is it?
