The sunset of selection and liberalism

It is said that any idea reflects the era and the place where it appeared. I totally agree, being aware of the Eurocentrism that I myself manifested in "The Civilization of Hunger" and that I continue to manifest, no matter how hard I try to censor myself. Anyway, a little universality of time and space is a lifesaver in the case of a creative endeavor. Inspired by recent events, such as the ACTA issue, google policy, but also of everything that happens in the last decades in economy and politics, I will return to the implications of the theory of evolution in the form written by Darwin and Wallace. The idea of ​​selection, hardly accepted by the biologists of the era, more precisely not accepted than late, in the 20th century, after the emergence of genetics as a science, it was quickly adopted by liberals. It is known that the very phrase "survial of the fittest" belongs to Herbert Spencer, a neo-Lamarckist American becomes liberal. The origin of the idea of ​​selection, which came independently to Darwin and Wallace, it can be found in the ideas circulated in the era, through the intellectual circles where Daerwin revolved, but also through the pubs in Wales where Wallace spent his time. Everything started from the controversies related to the Poor Law. Starting from Malthus's observations regarding the different growth rates of resources and populations, there were currents that did not support a too strong material support of the poor. Harriet Martineau was also in this "party"., among others, the author with liberal visions of political fictions, Darwin's potential sister-in-law. Although natural selection does not include the idea of ​​improving one's own natural condition through one's own forces, it still suggests a kind of hope in social and material success based on natural qualities. What was called in economics the "invisible hand" was part of this trend. Beyond wild capitalism, the 19th century was, however, the "century of selection" from another point of view. At that time, education was expensive both materially and morally. Access to it was quite precarious, especially for certain social beds. If you had the chance to read and understand certain books, then you had to have a lot of luck or a lot of talent. Economic obligations for children from less favored beds, but also social, leave little time for study. A good memory and ability to understand, as well as a great interest were somewhat essential to be "in the books in" science and culture.Darwin, a sickly fat man who could have a quiet life doing nothing, but especially Wallace, who was not part of a favored class, they themselves were objects of selection. But the world has changed. Now access to education camouflages native qualities, in the sense that mediocre people can get diplomas and have impressive CVs, lack of talent and passion. The quality of teachers decreased with mainstream education due to the very high staffing needs. But Western society is still based on the ideals of the 19th century, such as the liberal ones. Only that category of people who promoted them are no longer the ones who support them now. There are other categories of people, some who know how to adapt to society, not to nature, that is, people who know how to promote themselves. If you waste time with promotion, you don't really have time to do things, because time is limited. Now spam is in bloom in any field, suffocating the true original ideas and the true intellectual force. Consequence: the economic crisis we were going through, the dissolution of human rights and the dissolution of liberal values ​​in general. I don't know what John Stuart Mill would say, not only about the new surveillance methods, but also the anti-smoking law that nobody gets angry about in Europe and America, but also the laws that regulate the consumption of substances of abuse. The anti-smoking laws that make cigarettes enormously expensive should be considered abusive. Do smokers have control over the money that they need to cure the diseases caused by smoking? I supported and continue to support the idea of ​​ACTA. But the idea, not the form. The fact that it violates the most banal principles of law shows, cred, only gross incompetence of the authors and continuous dissolution of liberal values ​​at the level of society. To invest in ideals, to invest in long-term interests and long-term action, you need time and resources. We don't have any, no other. People are poor, full of problems and engaged in the work-home routine. In the deep West, more developed, the economic and social ties are multiple, which consumes time and freedom. Paradoxical, people have money, but their options are limited. When I started working in research, an older colleague, hearing how I complain about the irrationality of the bosses, he told me that I don't know how lucky I am. Then I didn't understand why. Now, after I met my colleagues from developed western countries, understand. I often wonder how my real professional performance would have been if I had gone to work in research in a developed country. Of course I would have had more money, a better car, but also more deadlines and less time to think and understand things. The current system, not only from research, but also from other economic sectors, it's anti-progress. The results are visible. But let's end on an optimistic note, solutions exist. In research, as in everything, everything must be based on reality. A new value system, even a new language, are necessary.