To what extent is human life in general about the survival of the fittest? (A-level GP 2020 Paper 1, Q2)

Photo by Markus Spiske on Pexels.com

To what extent is human life in general about the survival of the fittest?

When we ask what human life is about we are asking two things, in the main: firstly, what the structure of the world is as it stands especially in terms of the realities we have to deal with; secondly, what the first question says about how we construct our meanings in life. In the 21st century, we have realised that climate change and resource drawdowns could see widespread death from a cascade of ecological catastrophes, and that would mean that human life becomes a game of survival. However, I feel that human life in general remains about loving, being loved and building communities sustained by love because this remains a good response to both questions. Therefore, human life in general is about the survival of the fittest — about the survival of our genes — only to the extent that it describes an evolutionary reality; everything else is about love.

There are those who are called ‘eco-fascists’ or ‘social Darwinists’ these days, who see the potential ecological catastrophes in our future as structuring human life into a competition for survival, and who then respond to that competition by building a meaning-world that is centered around the self and the community around the self in a limited way. To put it simply, they would prefer to ensure the death of all those they do not care about — particularly those they consider inferior, like the poor, the uneducated, and those not of their own race — so as to ensure the survival of those they think are fitter for that challenge, usually their own kin and kind. Their argument sometimes starts from the racially charged position that there are people in the world who are richer and more successful in this world, and that these are the people who should be prioritised in terms of their survival and the perpetuation of their genes, because they have already proven their fitness in the competitive world we have now. Additionally, they see the mass of poorer consumers as the cause of our ecological challenges, through the problems of overpopulation and overconsumption. This is a position that is based on myths that must be fought. Beyond being an inaccurate view of the world, seeing human life in this way requires that people dehumanise a whole swathe of humanity. This is a view of life that, to me, barely rises above the bacterium’s perspective.

Human life in general should be seen through the lenses of love, because it is that which makes us human in the first place. If we still see life as a survival of the fittest, it is perhaps because without a global level of love for each other, the human species faces a risk of extinction, failing the test of evolution in a strict Darwinian sense. Academics have told us that human beings are unlikely to go extinct because of a combination of how numerous and scattered over the globe we are, though it remains a possibility. Perhaps humanity might cause its own extinction by a perfect storm of climate change, resource depletion, and a hot war involving nuclear and biochemical weapons, but this would require such a failure of humanity’s love for itself that it would force us to judge that version of humanity as somewhat inhuman. As it stands, a majority of people want action to be taken on climate change, and though individual consumers have almost no power over the larger issue many of us still choose to live low-carbon and low-consumption lives as an expression of our care for the people we live with on this planet.

Human life is not just about staying alive, but about the fact of our being human, and this is captured most powerfully in the symbols and images that are held most closely to human hearts. We value the image of parents lovingly holding an infant; we value the image of the self-sacrificial hero or heroine; we value the image of young and passionate lovers ageing together into the peace and comfort of old age. These images celebrate roles that involve the most human of experiences, love, for even the hero(ine) who charges into battle does so for a community that s/he loves. When we consider the heroism of the young people who are pushing those in power to take significant action on climate change, for example, we can read their actions as an expression of love for their communities and humanity at large, especially for those activists who are not as ‘clickworthy’ as Greta Thunberg who could face consequences even to the point of their deaths, just like the environmental activists — over 200 of them, according to the BBC — who were killed in 2020 alone. This is the kind of love superyacht owners, some of whom are reputed to have secondary superyachts for prostitutes, probably need. How large must their craving for love be? When we ask what human life in general is about, we are not just asking about the shape that human life takes in this world, we are also asking about the meanings we see in life, and the meanings that we manage to create for ourselves that are the most fulfilling and satisfying. Looking at young climate activists and the love that we all strive for in our own families and relationships, it is almost unavoidable to come to the following conclusion: that human life in general is about loving and being loved, and not about our fitness in surviving and passing on our genes, beyond that being the mechanism of the evolution of species.

Jack Kornfield once said that the deep happiness of well-being comes from caring for yourself and loving the world. It is this kind of philosophy that underpins my argument that human life in general is about love, and only about the survival of the fittest in the strictest evolutionary sense. We can only hope that more of humanity comes to acknowledge this consciously, instead of repressing this truth into self-destruction on a civilisational scale.

1001 words

Further reading:


Are you looking for an English tutor? For one-on-one lessons or group lessons, please send an email to kevinseahsg@gmail.com, or call/WhatsApp/Telegram 97700557 (Singapore only). I’m not always on my phone, so if I don’t pick up, please leave me a message to let me know you’re looking for a tutor.

For editing and proofreading services, email kevinseahsg@gmail.com or call/WhatsApp/Telegram +65 97700557 for an obligation-free quotation. I’m not always on my phone, so if I don’t pick up, please leave me a message to let me know your requirements.

It is often said that people are too concerned with getting things and spending money. What is your opinion? (English O-level 2017, Syllabus 1128)

In cities near Singapore, like Bangkok and Kuala Lumpur, one is bound to meet the Singaporean “national bird”. This creature utters one incessant cry: “So cheap! So cheap!” So many Singaporean tourists get labelled as examples of our “national bird” because we seem to be obsessed with buying things that we perceive as cheap, which is sometimes seen as a larger symptom of the consumerist disease. However, I will contend that the accusation that people are too concerned with getting things and spending money only hides the real cause of that behaviour — the perception of economic insecurity. Given that perception, apparently consumerist tendencies can be seen for what they truly are: the attempt to stave off the constant fear of annihilation by the impersonal forces of the economy.

People whose lives seem to revolve around consumer goods sometimes appear to live essentially meaningless lives, since their lives are all about consuming, and not producing. Their consumerist behaviour precludes the productivity of creativity, which to me is the basis of a meaningful life. I understand why anyone would label this consumerist behaviour as excessive, but we must have more empathy for such people. We are all threatened with the anxiety of meaninglessness, but sometimes this is expressed via the anxiety of annihilation. This annihilation is not just the destruction of our bodies, but the destruction of the key parts of our perceived selves — our social circles, our ways of life, our possessions, and so on. When government housing (HDB flats) in Singapore can sell for more than S$1,000,000 for a 5-room flat, it is no surprise that people feel threatened. Buying consumer goods is an expression of that fear, with each additional acquisition symbolising not just buying power, but the power to survive and thrive in spite of the threats that seem to press from all sides. This expression of fear cannot be condemned as excessive if we are to truly understand the mindsets of such consumers. Moreover, almost all of us actually are those consumers, to some degree. After all, who has never jumped at the thought of a discount on something we really want?

I admit that from some objective point of view, this consumerist behaviour is excessive. Life should be lived with courage, and if so many of us were not as afraid of annihilation, perhaps we would see more creativity in the form of compassion (creating positive change in society through compassionate acts), art (creating beauty), and so on. However, when even millionaires seem to be obsessed about cheap cars or fashion, we must have empathy for them and not condemn their behaviour as excessive when they may be concerned for their children, for whom a million dollars may seem insufficient.

This excessive concern with getting things and spending money may be spiritually, psychologically, and socially unhealthy and counterproductive, and must be resisted by those who see the damage that such behaviour can cause. However, to resist this behaviour by labelling it “too much” is itself counterproductive. As members of global society, we should be more concerned with building and shaping the world into one where nobody will have to feel insecure about the necessities of life, including food, shelter, medicine, and education. Perhaps then we can move from being mere consumers, to create something larger with our lives.

(552 words)


I’ve also posted this under A-level essays because it would be really easy to expand to satisfy the GP marking requirements. I would add sections on:
– What the anxiety of annihilation is
– Precarity
– How consumerism is threatening the environment (climate change and pollution) and society (inequality)


Are you looking for an English tutor? For one-on-one lessons or group lessons, please send an email to kevinseahsg@gmail.com, or call/WhatsApp/Telegram 97700557 (Singapore only). I’m not always on my phone, so if I don’t pick up, please leave me a message to let me know you’re looking for a tutor.

For editing and proofreading services, email kevinseahsg@gmail.com or call/WhatsApp/Telegram +65 97700557 for an obligation-free quotation. I’m not always on my phone, so if I don’t pick up, please leave me a message to let me know your requirements.

(A response to..) Don’t keep calm! And don’t carry on!

This post is a response to the article in the link — Dont keep calm! And dont carry on! – Opinion – Al Jazeera English.

Mr Seah cares about students, and if you care about students, you have to care about politics as well, because what happens in the political realm impacts students too. If, for example, the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) comes into power, then it will probably enact policies that they have described here (which, in my opinion, would be good for students but bad for the tuition industry).

So, it was with great admiration that I read the article “Don’t keep calm! And don’t carry on!“. It is such a well-written article, and anyone who even dreams of doing well for their General Paper (GP) should be able to understand and critique this article. It contains a cogent analysis of the ideology embedded within the “keep calm and carry on” meme, and is a call to action — except that the author (Michael Marder) does not spell out for us what that action should be.

I agree with the bulk of the article, and it seems worth the effort to write about the implications of my agreement for my own actions — in terms of my teaching and existence — in the Singaporean context.

The premise of the article — that we exist with a “highly destructive status quo” — is one that I accept. As another author has observed:

“The condominium of state and private actors in the financial-monetary sector is a proper object of civic curiosity. The power to describe must also be disentangled from the formal powers of office and the prerogatives of wealth.”

The inequality that I observe in this world is simply unacceptable, in a moral sense. It is inexplicable that the world’s billionaires continue to hold on to their wealth so tightly when one in three people in the world live in poverty. Marder observes that “the danger is real that the public is about to lose its collective cool”, and it really is no surprise when we have statistics like that to look at.

As a GP tutor, I expect my students to have enough general knowledge to score well in their essays, and this makes up part of the general knowledge that they should have. Once a student is aware of such statistics, there is no way s/he will be able to ignore it without some effort. In the same way that a person will find it difficult to be happy in a room of sobbing people, most people will find it unacceptable to hoard wealth when the problem of poverty is so widespread.

This is not to say that I don’t encourage my students to be successful — I always point to the efforts of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to show how a billionaire can make a massive difference in the world, more than what a humble tutor (me) can achieve. Success isn’t bad — it is unrestrained greed that destroys the world.

In addition to greed, there is also the problem of apathy, brought about by what Marder calls the “ideological constructions of normalcy”. A student of mine has pointed out that this includes the dystopic phenomenon of people being entertained to death with their smartphones, both of us having observed people on trains and buses nowadays being glued to their smartphones in what seems to be an orgy of mindless consumption.

As a teacher of young minds, I always try to encourage mindful consumption, rather than mindless consumption. This is incidentally good for a student’s grades as well — if a student spends hours reading thought-provoking material rather than spending hours playing games or watching inane videos, it will surely have a positive impact on his academic performance.

My teaching is my way of not keeping calm, of not carrying on as if the world was alright. I don’t claim to have a tremendous impact on the world, but I am doing what I can to try to change things. As I explain to my students, we can help by supporting tax reform (an idea that many political and business leaders support), and by volunteering to help whoever we can in our country.

Yes, I want my students to be successful and to do well. But I also want them to remember that keeping calm and carrying on isn’t the best thing to do all the time.