I just realised something. I've been learning about Darwinism, how Charles Darwin's theory of evolution has been placed in a social context. That is, if one is to be totally heartless and act purely for the good of evolution/our future, poor and ill people shouldn't be given welfare, and allowed to easily pass thier genes down the line. And the fittest person isn't the one that is the hottest or the smartest, but the one that has the most children, and is able to send those children out into the world to succesfully find thier own mates and have more children. We all joke about people who win the Darwin award for killing themselves in the most idiotic and pathetic fashion, but we don't stop to consider that this idea, if it is to be adopted, must be held on the living as well to make sense. Anyway. It is put a lot of things in a different light. For example. You think that Hollywood actors/actresses have it all, right? But, they are famous not just for thier movies/songs, but for the crapfights and screwed up situations they may find themselves in, and how thier extreme emotional sensitivity and instability prevents them from having meaningful and lasting relationships with each other. Fine, they are good looking, but we all know that at the end of the day, in society, looks only get you so far. Anyway, thier glamour is enviable, but at the end of the day, how many of them are having multiple children, and how are these children able to assimilate back into society easily? High profile celebrities are unknowingly UNFAVOURED by evolution, because thier walk of life excludes them from the main gene pool, and lessens thier chances of having and supporting offspring. Just a thought.