Richard Dawkins 's The Selfish Gene, And Jonathan Kozol 's Savage Inequalities

Jonathan Kozol's purpose in Savage Inequalities is to make people aware of the inequalities of the education system in different parts of the country. He accomplishes this purpose effectively through the use of appeals, such as ethos, pathos, and logos.

We, human beings feel distinctly unique, individual and most importantly, unmistakably superior due to our exclusive intelligence. This is why we, as a society, tend to look down on other types of life-forms, insect or animal, as they do not possess that desired intellect. Yet, Lewis Thomas, in his opinion essay “On Societies as Organisms”, argues that human society has much to learn from the communal accomplishment of other life-forms. The author effectively conveys this main idea through his use of analogy, enumeration of examples and through his level of language.

Kozol’s main argument is that public education should be free and equal to people of all economic classes. Kozol believes that children from poor families are cheated out of a future by unequipped, understaffed and under funded schools in the United State’s inner cities and less affluent suburbs. The majority of these children are non-white, and living amongst poverty and crime. Kozol argues about the unfair standards we expect these underprivileged children to rise to. Children in these poor areas are being compared to children in affluent areas where the quality of their education is much higher. Kozol asks how these children will succeed in today’s world if they are not given the same opportunities as affluent schools give their children. Kozol believes that by depriving our poorer children of their basic needs we are forcing them into lives of crime, poverty and a never-ending cycle of inequalities in education. Kozol stresses that these students must be taught that “savage inequalities” do not have to exist between them and students in more affluent schools, and that all children are entitled to an equal education.

Following the civil rights acts in the late 1960s, Kozol has been an activist for equal education among children regardless of their racial or economic background. He has published many books portraying the declining levels of equality throughout the nation; his most praised being Amazing Grace. He travels to the Mott Haven division of the South Bronx, which happens to be one of the poorest nations in the country. While in Mott Haven, Kozol meets many people including children, parents, and ministers; and speaks with them about their living conditions and how they see the world around them.

Introduction: As a well accomplished writer, activist, and educator, Jonathan Kozol has devoted his life to the challenge of providing equal education to every child in our public schools.

At first glance and after reading through Amazing Grace, it seems that Jonathan Kozol is going to take us on a journey through the lives of the underprivileged, but similar to the ones you read about, or hear in the news. However, this is not the case; the real underlying theme seems to be how the life and society they live in is very alike to a life in a prison, not because it talks explicitly about prison conditions in this area, but also because their lives are portrayed as being a prison. Kozol uses the views of children and adults throughout this book to emphasize this theme through their living conditions and personal lives, background and struggles.

Who inhabits the world? Can we really create the best race and are it determined by our genes? The study of Eugenics raises a lot of unresolved question still in the year of 2015 as this topic expands. Eugenics, also known as selective breeding has been an exceptionally disputable science that has existed in this world for quite a long time. Eugenics (genetic counseling) is characterized as the study of or assurance in the probability of enhancing the characteristics of the human species or a human populace by such means as disheartening a person to procreate because he/she have hereditary defects or risked to have inheritable undesirable qualities or permitting reproduction by persons attempted to have inheritable desirable traits. These are qualities that individuals in the public eye at the time considered "unfit". They incorporate the “unfit” to be alcoholics, being a criminal or prostitutes, those with a mental impairment, feeble minded and those with physical impairments. To battle this, individuals accepted that the choice to procreate ought to be controlled by more "fit" human.

The type of ideology formed and carried out through Darwinism determines what people have access to and what injustices become justified. We begin to view people fitting the mold of the “other” as non-deserving of life and justify their maltreatment.

The author, Gregory Claeys’s central argument of this article is that the survival of the fittest was a natural concept and then was altered into a social concept.

I feel that Kozol’s relationship with the people he showcased in his essay is one that showcases his willingness to expose the inequality he sees in our schooling system. This relationship works to his advantage as he constructs his argument because it allows him to take what he has seen and what he has learned from these people and turn it into something that catches your attention and makes you see the unfairness and the opportunities these kids have missed simply because of their color and their lack of resources. Kolov points out on page 350 and 351 that the kids themselves are aware that they “feel like they’re hidden,” and “wouldn’t be missed if they disappeared.” These kids feel this way because of what they see presented to them when

Charles Darwin, an English naturalist, created the theory of evolution. Known as Darwinism, this theory basically states that all species arise and develop through the natural selection, increasing individual’s ability to compete and survive. This paper will outline how Darwinism was used to classify some as inferior, how Social Darwinism and Eugenics shaped the immigrant experience in America, and why fundamentalist Christians opposed Darwinism. Survival of the fittest is one way to define Darwinism. This attitude could make some individuals feel inferior and unsubstantial compared to others who were stronger, smarter, more attractive, and able to respond to change.

In his article defending procreative beneficence, Julian Savulescu argues that “couples…should select the child, of the possible children they could have, who is expected to have the best life, or at least as good a life as the others, based on the relevant, available information” (2001, 413). In this article, I argue that Savulescu’s conclusion introduces complications which challenge its practical application. These complications can be outlined as follows: a) what is best, in terms of non-disease character traits, is subject to change and irrationality; and b) unfettered selection by reproducers may have profound and unknown impacts on human populations. Accordingly, private, unrestrained genetic selection must be banned in the United States, with research permitted under careful oversight.

An oxymoron appeared to exist between Darwin’s theory of natural selection (1859) and the definition of altruism (West et al., 2006). Hamilton’s theory of inclusive fitness (1964) appeared to mediate this problem. However, the theory does not explain altruistic acts towards non-kin in line with natural selection. Reciprocal altruism (Trivers, 1971), indirect altruism (Alexander, 1987) and strong reciprocity (Gintis, 2000) have been proposed to resolve this conflict. It is of note that behaviour in all theories has been noted in animals, but will not be discussed further. Instead, the essay will focus on which theories are most relevant when understanding human sociality, with the author explaining why no sole theory is seen to describe the phenomenon. All theories will be discussed in relation to evolutionary stable strategies (ESS), which refers to plans that when adopted by a majority of members in a population that restrict any other action existing, which could yield higher reproductive success (Smith & Price, 1973).

This is arguably the best chapter title of the book, and it refers to the concept of reciprocal altruism. In all previous chapters, Dawkins discusses tparental and sexual relationships and aggressive interactions between same-species individuals. There are however, there are more kinds of altruistic relationships outside of these categories. Dawkins describes two theories on reciprocal altruism: the cave theory (pronouned kay-vee, Latin for “beware”) and the never break ranks theory. In the cave theory, a member of a flock that sees a predator before others in the flock notice, will warn the others through some kind of signal. The never break ranks theory suits species of birds that flee all together when a predator approaches. One individual

Edgar Rice Burroughs’ fictional story “Tarzan of The Apes” appears merely an action story that explores gender roles, people in the upper-middle class, and the human instincts versus sophistication debate, but the focal point of Burroughs’ story features a bizarre story that reveals inherent problems with the concept of Darwinism and perceived human inequality. Darwinism is the theory that some humans are less evolved than other humans are. By offering an implied depiction of Jane and her father as wealthy, civilized individuals, and depicting Tarzan as an uncultured animal, Burroughs’ challenges his readers to contemplate their own views on human equality. Every reader’s opinion of this story, of course, stems from his or her personal stance on human impartiality and Darwinism. In my opinion, certain aspects of the human race will never change, and that is why many individuals consider the development of another human being before decided whether to treat them equally.