Natural Vs. Made-Made Competition

With the recent publication of The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins, there has been a lot of debate about the impact the acceptance of Evolution would have on society and human relations. I want to address the common assertion among theists that the world-wide adoption of evolution would lead to an "every man, woman and child for himself" mentality.

Just because survival of the fittest is played out in the animal kingdom, doesn't mean humans have to consciously and intentionally apply it to our social existence. One is assuming a great too many things when one implies that humans will turn into brutes by believing in evolution...as if half of them weren't behaving that way now while believing in religion.

Yes, to a certain degree, humans are at the mercy of Nature, but that doesn't mean we have to recreate Natures' harshness and threats in ourselves. There is a difference between Natural threats to Human and individual survival and Man-Made ones. An animal doesn't know the peril involved in participating in the "game" known as survival of the fittest...an animal doesn't know it could die..a human does...and it is to our benefit and survival to not engage in any competition at all. Here's a simple rule for understanding this:

Competition, in any form, is a danger to the survival of the competitors.

It's one thing for Humans to compete against diseases and bacteria and natural disasters, aggressive animals all sorts of natural-based threats...we can't control those enemies because they can't or won't engage in reason or rational discussion...but it's quite another thing for Humans, who are all capable of seeing the perils of competition in Nature, to impose Man-Made competition on themselves.

In other words, Humans have enough hardship to deal with from the Natural world...it is neither a survival benefit or a proper extension of Darwin and Wallace's theories to intentionally impose competition on ourselves.

Notice that, in order for many species of animals to survive today, it requires a non-competitive approach by humans...one side in a very ancient conflict abstaining from and controlling it's old aggressions.

Humans were able to rise to dominance because they were able to tame their instinct for competitiveness amongst themselves to a greater degree than the lower animals ...not because they were so good at crushing other species...though they no doubt were. The lower animals never mastered their inner-species competitiveness and they are therefore still not as successful, species-wise, as humans, still lower down on the evolutionary scale, and still more competitive without and within their own species.

The fact is, it is the absence of competition and socially aggressive behavior that advances the survival of both the species and the individual. The adoption of evolutionary theory does not imply the introduction of brutality...it implies the opposite since Human evolution was aided by the control and elimination of such behavior..not it's predominance.