My answer to the question - III - Selection

FOREWORD
This post is a variation on Dawkins' Memes and Deleuze's War Machines.
Regarding style, this is me trying to imitate Deleuze, without success...

INTRO
We should not speak of Darwin's Evolution.
We should speak of Darwin's Selection.
Calling Evolution to the result of Natural Selection is a BIG mistake.

DEVELOPMENT
The definition of "what is Evolution?" is a moral problem.
Selection depends on what Criteria you use to make the Selection.
In nature, survival of the fittest.
In thought, survival of the fittest.

RESULTS
IDEAS ARE JUST LIKE US: survivors.
IDEAS ARE JUST LIKE US: children of survivors (their parents are older ideas).
Rethink Common Sense based on this...
In nature, Common Sense is a survival kit.
In thought, Common Sense is a group of survivors.

DISCUSSION
Do you want to survive? No!
Why?
In nature, why would I base my entire thinking machine in a survival kit?
In thought, why would I care about a group of survivors? Why would I make the BIG mistake of calling Evolution to the Selection of the fittest?

CONCLUSIONS
We should not think to survive, we should think to <insert_a_verb_here>.
We should diversify the objective of our "thinking machine".