Darwinian or Not

Everywhere I turn in my readings, it seems, I'm confronted with the
notion of "survival of the fittest." I have read of military bases
and state hospitals that can no longer cut it; how, then, to
strategically close the right ones without the process turning into a
shouting match between communities to see who can howl the loudest
about not wanting to lose their jobs? I have read of very large
businesses propped up by the federal government in the name of
"national commerce," and of relatively small businesses propped up by
state and local government in the name of "economic development"; and
I wonder how much of this is a net gain for society and how much of
this is just political deal-making and grand-standing. I have read of
the extremely high costs borne by us taxpayers to preserve the tiniest
of endangered species, wondering if we should just allow natural
selection to run its course or if we must halt the precipitous slide
in biodiversity at all costs.

Darwin believed that natural selection led to stronger and more
durable species, even if it meant a few, weaker variants had to die
out. Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter believed in the power of
"creative destruction," that wonderful entrepreneurial process by
which older, dying industries are replaced by newer, nimbler ones.
Pessimistic economist Thomas Malthus thought over-population was the
number one danger facing humanity, to the point that he was nervous
about things like cures for deadly diseases and advances in medical
procedures, because the gain in life and longevity just aggravated our
problem of overcrowding. All of them believed in some form of letting
some things die out rather than letting them hang on.

The notion of "survival of the fittest" has been argued for many
centuries. It is a deeply political, religious, philosophical,
scientific, and economic debate. As an urban Christian, it is a
debate that flavors my thoughts on how to work towards a more just
society, which economic development strategies will be best for
America's cities, and what should be done about New Orleans, among
other topics. Honestly, I am torn. I see the merit, both in theory
and in reality, of both sides. Ultimately, I want to be true to my
faith, righteous in my thinking, and effective in my work. What side
of this debate, then, should I be on?