| Egann said: Yeah, but they have opposite mindsets behind them. In Darwinism the idea is that the best outperform the worst, that best and worst can change over time, and that the goal is to become better. In an empire it is assumed we already know who is best and who is worst, and the only goal is for the worst to serve the best. They tend to arise in similar circumstances, but that's not the same as being related. |
I wouldn't call those opposites. They're variations on the idea that the best should and will rise to the top. The truly opposite mindset is found on the left side of the triangle, where inequality is treated as a cause of grave concern rather than being accepted as natural and unavoidable.
Since it's practically a given that an emperor will be contantly challenged, frequently in the form of civil war, the idea is that the emperor won't simply be assumed to be the best: he either will be, or he won't be emperor for long. Whereas Darwinism also comes with its fair share of assumptions about who is the best and worst, as evidenced by its preoccupation with eugenics. The chief difference between the two is that Darwinism is more individualistic.
