Survival of the fittest?

[rebelkid24]

What are your views on survival of the fittest? Do you believe it works that way? Should life work that way? I'll put my belief later on, but I want to see what you guys put first

[† L4ugh]

I believe it does. I think "fittest" involves more then just strength though. I think it's linked more to what life form is best adapted to their environment while maintaining an ability to adapt to others. I believe things like intelligence and sociability also count towards an organism being considered fit. An organism smart enough to avoid conflict or atleast smart enough to out number their enemy will usually live longer then the ones who aren't.

[CaNzCo]

I think it works, but it is also far too random. Humans make mistakes, and even if the smartest, strongest person in the world is not immune to this factor. On top of that, is it really fair to the weak to be doomed to die? Certainly a sick baby has just as much of a right to live as a healthy one... it didn't chose to be feeble. People can mention how better genes would be passed down this way, but one of the greatest attributes of people is how different we are from one another.

[Katongo]

Does it work yes definitely, it work's by Natural selection that is some individuals are capable of reproducting more offspring than others and hence there is an increase of the genes that are better adapted to that environment. Natural selection depends on reproductive succes that is survival & reproduction, a good example of this in human's is the sickle cell trait (AS) that is in a malaria environment individual's with his trait have a higher survivial rate than those without it that is people who are normal (AA). Natural selection does not depend on physical strength, in saying that physical fittest in today's world in very essential because natural selection takes millions of years but not always and a good example is Bacteria resistant to antibiotics.

Physical fittest is very important in today's world but couple with a good pair of genes because we are now capable of furthering individuals with disorders & diseases that natural selection would have natually removed

Should life work that way? let's say there was no natural selection, we would have never evolved to be the stable Human being you are today because the is no force working to keep all the gene necessary for you to cope with the environment around you and hence we wouldn't exist. So life has to work this well for evolution to occur and move forward.

[lemmingllama]

I believe it does. I think "fittest" involves more then just strength though. I think it's linked more to what life form is best adapted to their environment while maintaining an ability to adapt to others. I believe things like intelligence and sociability also count towards an organism being considered fit. An organism smart enough to avoid conflict or atleast smart enough to out number their enemy will usually live longer then the ones who aren't.

You, my good sir, have already summarized my thoughts nicely. Many see survival of the fittest as the strongest things around, but in our modern world its more about intelligence and adaptability.

[Dan Den]

I think it works, but it is also far too random. Humans make mistakes, and even if the smartest, strongest person in the world is not immune to this factor. On top of that, is it really fair to the weak to be doomed to die? Certainly a sick baby has just as much of a right to live as a healthy one... it didn't chose to be feeble. People can mention how better genes would be passed down this way, but one of the greatest attributes of people is how different we are from one another.

What you say is absolutely true but unfortunately in this world survival of the fittest has been turned into who's got the most money. You could be buff or a freaking genius but the guy who has the most dough in his pocket at the end of the day is considered the fittest.

[rebelkid24]

My thoughts on the subject are that it does happen. Only those who are the strongest(in intelligence, wealth, physical strength, whatever) always seem to come out on top. However, I do't think it should be that way. In my opinion, it is the responsibility and the duty of the stronger people to help the weaker ones. We are all humans.

[Arianwen]

My thoughts on the subject are that it does happen. Only those who are the strongest(in intelligence, wealth, physical strength, whatever) always seem to come out on top. However, I do't think it should be that way. In my opinion, it is the responsibility and the duty of the stronger people to help the weaker ones. We are all humans.

"Survival of the fittest" is really only a part of evolutionary theory, and it can be quite misleading. Charitable behaviour is also very important, and not just in humans -- birds will help their kin, for instance, and parents sacrifice themselves for children. In humans our culture generally favours charitable behaviour and we've based a whole system of morality on it, but we can be terrible hypocrites.

To me helping the weak is far more admirable than being successful. Maybe the strongest will come out on top, but 'being on top' is a really messy expression anyway. Give enough people a leg up and the top will be a lot higher and the world will be just that little bit better.

[kaoru]

What you say is absolutely true but unfortunately in this world survival of the fittest has been turned into who's got the most money. You could be buff or a freaking genius but the guy who has the most dough in his pocket at the end of the day is considered the fittest.

"Considered"; that dough in his pocket wouldn't save him, for example, in a physical match against someone trying to take it. Of course you need money to survive, but that's not all you need, and people who think otherwise are bound to have a "reality check" one of these days. I do agree with what CaNzCo said, today it's just more random and complicated, but it's a theory that is still enforced when it really matters. You do what you gotta do to survive, to win, be it on the physical or the mental.

[† L4ugh]

Charitable behaviour is also very important, and not just in humans -- birds will help their kin, for instance, and parents sacrifice themselves for children. In humans our culture generally favours charitable behaviour and we've based a whole system of morality on it, but we can be terrible hypocrites.

I think even charitable behavior is an evolved trait. When a member of the group is injured or sick it will often be left behind during the hunt for food along with the children. In this way it is able to act as a baby sister and protector of the next generation to assure they survive long enough to reproduce. Social lifeforms that look after each other are often far more successful then those that aren't, humanity is the best example of that.

I think the problem with humans today is that since the dawn of technology humanity has freed itself almost entirely from the laws of evolution. Now that those laws no longer have a hold on us, other laws of nature will take over. I think this is why their is so much greed in the world today. Nature is doing everything it can to brake apart humanities ability to resist it so it can try to bring balance back to the earth.