'Survival of the fittest"
Offline I'm sure everyone here has heard the phrase "Survival of the Fittest" used by creationists who want to villanize evolution, but when you really think about that statement it becomes a moral victory for the Rational. One must ask 'If it's survival of the fittest, just what is the most fit'? Should we play the same anicent game of 'who has the sharpest claws?' Or should we errect a system that protects from thoes claws?. Perhaps the fittest one could be is the mot cooperative, the most alturistic, the most concerned about the welfare of ones enviroment (including the other animals... and yes humans are included in the term 'animals'... that surround us)
There is a moral lesson to be gatherd from evolution. Evolution does not focus on the individual, it works on selective pressures and statisics within a species total genetic pool. In short, evolution cares little for any single organisim. Think of all the organsisms that have been fodder for the process of evolution, and think of yourself amoungst that 99% that have died since abiogenisis. Thinking about the vast species that have died so that we may be here, I can't but think of it as a powerful call to action. When you think of the fittest as being the strongest, or the most cunning, then your position is secure untill someone stronger or smater comes along to dominate or fool you. Trying to use power as a means of 'fitness' will betray you in the end and your envrioment will either betray you or attract the like minded. As a contrast, if the most fit is being the most kind, who would be afraid of being out-gifted?
To go beyond your limits you must first find them.
- Login to post comments
"Evolution is smarter than you" (I don't remember who said it). If the stronger or more cunning get to have more children then kind people, they win at the evolution game. Unless thre is a way to make kindness be an advantage in having more children that survive then it will not be a wining factor in evolution terms.
I think humans have erected a system (the legal / government system) where cooperation is a bigger advantage than aggresion. The fact that we have a police force shows that we have chosen to restrict the use of might / violence from most individuals. But from an evolutionary point of view the behaviour that gets more successful offspring is always what matters. So kindness will only get you so far. Then fights for power and access to females will always be the dominant factor for evolution.
Do you think there is a, socially acceptable, way of overcoming this?
A mystic is someone who wants to understand the universe, but is too lazy to study physics.
Well if we want to talk in the matter of whole species then one could say that most or all incects are evolutionarily superior to humans. However this is to the woe of the individual insect.
I can't say if there is a way of overcoming the cutthroat process of 'survival of the fittest', other than emphsising that it does not benifit the individual to be in a continual power struggle.
I think one of the most important first steps is to rid ourselves of religion, superstition, and totalitarianism. We forget our lives are limited and we kill our individuality by being 'one with god'. It blinds us to the obvious problem of defining the 'fittest' as the most powerful. The struggle of power means the loss of life and/or freedom, that people will loose their lives and forever cease to exist. It is really fit to create an envriroment where life is not valued? Maybe in a reality where this life is only stage one perhaps, but not this one.
To go beyond your limits you must first find them.
I like your first step, but I think it misses the mark. Even without religion, superstition, and totalitarianism there will still be a fight for limited resources. And the world gives an advantage to the winner of this fight.
On a practical level I hope too, than without hope of an afterlife people will be less prone to violence. But it's likely that this hope is not justified as it's the direct fight for resources which yields most bloodshed.
The problem at hand is a very difficult one, as you want to change not just the social system (a hard problem prone to many failings) but the moral compass of people (an almost impossible task) and even the biological instincts hammered in by evolution (ridiculously hard problem to solve).
In the end, I think the final battle we will face is with our own genes which we are likely to lose, unless science and technology comes up with another miracle.
Cheers,
Richard
P.S. A good essay about human morality is: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt07/haidt07_index.html
A mystic is someone who wants to understand the universe, but is too lazy to study physics.
I can only agree with you, JanCham. Well put. I almost get angry everytime a theist says something like "evolution means survival of the fittest, so if it was true, we'd all be killing each other." that's one of the cruedest simplifications of a scientific topic that float around. I think you put it quite straight and right. 'fit' in an evolutionary sense means 'best adopted to environmental pressures'. social beings like us gain their evolutional 'fitness' from working together. This makes moral rules of thumb like 'don't kill each other' and 'don't steal' an evolutional necessity. we don't need a celestial lawgiver for this.
"And the only people I fear are those who never have doubts."
Billy Joel, 1993
And God spoke: You can stand under my umberella -ella -ella -eh -eh -eh ...