Do we risk of reversing the evolutionary principle "survival of the fittest" which shaped mankind up to now?

Question

Cruel as it may sound, Humanity might be facing a problem soon enough.
Natural causes, conflicts and diseases have shaped the Humanity for millennia.
Only the fittest survived and the population was kept from reaching planetary unsustainable figures... I.e. maybe until World War Two.
Are Technology and Medicine changing all that?
Is the Earth becoming overcrowded?
Shall we start taking measures before our life on Earth becomes unsustainable?
Shall the Humanity find new places in order to continue growing? Will we be ready and willing to colonize Space before is too late?
A few generations from now they might be forced to face such problems seriously. Ethic principles might not be applicable anymore in such circumstances. Only pragmatic solutions.
Should the problem not be addressed on time, the "fittest survivors" will be just a small minority of very lucky or very influent individuals.
Quite happy if somebody finds a solution or proves me wrong!
Paul

Answer 1

"Survival of the fittest" is a misconception. The phrase was coined by Spencer, whose ideas regarding evolution are not accepted within the scientific community. Darwin would have suggested 'Propagation of the Best Fit', if he suggested anything of the kind.

Now having said that, your question deals with the effects of our modern society on evolution. Clearly the support of our modern society has allowed many to have children, where they would not have been able even to feed themselves, in previous centuries.

Any species will 'drift' to the 'best fit' with its environment. Social programs that enhance the security of our living environment serve to 'soften' the species, in some ways. However this has both a positive and a negative effect.

If our environment were to shift very rapidly, such as some disaster which took away everything from supermarkets to credit cards, then surely there would be mass extinction. How many today could actually feed yourself without a supermarket?

On the other hand, our cooperative society has allow the species great technological advances, which would not have otherwise been possible. That is to say, when everyone has to spend their whole life just growing enough food to eat, then there isn't much time left over for putting a man on the moon.

To address your question directly, the answer is No. Man does not need to take any action. Our modern society has not create a threat to the survival of the species. Our cooperative efforts enhance our survial. Man will continue to evolve to best fit his environment.

Answer 2

I wouldn't worry about overpopulation. It will take care of itself. Most developed countries today have an unsustainable birth rate and must import people in order to avoid decline.

Will we devolve? Maybe. While unfit people did not live to have kids in the past, medicine will help these people survive. I don't see how we can avoid this problem for now. Letting people die because we thought they were unfit would not be ethical. However, we may be able in the future through gene manipulation or other means to either screen eggs and sperm or repair unhealthy fetuses.

Answer 3

I think that things like the influenza pandemic that is expected will be the tipping point. I think that the real survivors ironically will be lower class caucasians and Blacks, Asians and Latinos. These groups seem to be the most exposed to the flu virus that hits every year without necessarily being able to get antibiotics and vaccinations that I think their bodies will handle the flu pandemic best when it hits. I think wealthier upperclass business owners will be hit the hardest because they are more use to having everything done for them.

Answer 4

suvival of the fittest will always be here its just that the rules have changed in the past 1000 years