Are we in a Consumerist Neo-Darwinian epoch - survival of the fattest?

Answer 1

Spencerian/Darwinian, bah! Semantics! We're dealing with ideals here and 'natural selection' is pretty much the same thing as 'survival of the fittest'. Maybe they apply on different scales, but they're very similar ideas. Anyways, I think we're in an age of decline - not survival! Survival of the least-capable-of-natural-adaptation (which would perhaps fit in with the whole fattest/addicted to convenience thing), maybe? My answer - I don't think our survival has to do with our consumption, but with our intellect. Adaptive social/intellectual pioneers are the most eligible/fittest bachelorettes and bachelors of our day.

Answer 2

"Survival of the Fittest" is not a Darwinian concept, it's Spencerian.

I don't know about the fat part, but I'd agree with the general "he who consumes the most wins" philosophy. It seems that those top consumers generally have more money than others and are more capable of displaying it. In the U.S. at least, having money definately correlates to reproductive success. However, since the lack of money does not usually prevent anyone from reproducing (poor people tend to have more children in fact), there is really no evolutionary trend towards increased consumption. If, however, there was a sudden lack of fertile females or males available for reproduction I think those top consumers would have first dibs.

Answer 3

You misconstrue neo- Darwinian theory to make an ideological point.

Answer 4

Dying of a heart attack or diabetes usually happens after you've reproduced so it has no bearing on subsequent generations.

Answer 5

How can it be 'survival of the fattest',when they pop their clogs sooner than the rest of us?

Answer 6

Yes, we are. Although we're moving to 'survival of the most expensive gym membership and biggest telly' kind of world.

Answer 7

ummm...Dooooonuts.