2007-07-30 05:05:45 · 26 answers · asked by *sue* 4 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Often those two are confused for the same thing!
But in truth, its survival of the smartest bcoz no matter how fit or strong u are,if u don't know how to utilise that strength in your favour then your as good as dead in the wilderness or NEwhere alone!
If you want an example of what i'm trying to say then watch a couple of those reality shows like survivor and see how even though those guys who go 2 the gym everyday are fit, they often rely on the person who's got survival skills and smarts and it is this person who is voted out least frequently bcoz they are so needed by the others!!
So i think it should be survival of the smartest, but that's just my opinion!:-)
2007-07-30 05:31:09 · answer #1 · answered by aisha felynfils 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The idea of fittest is adaptable to each situation. It doesn't mean the strongest. The fittest means most able to deal with what comes up. And the way to survive isn't always being smartest.
2007-07-30 12:13:35 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sometimes survival of the fittest isn't referring to physical abilities, but the ability to solve problems. In that case, survival of the fittest is survival of the smartest.
2007-07-30 12:20:42 · answer #3 · answered by Candidus 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its just survival of the fittest, and that's questionable as it is. Sometimes a species dies out due to natural disaster, and not because it wasn't "fit to". Also, the smartest are not necessarily the ones to pass genetics on, it can help in situations but most of the time the dumb breeder is more successful than the smart one. The best way to describe it is its survival of the most successful, and there are many ways to be successful.
For example, big cats go much farther back in the time line than dogs, and are fine tuned hunting machines in their environment. However, wild dogs, who are not as smart, efficient, or specialized, will out live cats because they can handle the changes in the environment.
2007-07-30 12:16:27 · answer #4 · answered by Todd 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Possibly survival of the most social. Confucius say. How about the most adaptable. That's a little different from what we popularly think of as thinking, which it is now being shown we are not doing since it doesn't use the whole brain in actual practice. Imagination does a better job in adaptation as does intuition and understanding of our real motor, the emotions. I like the idea of survival of the more mature, especially emotionally. Some people with disabilities actually outlive the healthy. Inner peace also aid longevity.
2007-07-30 12:24:07 · answer #5 · answered by hb12 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Fittest does not mean smart... although being "smarter" can make one better fit for survival it is not a precondition to better survival even in humanity! As odd as it may seem there is actually no evidence that smarter makes people significantly wealthier in an economic sense!!! There are just as many new rich dumb people as smart... Sometimes being deceitful, dishonest, and ruthless is a better tool than being smarter than the next guy!
2007-07-30 12:14:39 · answer #6 · answered by ikiraf 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Smartest is a subset of fittest. Fittest, in this context, refers to those best suited to improve the species. That may include physical fitness and intelligence as well as other attributes.
2007-07-30 12:10:59 · answer #7 · answered by lunatic 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
neither. Its survival of the luckiest. If a meteor came down and blew up all the elephants (I dont like elephants) does that mean they werent the fittest? It only means they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. It doesnt matter how smart or strong they were, they were all going to blown up anyways.
2007-07-30 13:03:18 · answer #8 · answered by i <3 llamas 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Survival of the fittest. Fit in wisdom, body, and spirit. I know many smart people, yet not one of them could construct a water still in the desert or know how to build traps for hunting.
2007-07-30 12:15:45 · answer #9 · answered by tercentenary98 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Physical ability without the wisdom to use it is animalistic. Mental ability without the physical ability to use it is a handicap.
Phil Pfister, the worlds strongest man, is a firefighter. Anyone who thinks that being a firefighter is not mental has not tried the task. Dr. Stephen Hawking may be completely without physical ability, but with help from technology and his wife/nurse, manages to be in the forefront of his field.
One compliments the other, being fit and smart at the same time is most desirable. Since it is not the norm, the answer is:
Depends on the situation!
2007-07-30 12:24:09 · answer #10 · answered by Intruder5 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋