Survival of the fittest? That theory seems to leave out one important factor?

Question

How about the very real love and compassion humans and even animals have for the less fortunate among us?
Really, infants could not survive if it were truly 'survival of the fittest'.
Neither could the sick or physically challenged. Yet these do survive and always have.
Humans have always taken care of the less fortunate in their midst.
So Survival of the Fittest is not a hard and fast rule that has caused mankind to evolve into what we are today.

How many agree/disagree? Why/why not?

Benjamin: Despite your arrogant self-righteousness I watched the entire video. Very interesting too. The video leaves me with even more questions. Maybe I'll post some of them.

BeerDrinkingLemur: good video.

Answer 1

Every time I show compassion for someone who's sick and physically challenged, my girlfriend tells me I'm really sexy.

I'm thinking that compassion may, in fact, have a favorable reproductive value.

Thanks for asking.

Answer 2

Disagree.

'Fittest' does not means 'Strongest' or 'Cruelest'.

Compassion and Love allow humans to act as a collective, with devastating effect on anything that gets in our way.

Our infants grow up to be powerful, because our love an compassion insures it. They in turn learn to act for the common good and so become the 'fittest'

The physically challenged may not help our society, but compassion does. In the good times that compassion brings, our resources spill over onto the 'less fortunate'.

The Religious dislike Evolution because it rejects Creationism. The Socialist embrace Evolution only because they sense it conflicts with Religion, which they hate.

But neither group understands the power of Evolutions simple insight:
"Traits or Ideas that enhance survival, are passed on"

The 'Fittest' are whoever survives.
Compassion is here because it has made us the fittest.

Answer 3

"Really, infants could not survive if it were truly 'survival of the fittest'."
Thats what parents are for

"Humans have always taken care of the less fortunate in their midst."
In the past, with many cultures, the sick were often left to die and those different like the deformed were labeled as a witch and executed.

"Neither could the sick or physically challenged. Yet these do survive and always have."
Really? Did you even read what you just typed? The physically challenged have always survived? Do the advances in science the disabled of today have a better chance at surviving but think about it, what would happen to a person with one leg in a nomadic tribe? Your thinking on a very narrow scope

Answer 4

First of all, your interpretation of the phrase "survival of the fittest" is misinterpreted. Charles Darwin was the one who coined that phrase in Theory of Evolution. What he meant by that was the species that is most adaptable to its environment is the one that will survive. Unfortunately his concept has been misconstrued by most of society since his time. The one that is most adaptable is usually not the strongest or "fittest" but just the one that is capable of making the necessary adjustments to its environment.

Now, looking at your question from your context (using the incorrect interpretation of the phrase), I would agree with you.
Mankind does indeed tend to take care of its weaker members, so a case can be made that it is indeed compassion which has allowed us to prosper as a whole.

Lastly, you say that "even animals have compassion for the less fortunate" This is not true. Animals do not have compassion for their weaker counterparts. If anything, animals have contempt and disregard for those of themselves that are injured or sick or weak. Ever see a couple of cats together when one of them is ailing? The healthy one will continue to attack the ailing one, with the intent of either casting that one out of the group or hurting it even further

Answer 5

Okay ... this "survival of the fittest" doesn't ONLY apply to those physically fitness - especially in the case of humans, we've evolved brains which has allowed us to build tools and adapt to our environment in ways which other animals couldn't. Thus enabling us to become the dominant species on the planet (and start changing the environment itself to suit our needs)

I would strongly disagree with the assessment that the infants, the sick and the physically challenged have "ALWAYS" survived.

Millions of people have been wiped off the planet because they were unable to cope with the diseases they were ravaged by.

There has always been an "acceptable" mortality rate amongst infants... only recently have we lowered this to the point where we hardly even think about it anymore. (In the 15th - 16th centuries... babies weren't even named 'til they reached their 5th or 6th years because the mortality rates were so high... and names were often "recycled" to the next child born if the first one didn't survive)

And as far as the physically challenged... check your statistics - most people who are living with a physical handicap have a FAR lower life-expectancy than those "able-bodied" individuals.

"Survival of the Fittest" has NEVER been a rule of the evolution of mankind - but it has certainly played a factor in it. And let's face it... in a population of BILLIONS spread over hundreds of thousands of miles - the subtle changes of evolution are going to take longer to effect the species as a whole.

Answer 6

survival of the fittest doesn't mean that the meanest and toughest creature survives. It means that the creature that is most adapted to it's environment will survive better and reproduce therefor passing on it's genes and evolving. somewhere along the way compassion helped us survive. Infants were protected by there parents, and the sick and physically challenged r that way because of a gene defect or mutation. I'm a christian and don't believe this evolution stuff but it does make sense though.

Answer 7

I would argue that, given your parameters, it is still "survival of the fittest". Assuming the baby is otherwise born healthy, its chances are best if it has responsible, caring parents. By this line of logic (and only by this line of logic), children with good, responsible parents have better chances of success, at least in terms of survival. While the many complexities of human behavior, psyche, and society all influence these things, too, as well as the child as it grows, I don't think most people would disagree with me saying that in a way, it's still "survival of the fittest"... but that survival depends on the "fittest" parents.

Humans are hardly the only creatures to give birth to helpless young; and in the animal kingdom, good parents are usually the reason the young survive.

Answer 8

That's not exactly what "survival of the fittest" means. It's not like a Battle Royal and the strongest survives... It means that the "fittest" type of any species is going to survive over the long run, and have the highest likelihood to reproduce and pass on its characteristics to the next generation of its species. Over time then the weaker characteristics get bred out, and the ones that help the species continue.

Of course infants will "survive" -- if not the species would have trouble continuing..... Part of any mother's survival instinct is thus to protect her young.

Answer 9

"survival of the fittest" does not apply to mankind as it is today. It does not work in modern times now that humans have evolved complex emotions and technology.

But, in the past when we were still evolving, then "survival of the fittest" determined who died and who lived to pass on their genes.

Even though animals do feel compassion and attached to the others in their 'group', when that animal is dying, there is nothing that they can do, and the animal will just have to die eventually. Therefore is the 'fit' that will survive to pass on their genes.

Today, we have modern technology to save people from death and disease, and that is why 'survival of the fittest' cannnot be applied to modern human society, because we have the power to influence life and death.

Answer 10

it has and always will be survival of the fittest. but of course, through time things have changed. most animals that travel in herds do take care of infants, but only out of basic instinct. if one is mangled, it is normaly left behind, the only one there for it would perhaps be its infant. but why does it stay. out of basic instinct. it cant leave its mother. we as humans though do not act like this. although many years ago mental ilnesses were thought to of been a curse and those who had them were normaly fround upon if not killed. this even dates back to more recent times during world war 2. of course it was just the nazis own opinion of that matter, but still. "through time" we as sivilized beings who have realized that we cannot act like the animals which we know we are above and to show that, we have forever taken care of those that are less fortenet among us. the ones that cant take care of themselves, then ones that would not be able to concure the task of survival on there own.

i agree with some of what your saying and how hard it can be to understand. but i do also disagree. survival is the basic instinct of EVERYTHING. no matter what you come across, human, plant, animal, bug...they all have one thing that will never seperate them. the will and need to survive.

Answer 11

Infants survive because we strive to continue our blood lines, it doesn't really make sense to compare that to survival of the fittest. As far as taking care of the sick or physically challenged goes, for the most part that also revolves around family ties, only in very recent times has society as a whole worked to take care of them.