Is it hypocrisy to subscribe to the survival of the fittest theory?

Question

when the human race is patently weighting the odds?

Answer 1

Why would it be? Natural Selection (survival of the fittest) has been happening for eons. We have only in recent history been having a large effect on it.
Long Live Evolution. { get it? :) }

Answer 2

The human species (not race) may be weighting the odds, but only to it's own detriment. Look at how the over use of antibiotics is producing lots of new bacteria that are immune to all antibiotics now on the shelf. Those bacteria are the "fittest survivors".

Answer 3

This question is an example of what's known as the "naturalistic fallacy" - confusion of "what is" with "what ought to be".

The fact that natural selection happens - in that those creatures that are best adapted to their environment will tend to leave the most descendants - doesn't have any implication for how we as humans should behave.

We should come to our own moral conclusions about how we treat other people and the environment, rather than attempt to be guided by some mistaken idea of what's "natural".

Answer 4

" Survival of the fittest " is a term that was foisted on Darwin by Herbert Spencer and has quite been superseded by " reproductive success ", or " inclusive fitness. " You do not subscribe to a theory, as it is an explanation of phenomenon. To do so would be committing the " naturalistic fallacy ", where one derives, " ought ", from " is. "

Answer 5

Whether evolution happened, and whether the National Health Service should try and bring it to a halt, are two different questions. The answer to both questions can be yes, without any hypocrisy creeping in.