If the main purpose of life is ultimately procreation, then are the fittest in natural selection "fit", in the truest sense of the word?
In other words, many uneducated, unintelligent people spread their genes. Studies show that less educated people have, on average, more children.
If this is the case, then do we need to rework our definition of "fit" to mean something other than the smartest & healthiest? I know it is impossible to generalize, as many brilliant people also have tons of kids, but having lots of kids doesn’t necessarily correlate with intelligence, physical strength, etc.
Less educated people tend to have more children because of the lack of knowledge of birth control methods and the concept of family planning.
The prerequisites of survival and prosperity in urban life is extended to material wealth and family ties. If the parents are affluent, their offspring will naturally have more options at their disposition: a more conducive environment to grow up in, and more chances at a quality education which puts them ahead of the competition.
Hereby we can see that the children of accomplished parents will have better chances of survival and achieving success.
The weaker fox that manages to sneak in on the lone female while his two rivals are battling away can also have a chance at spreading his genes.
In a social environment, it is not always the most capable or talented that can get to the top rungs in the social ladder. Those with enough wit, enough resilience and enough ambition stand an equal chance of doing so.
In this sense, ‘fittest’ does not necessarily refer to mere physical attributes, but those who possess the ideal conditions.
February 12th, 2010 at 8:53 am
Haha watch Autocracy. Yeah man I think that that system no longer applies to modern human evolution; since are brains stop evolving to that type of evolutionary pattern some 50,000 years ago. So the world will probably just unconsciously become smarter, probably due to memetics.
References :
February 12th, 2010 at 9:42 am
Modern societies no longer reflect the "survival of the fittest" philosophy because there’s relatively easy access to the necessities of life. Most brilliant and financially successful people, for instance, couldn’t survive in the wilderness for any length of time because they’re not physically able to fend for themselves the way people had to do centuries ago. Yet a hillbilly with an IQ of 70 probably could fend for himself and his family, whereas he’d be lost functioning in an urban environment. But since we now have access to food, shelter and the other necessities without having to be either intelligent or physically strong, everybody survives. And those who are at risk of not surviving through their own minimal efforts — the people who would have died centuries ago — are carried by the rest of us.
References :
February 12th, 2010 at 9:49 am
life is not survival of the fittest,
simply put, if you survive you are given the chance to reproduce. whether or not a person is Intelligent or not, healthy or not has nothing to do with being fit in natural selection. it’s whether or not a person takes the chance to reproduce that the next generation is determined
References :
February 12th, 2010 at 10:16 am
"Fit" according to nature is different to "fit" according to human society.
References :
February 12th, 2010 at 11:02 am
Less educated people tend to have more children because of the lack of knowledge of birth control methods and the concept of family planning.
The prerequisites of survival and prosperity in urban life is extended to material wealth and family ties. If the parents are affluent, their offspring will naturally have more options at their disposition: a more conducive environment to grow up in, and more chances at a quality education which puts them ahead of the competition.
Hereby we can see that the children of accomplished parents will have better chances of survival and achieving success.
The weaker fox that manages to sneak in on the lone female while his two rivals are battling away can also have a chance at spreading his genes.
In a social environment, it is not always the most capable or talented that can get to the top rungs in the social ladder. Those with enough wit, enough resilience and enough ambition stand an equal chance of doing so.
In this sense, ‘fittest’ does not necessarily refer to mere physical attributes, but those who possess the ideal conditions.
References :