1. What does 'survival of the fittest' mean? 2. How has this definition changed over the ages? What does it involve now? 3. What implications does this notion have?
But look at the curret trends of people who are having the most children. A good part of those people do not have very desirable traits and the such.
This appears true...
And I don't think child birthing would have to do with survival of the fittest either.
But let's run with this for a moment, because from what Devoidless said in the first quote, there is this implicit consensus that numbers are a big factor in survival of the fittest, insofar as we can apply this term in a human context (this being debatable).
But numbers don't have to count for very much. I'm sure the notion of "ower" has something to do with this- since we appear to have "changed the directions of our evolution", so to speak, we already agree that there are indeed different criteria that more directly affect one's survivability and affects prevalent traits in different ways, yeah?
Evolution does not have to be a term strictly applied to physical or genetic characteristics alone. Of course, every usage of the term evolution is controversial, anyway.
It think the slow pace of evolution is our (and the remaining animal's) problem. If survival of the fittest was a concept applicable to our current situation (which I think, only in limited circumstances, it still is) then like some one pointed out, extinction of endangered species would be allowed to continue unfettered. But the fact is, our influence on the earth is so significant and all-encompassing, and more importantly, so accelerated, that the process of weeding out the weak and allowing for evolutionary progress is thrown to the wayside. Animal survival now seems less dependent on fitness and more on fortune and location (too close to the edge of the forest/plains? tough luck).
The only groups that are flourishing in this accelerated process are the bacteria that adapt to our drugs, and the plants we engineer to grow in any condition. Heck, even humans are living past congenital defects that in the past meant certain death before reproductive viability. So, what does that mean for our human and animal futures? Well, I'm no soothsayer.
And to respond to the most recent posts (which I missed before), "most desirable traits" is a relative term, even in humans. Is beauty a desirable trait? well, yes, if you are talking about likelihood of humans wanting to mate with you; but these people seem, like you said Devoidless, to have less children. Doesn't that, therefore, make beauty an undesirable trait, because it leads to low reproductive rates? The "less desirable" people who have more kids, will pass on their genetic trademark (along with a different set of environmental cues) to a larger number... So which one REALLY is fitter?
Perhaps the docile, dull, blunt-minded individuals are evolutionarily better suited for the planet, for whatever reason; it sure would explain why they have so many kids...
We are not de-evolving. Are you telling me we are going to turn back into apes? What's happenening is that we are evoloving for the worse, and humans may view that is de-evolving, but it is not. It is impossible to de-evolve.
When an animal evolves... it changes to better suite its lifestyle, enviorment, and survival capabilities. De-Evolving isn't neccesarily turning back into an ape... Its saying were becoming selfish ingrate morons. Therefor, we are in a sence de-evolving.
Also, 100 years ago "Evolving" for us ppl didn't exist. Now it does. You may hear scientists saying it is possible to de-evolve. :P
In a way, we are de-evolving; not turning into apes but in a sense yes. The Neanderthal man (whom some people will claim is one of stages of evolutionary change we went through) had an actually stronger physical build, and a much larger mind capacity, then an average human today.
They didn't really have a larger mind capacity. Some say they were idiots. Its known for their physical build, but not their capacity. I don't really think they were all that different from us, either. A side i just looked at said "Neanderthals were a DIFFERENT type of species along with us that evolved from Homo Erectus" [DUN DUN DUN!!!] Also, I do not beleive they are true. They had a larger cranial capacity.. some animals these days have larger cranial capacitys. Some just have big heads and not a big enough brain to fill, so from where is it that they were too smart to survive? I don't think that they evolved down to us, I don't personally believed they were much like us. Jus probably another ape.. Anyway, In survival of the fittest, "Fit" seems to have many terms.
For us, Smartness. For the lion, who's bigger and stronger. (Many others) So therefor, the same word can be applied as SoTF, but, then again, it doesn't mean the same thing.
Eh, it's not but a saying. Not that big of a deal really, it's simply strung off of the main focus of life which we've all come to adapt to. Humans are the top of the food chain because we are smarter. Bears are stronger than people so a bear could overcome a person easily. Unless the person used their smarts to overcome it. If we didn't have the ability to reason, we'd be pretty low on the food chain. Well, I'd go further into the topic, but I'm tired of typing.
Sting, when you said that the Neanderthals had a greater mind capacity, you were both wrong and right. Brain capacity means how much the brain can handle, not how big it is. Though it is true that the Neanderthals had a greater cranial volume (about 1600cc or so)than ours(about 1500cc) it dosen't mean that we are a step down from Neanderthals, I mean we came out on top, right. Also our ancestors had a greater ability to adapt than the Neanderthals, which means that radical changes wont affect us as severely as it would to them; and our ancestors were also more imaginative than the Neanderthals were, the only thing they seem to have been able to imagine was the afterlife; we could imagine our own worlds and many sources suggest that we were the first species of human to dream, and we interpreted those thoughts as art and eventually developed into the civilization we are now. So the bottom line is, capacity is different from volume and we are not really devolving
I would also like to point out that it is impossible to TRULY [physically] devolve, even if we DO turn back in to apes (which I think is stupid since we already are), it dosent mean that all of our positive traits disappeared, We just trade one thing for another; like how the Penguin traded in flying for swimming. That is also considered evolving; so if we trade our intelligence for strength, then that is evolving in a sense that we improved a trait in exchange for another that we need more, our entire genus did this before; and it could take more unexpected, and possibly accidental, turns later on. As for the "selfish ingrate morons" thing, well I guess, in a way, it could be de-evolution, but not in the same sense of physical devolution, but a form of cultural de-evolution (but I don't exactly think we are devolving in that sense much either).
Okay, while we're focusing on this, I think I'll offer an alternative phrasing.
First, the point that you can't "devolve" in this sense is well said. So...when we say that we are being selfish ingrate morons and "what we're becoming is bad for us", so to speak, you could say that "the criterion that most determine overall survivability that have developed in the scope of human society may be non-compatible with the criterion for biological survivability".
I've been toying around with this phrase for a few years myself, which is why I linked back to the concept of Neo-Malthusianism despite not actually subscribing to it. First and foremost though, we are talking about process of change. Whether this is good or bad goes under the domain of judgement after the fact.
