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?
I like that statement, Strop; speaks to the conflict between animalistic, instinctive necessity and the more recent developments in social hierarchy.
So, what really bites about this is that it can change at the drop of a hat; should a massive earth-shattering development arrive (like another ice age), would we simply revert back to our early human counterparts, or would we try to maintain as best we could the complex social and global interactions we so dearly claim as unique to our species? I don't know if we could.
Our social evolution is subject to change, but unlike our biological evolution, it is also very VERY fragile (it's man made, so no surprise there). Humans would still essentially be "human" even if our social construct was torn asunder, right?
Survival of the fittest doesn't necessarily mean the most strong, the most deadly, the most intelligent. It means purely which species are the most successful at breeding, and living long enough to breed & pass on their genetics. That, I think is how we measure the success of an organism if we are talking Darwinism & survival of the fittest. While people don't think very much of them on the whole as a 'success story' as an organism because they are weaker & easily killed (at least by humans) insects do very well, bacteria & virii are also very successful.
As for how it's changed?
Well, religious extremists use the phrase in the sense where there is no social cooperation involved to try and discredit Darwin's other theories.
Racists use the phrase to try and justify their violence & quest for ethnic superiority.
Generally I'd say it has a rather negative connotation with the ignorant masses.
1. it means that those who are strong and determined are guaranteed survival. 2. it hasn't really changed. its essentially a true metaphor. 3. it means that weak, iggnorant, and people who think they have it all will die (in essence.)
So, what really bites about this is that it can change at the drop of a hat; should a massive earth-shattering development arrive (like another ice age), would we simply revert back to our early human counterparts, or would we try to maintain as best we could the complex social and global interactions we so dearly claim as unique to our species?
If you mean technologically, then yes, but if you mean that we would change back to how early humans were, than that's just silly. In the random process of Evolution, we only go forward. In ways though, we could theoretically turn back to our early selves, given enough time, and if the conditions were correct.
So, what really bites about this is that it can change at the drop of a hat; should a massive earth-shattering development arrive (like another ice age), would we simply revert back to our early human counterparts, or would we try to maintain as best we could the complex social and global interactions we so dearly claim as unique to our species?
It does not change. Manipulating your environment to survive is completely natural, and so the ability of humans to adapt to these environmental changes would not be cheating evolution in any way, shape or form.
