At what point did survival of the fittest stop applying to the human race and should we care?

Question

Given that we have modern medicine, the welfare state and social engineering - would it fair to say that Darwin's "survival of the fittest" no longer applied to the human race and should we care?

Answer 1

survival of the fittest still applies. we are lucky to be in the US, right now we are one of the strongest nations and the weaker ones get ****** over. who knows for how long.

Answer 2

H i,

The survival of the fittest still applies.

However, concerning the human race, it is very unlikely that more than 0.00005 percent of the total amount of humans to have ever inhabited the earth will ever survive, most of us will die before we reach even a hundred years of age.

Answer 3

Very interesting question Rekstout – wish I was at Level 2 to give you a star – although I don’t think your assumption that ‘survival of the fittest has stopped applying’ is necessarily correct.

Evolution (and survival of the fittest) works by a higher proportion of the fittest individuals in a population surviving to procreate and therefore create another generation. Or, to put it another way, the fittest individuals tend to have the highest number of offspring.

Now, although it’s normally the fittest of the individuals in a wild population that have the higher number of offspring, it doesn’t always HAVE to be like that. As long as a certain type of individual within the population tends to have a higher number of offspring than the norm, those individuals’ characteristics will be passed on in greater number to the succeeding generations. And the population will therefore tend to ’evolve’ those characteristics. That’s the basis of selective breeding, racehorses being one example.

Some very valid points have been made by others, that we in the wealthier countries are fortunate and the situation is very different elsewhere. However, thinking only of our situation in the more developed parts of the world, let’s now ask ourselves what types of people tend to have the most offspring surviving to breeding age, because they have the characteristics that are being selected for.

Without wishing to sound abusive or dismissive of any group of people, I’d suggest the answer to that question includes the less well educated (teenaged mums for example) and religious groups such as Mormons. Which is quite ironic, given that the Mormons are precisely the types of people who don’t even believe in evolution.

In summary, it’s my opinion that evolution does still apply to humans and, you could argue, has actually gone into reverse. And does it matter? Given the enormous time spans over which evolution works, I think not – mankind has far bigger problems to be dealing with.

Answer 4

I think it would be at the point where test tube babies made an appearance as they took the whole s*x thing out of the equation.  We don't need to find Mr(s) Right if all we want is a family.

On the other hand, it will really take billions of years to be certain as that is how long evolutionary steps take to be noticable.

We should certainly care, survival of the fittest gave us the competition we needed to keep ourselves fit.  Now we are likely to become a race of potatoes if we don't discipline ourselves.

Answer 5

Survival of the fittest is Nature and her selection process on who/what to allow to survive.

It stopped when ethics and morality stepped in.

Yes, we should care a LOT about messing with natural selection!

Answer 6

I guess it has never stopped applying. The fittest today are those with better opportunities, better education, better nutrition, better contacts. All life on this planet came from the sea and after millions of years of evolution we still adhere to the sink or swim lifestyle, figuratively of course.

Answer 7

I don't know. We are very lucky we have evolved successfully. We wouldn't have stood a chance of being the dominant species if we were around during the age of dinosaurs and many other species which have died out now such as giant birds would have preyed on us, such as teratorn and diatryma. There's no way we would have survived some of the climatic conditions of the past either.

Answer 8

Both, it is proof that we are the fittest race.  Our race does not go extinct in the survival game.  on the other hand we have stopped evolving altogether because of our social structure.  All humans more or less survive so the fittest "humans" are not the only survivors.  in this way Darwin's no longer applies.

Answer 9

It is a misnomer.  In some animal populations, only the fittest are able to deter or defeat predators, establish themselves as the Alpha Male, and have their pick of the females to mate with, possibly marginalising other males totally.  'Survival of the first to breed' would maybe be more accurate in human terms now.  I, for instance, though of fine physical stature, above average intelligence and not short of oppourtunity, decline to breed.  Earth does not need any more d**n humans on it.

Answer 10

i think it still applies to the whole world not just third world countries.  consider the darwin awards, people who die for doing extremely stupid things. i would say that stupidity is now what enables survival of the fittest to apply to the modern day world.

Answer 11

" Survival of the fittest "  is a misnomer. Reproductive success is the coin evolution pays in. We, as a species, have increased our mutational rate since the advent of agriculture. So, this idea you have, which some anthropologists ascribe to, is thoroughly incorrect.

Answer 12

Maybe not in America or other wealthy countries. But I guarantee that there are many places in this world that survival of the fittest still applies to the human race. Consider yourself lucky you live in a place where you are free to actually have this thought. ;)

Answer 13

Survival of the fittest has never stopped applying.  It has become less noticeable in many areas, namely first world countries.  And yes, we really should care.

Answer 14

I think survival of the fittest came to a screeching halt in the US sometime within the last 20 years.... the reproductive success of the most unfit is in the homework section slaughtering the english language begging for people to basically do a google search to get answers for them... I know I've been lazy before, and I haven't always been able to figure things out.....but this just blows my mind how either lazy or stupid these kids are today.

That movie idiocracy is going to become reality. soon.

Answer 15

No.  Survival of the fittest never ceases to function.  Dim people walk under buses every day.  There is no check on breeding in the human race, but all that does is give idiots a fair stab at getting themselves killed instead of dying at birth.  

And "survival of the fittest" is not Darwin's phrase.  It is Huxley's.

Answer 16

Darwin proposed that biological we shift and mutate rising to more differentiated individuals within a population. Some individuals will biologically or cultural be able to adapt and reproduce with greater success that others, increasing their  "fitness" (as he called it) and thus increasing that particular mutation that he had. Thus he is now more fit because he and his offspring are passing on his genes with greater ease.

SO who say's this isn't still happening? Yes there are some biological and cultural components that have shifted that now allow some genes that hundreds of years ago would have gotten passed to be passed (think people who are infertile and successfully conceive through IVF). BUT are we still mutating, shifting, adapting? You BET! Even with modern medicine there are somethings we cannot control or even predict that will affect our survival and fitness Even cultural things can dramatically affect fitness (think of the growing problem with Autism).

I hope this helps, and your welcome for me doing your homework. : )