Do you think Darwin's theory of 'survival of the fittest' is programmed into the creation of a social elite?

Question

Do you think Darwin's theory of 'survival of the fittest' is programmed into the creation of a social elite?

Answer 1

Social Darwinism was debunked as an excuse for the leaders to maintain their authority.

Answer 2

Social darwinism's bull, for the most part.  Someone very intelligent or talented in some way is more likely than someone mediocre to rise to the top, sure.  That's how we got Andrew Carnegie, Bill Clinton, and Michael Jordan, among many others.  However, no society is a complete meritocracy, and our's sure isn't.  A child of medium intelligence and no special talent born into a rich family is far more likely to become president than a child of great intelligence who is born poor.  With societies as large as western ones are today, very talented people will often be ignored in favor of the golf partner's kid.  There are just more opportunities and more connections for wealthier people than poorer ones, and intelligence and talent aren't always transmitted through a family line.

Answer 3

If by social elite you mean those who are able to utilize their free will dominantly you must mean those who are strong enough to do so and in that unfortunately not all the time is used for the help and betterment of those less fortunate is really only a momentary order and not the whole story.  Some socially elite persons are not in any way fitter than others in the long run.  Survival of the fittest really can only refer to some future reality where those in existence at that moment can be that way for luck, force, money.  I have found also that for those survival of the fittest theories and get down brawling it out for control and dominance and... survival, a small little gun in the hands of a small little child can upset that whole thing.

Answer 4

I'm too rich and succesful to answer that

Answer 5

I think it is programmed into a very living entity so by such it would have to been in the people you hate as well.

Answer 6

Darwin never used the phrase "survival of the fittest."  This phrase was actually coined by a French sociologist by the name of Edmund Spencer.  Spencer used this to basically sum up his theory of why women and minorities could not move up the social ladder, that they were somehow intrinsically inferior to white men and thus would never have the capacity to surpass them.

Darwin's theory is based in natural selection which is part of but not the whole story.  He gets the credit of several generations of naturalists that were trying to explain the world.  Of course, his work was the most comprehensive in part due to his travels.

Answer 7

Whether you know it or not, you have committed " the naturalistic fallacy ".

Answer 8

Not at all. Darwin's theories on evolution have been distorted by other social scientists.

His survival of the fittest meant that the species that had the best chance of surviving were the ones that adapted to their environment. In other words, those that best fit into the world around them.

The popular belief that the strongest or more powerful or aggressive control and lead the weak is a total misconception of Darwin's theories.

Answer 9

darwins theory first of all must be understood to be hmm, how do you say it without starting **** yet being honest, he served his time like most scientist did trying to prove the supperiority of whites whit the survival theory. it helped to justify and give reason to slavery. it was an excuse for it and saying africans needed nurturing didn't help. it says a lot about the time period and the people. blacks were enslaved during darwins theory and as far as being programmed yes i believe it is but some how fittest has now turned to economic wealth and not physical features and attributes. the social elite of darwins time (slave owners and other whites) were def programmed  and being primitive themselves had laws that  reinforced slavery,through the means of survival of the fittest. the fit were in the fields. so is fit mental physical economic or changes according to era and whos in control?

Answer 10

No, because much of what makes a great man isn't genetic. The Bush and Taft families spring to mind as examples.   Check those inbred royal houses of Europe for more examples.  How many great men or women have children that surpass them? Few, very few.

Money breeds money, and the idiot scions of a hundred great houses squander it as fast as they can.  The rules are set up to allow the rich to stay rich.

Answer 11

Yeah, its the way the world is working at this level! They are the most primitive human beings on this planet, and yet the most powerful!! Anyways, I have confidence in life, the wheel turns, and whats work today may not work tomorrow!

Answer 12

You are completely misunderstanding this term. "Survival of the fittest" is about reproductive fitness.

Answer 13

I know that many upper class people are trying to have genetically "perfect" babies. They are trying to have the genes tweaked to where the baby will be a great artist or musician or a great athlete or good at science. Then they expect that the kid will be able to play the piano ect. when he or she is only four or five without having to do actual lessons and practice. I know that playing those Baby Beethoven and other baby dvds as well as reading while the child is in the womb can help the child develop mentally but the kid is still going to have to take lessons. As far as survival in the future I wouldn't place too much money on the social elites. If even one of the global warming or other "doomsday" scenarios comes true the rich will find that their money will only get them so far and with these parents often times doing everything for their kids they will find it hard to survive.

Answer 14

The social elite as you call them have no place in the "survival of the fittest" as some want to think. They use their money or power, to get what they want but in fact, don't get their hands dirty doing it. How many, if at all, would actually survive in the "woods" per se, I think not one. They've spent their lives living off the toil of others, while we've worked to survive, they've sat by and watched.

   My grandparents left the old country to get away from the serfdom of existence and come to the "land of the free" and, now we find ourselves trying to give the elite reasons for being. I think not.

    Forty years ago I was a Ranger, dropped into the swamps of a Southern State, to "survive" by the fittest of us or, we were out. I would like to see some of them out there, with a knife, for days on end, eating things that didn't move to fast or didn't bite back. Water that you had to chew to drink, that's survival.

   These people don't like to get their hands dirty, I would like to see them back in the days of the Neanderthal and see what would happen.

Answer 15

That's a very interesting idea!  

I know it does have an effect on the 'elite' in different species, like the 'alpha' dogs, wolves, bears, apes etc.  Only the strongest and healthiest get to mate so their genes are passed on.

But in the case of social elite, their numbers are small and they don't spread their genes to the rest of us.  Maybe in the days of droit de signor (if that ever really even existed, which apparently is very doubtful these days).  

The Darwinian theory has to do with how genes are passed on, so if the social elite don't pass on their genes except to their own offspring (like everyone else) I don't see it as part of evolution.  In some periods of history, the elite were even inbred!