Does survival of the fittest have anything to do with intelligence?

Question

What really I mean to ask is, do the more-intelligent people thrive better?

Answer 1

Of course intelligence  helps determine how we problem solve etc which in turn would help us survive it also effects memory meaning we can store really important survival information better etc etc

Answer 2

The phrase should be, "Survival of the most adaptable"!

The luxory of intellectual intelligence is certainly a novelty, but unless you can adjust to changing circumstances, often rapidly, and with your entire being, then having isolated strengths often weakens the other parts of you, and diminishes your chances to survive!

Answer 3

No,

Like a lot of traits, sometimes it helps reproduction, sometimes it hurts.  The jury is still out. Like whether being tasty helps or hurts a species.  Some easily caught tasty species have vanished, others are evident in numbers second only to man.

Suicide is more likely the higher the intelligence and the birth rate tends to be lower among the more intelligent in industrial countries.  More than one sci-fi writer has extrapolated these trends to predict a future of imbeciles.

Answer 4

I don't think the term really has anything to do with individual people.  It's more about species of animals and how they adapt over long periods of time.  It's more about survival versus extinction.  Not smart versus dumb.

Answer 5

It can, and it has, but "fittest" does mean "best suited to the environment."

In early human history, larger brains evolved because memory played a big part in who survived.  Those who remembered where larger predators lived and kept their kill were able to go back after the predator left and eat the leftovers.  Those who didn't, starved.  A slightly better brain often determined who remembered, and those were the ones who managed to stay alive and reproduce, creating offspring with slightly better brains.  Over time, with natural selection favoring better and bigger brains, brains developed into the monsterous human brain we have now.    

I think that today, intelligence does not necessarily make you "fit" for the environment, and lower functioning people may even be more "fit".  There are exceptions, of course. Developmentally disabled people are cared for much better than they were before, but they still usually do not reproduce.  To be "fit," you must survive long enough to produce fertile offspring who survive long enough to reproduce themselves.  So, developmentally disabled people are usually fit enough to survive, but unless they manage to find a mate, reproduce, and keep their child alive long enough to find a mate and reproduce, they still are not "fit."  (It does happen sometimes. :D)

That aside, lower functioning people who are not disabled sometimes die before they can reproduce, because of some moronic stunt (DUI, driving like an idiot, tractor accident, angering someone with a gun...).  However, thanks to medical progress, supervision and increasing safety laws, many lower-functioning people survive to adulthood and find someone willing to reproduce with them (sometimes by accident.)  This is where lower intelligence becomes something of an asset in fitness.  Smarter people only have as many children as they can afford.  Sometimes that's 17, but usually it's about 2 or 3.  

Dumber people don't plan as well, and often have more children.  Ordinarily, the playing field would be leveled a bit because some of their children wouldn't survive because of lack of food, lack of supervision, or getting killed in some moronic stunt.  However, these days we have economic assistance making sure these kids get fed, and children are removed and put in foster care if they still aren't getting fed, or if supervision is inadequate.  So, usually, the dumber parents have more children last long enough to reproduce, even if they didn't help get them there.  

However, since intelligence isn't really genetic, it doesn't necessarily mean that the dumber parents' kids will be dumb, too, or that the smarter parents' kids will be smart, so things kind of even out.

Answer 6

Definatley.  Look at people around you...or watch Idiocracy....

Answer 7

Two of the most important evolutionary traits of human beings have been increased brain size and bipedalism (the ability to walk on two legs).  It is generally accepted today that bipedalism preceded increased brain sizes, as can be observed in the skull sizes of Australopithecus afarensis, Homo habilus, and H. erectus--all of who walked upright or nearly upright.  It is not until the H. neandertalensis and H. sapiens (modern day humans) that we see the emergence of the astonishingly large brain capacity.  Therefore, at some point in human evolution, brain size, and most likely intelligence, played a primary role in survival.  No longer did humans need to survive entirely upon brawn, but could just as easily, if not more easily, survive by developing creative methods of catching or finding food.   Additionally, a dual causality occurred in which the smarter early humans became, the better they could hunt, forage, cook, etc. and the larger their brains became with access to the appropriate nutrients necessary to handle an increased brain capacity.  

Today, those people who have higher levels of education typically have a greater chance at survival--in other words, the smarter one becomes, the better one becomes at taking care of his/her family by earning a higher wage, making a intelligent decision, avoiding risky behavior, etc...  On the issue of mating, females tend to be attracted to males who are self-sufficient and capable of earning a living wage.  Those males who demonstrate this potential have a greater chance of reproducing offspring from said female and thereby passing on those values (memes) or traits associated with education/intelligence to his offspring.

Answer 8

Two teenage Homo Habilus brothers are in the forest, one is faster and stronger, the other is smaller and smarter. They are in a clearing when they see a lion coming toward them. The faster one takes off, the smarter one looks around, runs to a tree and climbs it. The lion judges which one it is most likely to catch, and his faster brother gets caught.

Early humans had to overcome and survive being around larger, faster and hungry animals. They did it by using their only advantage, intelligence. Therefore this was a trait which would be valued in the tribe, as well as strength and decision making. Once tribal society had been established, divisions of duties occurred, such as medicine man, chief, gatherers etc, and this allowed different traits to be passed on to the subsequent generations.

Answer 9

Although the intelligence of humans has apparently given us a great advantage over ther rest of the animals, it's done so for our species. As individuals, we all seem to be plenty smart to get along, and high intelligence in comparison with other humans is apparently not neccessary for high reproductive success compared to other humans, which would be a key indicator that it's selected for.

So...yes and no.

Answer 10

Natural Selection (the politically correct term for Survival of the Fittest) does have a lot to do with intelligence.

The human brain costs resources. It's only 2% of your body mass, but uses 20% of your bodies oxygen and a variety of other resources. If enlarged brains were not beneficial enough to make up for this intense use of resources, larger-brained species would have never survived. Clearly, an enlarged brain had a definite survival advantage in the world our hominid ancestors lived in - otherwise, the smaller-brained hominids would be more likely to survive.

Answer 11

Not at all.     You can be a UFC champion or Paris Hilton and have practically no brains what so ever.

No matter what your intelligence,,  you have different personality traits and abilities that allow you to "thrive" in life.

You need a certain type of brain to be a physicist,,,  it takes a different type of brain to be the CEO of a corporation,,, and a completely different brain to be a brilliant musician...

Intelligence certainly gives you more options in your potential...  However,,, there's a lot of brilliant people that are really lazy,, or screwed up and do not "thrive".      

Unfortunately,, there are many that thrive in our world with little brains at all,,,,   maybe good looks and a likeable flirtatious personality is what will get you far in life..... sometimes....

Now,,   that gives a whole new meaning to "survival of the fittest" .....

Answer 12

absolutely!! .. That's why they invented the Darwin Award! :P

Answer 13

Survival of the fittest means the survival of those most able and successful in reproduction.  If being smart makes you more likely to survive to reproduce then it will matter.  Generally predators are intelligent because they require cleverness and intellect to take down prey and thus survive to raise offspring.  

Stupid animals can still reproduce and the majority of animal life is not "intelligent" as humans would define it and still they manage to reproduce VERY well.  Take rabbits for example: very stupid creature with very high reproductive success.  Thusly, rabbits would be considered a "fit" species.

Even though intelligence does tend to help the whole process of staying alive to reproduce, humans can often fall out of the "fittest" status.  Birth control and invitro etc. in humans often negates the faults of reproduction or enhances them.  In this way, our intelligence can actually hinder ability to thrive.

Answer 14

it is either way depending on the environment. sometimes living organisms need intelligence to survive, but sometimes they don't

Answer 15

In many species, including early humans, the more intelligent individuals probably have a greater chance of survival (an intelligent hunter may hunt more strategically or efficiently, or an animal of prey may be able to escape in a cunning way, like running into a space too small for its pursuer to fit through).

But I would argue that intelligence, and mostly all other traits that evolution normally selects for, have been removed from the equation for human survival. At least in most western societies, survival is not based on intelligence, health, agility, stamina, or any of the other traits it normally would be. Even the least intelligent, weakest, most sickly humans have the chance to reproduce. Note: I'm not saying that's a good or bad thing. I wouldn't presume to put value judgments on natural processes.

Answer 16

depends on what your surviving i guess. like if you need to keep yourself alive by running through a maze or doing a puzzle than intelligence would help

Answer 17

We tend to think of humans as having a very wide band of intelligence. However it is quite narrow. We evolved language and intelligence as the way to 'fit' and it has been shown to be very successful.

Language is important because, unlike other species, we do not have to experience something first hand to know about it. We therefore can learn solutions to problems which we have not yet come across. This is a very useful tool