(Humans) "Survival of the Fittest"- Is this idea really valid in this day and age anymore?

Question

(Humans) "Survival of the Fittest"- Is this idea really valid in this day and age anymore?

Answer 1

Yes it is still valid but we are in a period where survival is enhanced.  The population is in a great expansion period but it can't last.  It also takes less to survive since medicine can cure many conditions and life is so easy that weak are cared for.  Time will likely correct this when we face a difficult periods which is probable at some points in the future.

Answer 2

No but it should be.  Thanks to all of our scientific advancements in medicine and technology, people who normally would've died out (i.e. diabetics, asthmatics) before they got old enough to have kids, survive and pass on their genes.  The thing is when you override nature, there is always a consequence.  The consequence is that children and young people are sicker at younger ages than their parents.  They cannot eat certain things.  They cannot run and play without fear of having an asthma attack.  They are fat and sickly and always in the doctor's office.  This causes lost wages for the parent and a lot of suffering for the poor kid.  Health care rates are skyrocketing for all of us under the burden of these ailments.  So, I believe that by overriding nature, we have made a mistake.  I don't think that people with genetic problems shouldn't get treatment (I have many genetic defects myself) but I do think that they should not spread the misfortune and suffering to future generations.

Answer 3

Survival of the fittest is a bad term. A better term would be "better reproductive success of the fittest populations." Evolution only acts on populations and survival is not important unless it involves reproduction (a disease that would kill a female after menopause is not necessarily unfit).

Some populations that help each other can achieve better reproductive success of their group and genetics, thus not being cutthroat is adaptive in many species (e.g. baboons). So, no it is not valid, nor was it ever valid to say humans are governed by the idea of survival of the fittest.

Answer 4

To have positive gene selection, a species must experience a crisis that offers an advantage to those with certain genes, or what is commonly refered to as a bottle neck.  During times of plenty those with inferior genes can thrive & even become a majority. The survival of the fittest hasn't existed for some time... in many cases those born to nobility, even though they were not the fittest, had a much better chance of surviving & reproducing than the serfs. However, the lower classes did experience some degree of positive selection that allowed them to exist & reproduce offspring as serfs.

Many that have some form of genetic defect are living long enough to reproduce today... however, time will tell if their offspring are able to meet future challenges.  One can never tell when or what the next crisis situation will be.  It is possible that one of these "genetic defects" will offer some advantage in the future. When a large population is increasing, it is doubtful positive selection for a gene is happening.  However, that does not mean evolution has stopped.

Answer 5

It has never  been valid ever since morality entered the equation. I think Moochie summed it up perfectly.