The strongest would survive. Do you agree with this law of the nature?

Question

“Whilst the rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer” has proved the law of the nature that the strongest would survive.

Have this saying proved that only the strongest should deserved to survive?

Do you agree or disagree with this idea? If so. What are the reasons to support your notions?

Would this topic have proved the law of the nature that only the strongest should and would survive?

What do you think? I am getting confuse!

Answer 1

This is not a law of nature.  It is a misstatement of the natural selection.  The term "strongest" has no definition in this question.  In evolution by natural selection, the fittest survive, but the meaning of the term fittest only pertains to their ability to reproduce fertile offspring and has nothing to do with strength.

There is a counter example.  Most of the life on the planet is bacterial.  They have been here for over 2 billion years.  Does this indicate that bacteria are stronger than other life forms?  No, but it does mean that they are very good at reproducing in changing environments.

Answer 2

<<The strongest would survive. Do you agree with this law of the nature?>>

Not necessarily.  If two weaklings cooperate, they can collectively beat the strongest to death.

<<Have this saying proved that only the strongest should deserved to survive?>>

When it comes to survival, what somebody deserves is irrelevant to the issue.

<<What do you think? I am getting confuse!>>

I agree on that.  You do seem confused.  "Survival of the fittest" isn't the same as "survival of the strongest".  There's also a concept I term survival of the friendliest.  Much in nature that's successful succeeds due to cooperation, not all out competition.  For example, sexual reproduction is based upon cooperation.  Bees pollinating flowers is more cooperation.  Lions hunting in groups is cooperation.

Statistically, with that latter example, single lions tend to get more food out of hunting by going alone.  While less of the hunts are actually successful, the lone lion doesn't have to share and doesn't have to accept their place in lion hierarchy.  A lone lion doesn't have to wait until the higher status critters let it take something.  However, given the chance, lions still prefer to hunt in groups.

Answer 3

what do u base strong on i am weaker than a chimp but i am smarter i ahve a gun i win  

Answer 4

Using the correct version "the most fit survive", there are many abilities besides strength that make an individual AND a group survive. (an individual cannot breed alone) Better fur, better camoflage (octopus), better cooperation raising young (meerkats, lions,hyenas, humans).    Darwin's subtle laws have been misquoted and abused for over a century.  Social Darwinism was an idea over a hundred years ago (long discredited) that the British "haves" used to justify ideas they already had about the "have nots".   //  Complex human societies and economics have moved far beyond simple sayings.  And the strongest society - strong in the sense of good social bonds, flow of wealth, workable political system - does survive, while one in which the rich get rich, the poorer poorer collapses in revolution. (see several decades of South American history)  USA has had a good flow of wealth among population, but recent trends (10 or 20 years)have been disturbing.  

Answer 5

I would also be careful with your line of reasoning, this type of reasoning has been used to justify slavery and segregation.

Answer 6

There is NO SCIENTIFIC STATEMENT or LAW that says the strong will survive.

There IS a LAW that the FITTEST survive and by FITTEST it is meant that those that were born with the traits that FIT the environment will survive.

If your traits don't fit the environment, you die.  If it is cold and you don't have a way of insulating to keep heat in, you die.  If you are an extremeophile and your born without the traits that allow you to live in 200 degree (F) water, you die.  It is very simple.

Keep in mind, organisms CANNOT adapt.  Instead they are born adapted which is why an understanding of genetics is important.  A chameleon can CHANGE its colors to blend in to an environment BUT it was BORN with the ability to do so ... It was born adapted, it did not adapt by developing the ability to change colors.

Answer 7

That's unfortunately true, it is what we call the social darwinism.

The term draws upon Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection, where competition between individual organisms drives biological evolutionary change (species) through the survival of the fittest.

Answer 8

Keep in mind as well that this theory is impossible to argue with.

"Who survives?"

"The fittest."

"How do you know they were the fittest?"

"They survived."

Answer 9

the strongest don't necessarily always survive. For example: there are 3 species of birds and they all live on an island. One type of bird is the biggest and most powerful and can eat only small mice, the other two types are small and eat berries found high in trees. If there is a massive flood and all the mice are killed, the bigger, stronger bird is left without food and the species slowly dies with lack of proper food. But the small, weak birds who live and eat high in the trees were unaffected by the water below them and continued to live as before.

Answer 10

In nature yes only the strongest survive, this is survival of the fittest. This is how evolution works, animals and plants evolve to become stronger and more perfect at what they do e.g. hunting for food, attracting animals for polination etc. Animals or plants that do not evolve to be better simply become extinct.

Humans on the other hand look after the weak and sick. Don't get me wrong I think it is good that we care for our sick, but it does mean that many people who should have passed away are perhaps kept going artificially? Although it is easier to survive and receive medical care if you have more money in todays world. So yes the rich will survive.....

Answer 11

Should and would are two different things!

The strongest tend to survive.  The words "strongest" and "survive" are being used LOOSELY here.  Whether or not a certain characteristic SHOULD assist your chances in life, depends on which morale, philosophical and/or religious construct you choose to apply!

Answer 12

agree to an extent, but these people are nothing without the working man. we could revert back to the days after the great plague when all the wealthy landowners had no-one left to work the fields. this put the poor peasant in a strong position and many became so much better off even aquring their own land and at least trebling the prior wage. so we can all strike back if we get organised and stick together which in this day and age i dont think we would do.

Answer 13

"It is not the strongest of species which survives, but the one most adapable to change"

-Charles Darwin

As an above psoter stated, strength has its own costs and is only advantageous if environmental conditions are right. If things change and the big species are wiped out, the little guys that can adapt quickly will win out.

Answer 14

You get strong by eating.  You need food to support that strength.  Too much strength and not enough food is a ticket to extinction.  This was the demise of the dinosaurs and the mammoth, among others.

Hiding well is a way for the weak to survive.

Answer 15

WOULD...probably..but SHOULD sound like a known theory.

  in the law of nature as you call it is certain that majority of the fittest survive whatever peril come their way but that is dependent on different factors.

the word "DESERVE"  shouldn't be used in this case because not all the "fittest" survive and not all the "not-so-fit" die...but the majority of the survivors are of course the fittest/strongest.