It's interesting to me that we need the justification of a book. To be strong and to dominate is not enough; we need to point to an external justification. Why?
Words have so much power. I suppose survival of the fittest has become the Coles note of Darwinism. But fit is such a general term, isn't it? So imprecise. Physically fit, emotionally fit, spiritually fit. Which is it? All of these together or will one or two do? Then there is digestible, as in fit for human consumption. In Britain, it seems to denote physical beauty as in, she's so fit. Adaptability certainly isn't the first thing that comes to mind. If that is what is meant, the shorthand should be updated to survival of the most adaptable. But I'm sure the bullies would disagree.
Fun fact: Darwin never used the term "survival of the fittest"! The term was used by Herbert Spencer who meant the species who fits best into (adapts to) the environment. This is what happens when nobody bothers to read the original!
I think this tendency to cherry-pick and distort isn't just about malice or stupidity. I used to think it was. I believe it speaks to our need to make sense of the world and to find justifications for our beliefs and actions. Sometimes, that drive leads us to these insights. Other times, it leads us terribly astray.
Very true in all particulars. "Survival of the fittest" is a truly pernicious doctrine" and has been used to justify every kind of abominable action. Turns Darwinism on its head.
Yes. Darwin never used the phrase SOF, and "fittest" means most adaptive to the environment, not big muscles. But when did the facts/truth matter in the great influencing game? Stay tuned for my essay about that coming soon!
You are a one man rectification of Darwin's words!!
Shocking how they have been twisted and wormed their way into everyday parlance.
Master Charles deserves to be defended, and he can't do it for himself. He changed my life, so I owe him one (or a few)!
It's interesting to me that we need the justification of a book. To be strong and to dominate is not enough; we need to point to an external justification. Why?
Prettying up our instincts with the gloss of religion and science. Makes us feel better about our malicious nature.
Words have so much power. I suppose survival of the fittest has become the Coles note of Darwinism. But fit is such a general term, isn't it? So imprecise. Physically fit, emotionally fit, spiritually fit. Which is it? All of these together or will one or two do? Then there is digestible, as in fit for human consumption. In Britain, it seems to denote physical beauty as in, she's so fit. Adaptability certainly isn't the first thing that comes to mind. If that is what is meant, the shorthand should be updated to survival of the most adaptable. But I'm sure the bullies would disagree.
Fun fact: Darwin never used the term "survival of the fittest"! The term was used by Herbert Spencer who meant the species who fits best into (adapts to) the environment. This is what happens when nobody bothers to read the original!
I think this tendency to cherry-pick and distort isn't just about malice or stupidity. I used to think it was. I believe it speaks to our need to make sense of the world and to find justifications for our beliefs and actions. Sometimes, that drive leads us to these insights. Other times, it leads us terribly astray.
Happy Thursday Baird!
I agree Neela. Unfortunately, the beliefs/actions people are trying to justify are often dumb and destructive. Darn!
You know I 100% agree with you :)
Very true in all particulars. "Survival of the fittest" is a truly pernicious doctrine" and has been used to justify every kind of abominable action. Turns Darwinism on its head.
Yes. Darwin never used the phrase SOF, and "fittest" means most adaptive to the environment, not big muscles. But when did the facts/truth matter in the great influencing game? Stay tuned for my essay about that coming soon!