Do you believe in Survival of the Fittest?

[OmegaZero]

In the animal kingdom there is a natural order to things and one of them that has sustained their numbers and their order to things is the law of survival of the fittest. Do you believe this is a law that we to as humans could and should almost live if not at least be aware of it? Those who are sick or are dying or who have nothing to live for. Those who are weak should be overpowered if not controlled by the stronger. I personally don't believe we should. I think every life is precious. But what are your thoughts?

[elendil15900]

...I learned this is school last year...cant remember...its summer...everything i knew is gone... its amazing how fast you forget everything...:musak:

[Ciel]

in a way, yes, survival of the fittest applies. humans have grown and evolved for being the most intellectual, powering over other species. though we shouldnt destroy other species, its the way of life to be the best to survive.

but in another way, no. we shouldnt play survival in our own species. the Hitler regime could be a good example of that. He tried to control the world by killing the "weak" and many innocent people died.

so, i guess i could leave you an unsure, but i would say, personally, no, no one should control another.

[elendil15900]

Now that i think about it... if it really was survival of the fittest there would be nothing...everything would be dead...

[Delta]

Now that i think about it... if it really was survival of the fittest there would be nothing...everything would be dead...

What are you talking about? Listen survival of the fittest is just a phrase to summarize natural selection, it doesnt mean that the strong should always rule the weak or anything like that, people have just misused it that way.

[Wolfman Walt]

While I do think there is such a thing as natural selection; the amount thats in effect varies. For instance - we could obviousily say that mentally handicapped are "weak" or "unfit," yet they still survive and in alot of cases they make it to a fairly old age, all things considered.

Another instance is when an animal enters the endangered species list and it's population grows back into stable ranges, such as Buffalo. In all considerations, they should have been left to die, but through some help by humans some species make it back.....ofcourse.....we're the ones who put them on the endangered species list. Then again, I doubt Darwin really thought of applying the theory to human interference, so I suppose you should take that example with a grain of salt.

[subhuman_77]

yes Ofcourse this law exists, No doubt about that.

When it comes to terms of survival the laws can be broken.
There was this news from Venezuela, that this family went on vacations for a week, the Maid was supposed to fed the dogs (two Dobermans) while they were out, the Maid of course forgot to fed em'. When the family got back, and the little girl went to check on the dogs, both of the dogs attacked her aggressively the mom saw this, she ran to grab her, but the dogs attacked her too. The husband ran out with a shotgun and shot the two dogs, the daughter died instantly and the mom died on the way to the hospital.

We should never under estimate creatures who are under our lvel...

[Kurai-chan]

i believe in this theory that those who could adapt the most to their environment would be the ones who would survive. it was already proven by different known persons. ;) an example of this theory is that scientists believe that there was a specie of giraffes which has shorter necks but because the foods that they were eating were so high... they died and so, the ones who survived were the ones which has longer neck.

an application of this in our present world is that those persons who couldn't cope up with the fast-changing world were left out and sooner or later they would suffer or even die. this survival of the fittest doesn't necessarily mean that weak are always overpowered or maybe controlled by those who are stronger. what it says is that those who could make use/get the best out of his envoronment would be the one who'd continue to live, hence, he could be called as "the survivor".

[airswifter]

I believe it is truth....fittest and adaptation is the key to survive.
But humans changed it, we dont have to adapt environment instead we changed it to suit us.
Some humans which are morally wrong used this statement to change our species bit by bit.....and always trying to get something to overtake us..

However, i believe the creator of the universe will punish ones that is trying to play god....

[Seren]

Natural selection, theoretically, applies to all living things; however, humans stand the best chance of defying. Not only do we have things like medicine and technology, we have a sort of natural morality, to try to keep people alive even after all hope is gone. Since medicine and technology allows us to do that, it's sort of a defiance against natural selection.

[Chouji]

ZOMG we already live by this freaking law it apllies to many different aspects of our lives we hunt to stay alive we either mush be the smartest or be forced to have a lower job in the world and barly get by with living.

[Ai]

Chouki has the right sort of opinion in my own opinion..

Although we no longer live by the physically strongest for survival of the fittest..Instead it has changed to become the best at other things..in whichever aspect of life we wish to go for..

Such as being smart...for the industry which requires this..

Being strong still applys for other industrys..

Being witty applys..

theres a whole lot of attributes that have suddenly become desirable to have if you wish to succed and survive in this world..

Survival of the fittest is still around..it is just more subtle nowdays because of the many ways it can take..

Should we exploit our advantages over the weak..of course we should..hell we already are unconciously doing it in our job applications and our schooling..

[SolBeowulf19]

Survival of the fittest is around. It shows in both the animal and human kingdom, seemingly regardless of where it is or you are. In all honesty it is a concept I do not like and am not for, it seems to come about regardless of our preferences to it.

[dragoneyes001]

like was said above survival of the fittest is natural selection.

if you do not have generations of immunities vs the common cold you will have the same issue as the Aztecs when the Spanish came calling it wiped out most of the ten million Aztecs. this is a form of natural selection the same could have gone the other way and has there are signs of old viking settlements in eastern Canada the best guess at why they never flourished is the people caught diseases they could not heal from and just died off.

a great majority of natural selection is how well you survive adversity which can be a physical danger or a medical danger it also includes how intelligent you are to find a way of surviving. that is survival of the fittest in a nutshell.

even if you dont believe in survival of the fittest as being a way of life your stuck in a system that decides for you.

[DemonX]

I agree with Sandal Hat. I do not beleive that human beings have defied survival of the fittest, they only have taken it to another level. It is not only survival in the wild now, but it is survival in society. Having the ability to get around in life (having the technical skills to get a job, having the social skills to become popular, having perseverence to do... whatever) would probably heighten your chances in having your own family (as opposed to being a deadbeat).

As for passing on genes to children (as what was the basis of natual selection), much more is passed on, such as social status and wealth. The enviroment your raised in makes all the difference in the world.

[Hansy]

I agree with survival of the fittest. However, the problem with that is 'fittest' is a relative term. If somone is stronger than me, but I have a gun, it is arguable which one of us is the weaker. It is similar to the reason no one is perfect, because just as the view on perfection changes from person to person, so does the interpretation of strength. In boxing or something, the fittest would be physical strength. In art, creativity and ability to adapt. With computers, knowledge, and so on. As Sandal Hat said, it's just subtle since each person decides what the fittest is.

[chiking1]

As Sandal Hat said, it's just subtle since each person decides what the fittest is.
I agree with that, however, 'Survival for the Fittest' is often means your ability to adapt. For example, Dinosaurs were 'the fittest' before something happened and killed them, because they did not adapt fast enough. The smaller animals, however, adapted to this change, and therefore, were more 'fit'.
An example given by the guy who came up with this theory (forgot who it was, and too lazy to search), was the humming bird. There are hundreds of different types of humming birds in the world, each with a differently shaped beak to take the nectar from different types of flowers. This made them 'fit' for their environment.

[grieversangel]

I can't really say. I mean some people are to weak and they need someone or somethings help.For me it would have to depend on how the peorson is to others. If someone is rude and horrid to others than they should stand alone. On the other hand a kind and gentle person deserves all the help they can get.

[Cloudarc]

I do belive in this in a way that we have become stronger not physically compared to other animals but intellectualy we have become stronger and that has made us one fo the top of the food chain so i do beilive in this in a way.

[Miyata]

Life is sort of like survival of the fittest right now. Except instead of the strongest surviver, now it's more like the smartest survive so I sorta back this statement but it really depends on the context it's being used in.

[Jack Van Burace]

I agree with that, however, 'Survival for the Fittest' is often means your ability to adapt. For example, Dinosaurs were 'the fittest' before something happened and killed them, because they did not adapt fast enough. The smaller animals, however, adapted to this change, and therefore, were more 'fit'.
An example given by the guy who came up with this theory (forgot who it was, and too lazy to search), was the humming bird. There are hundreds of different types of humming birds in the world, each with a differently shaped beak to take the nectar from different types of flowers. This made them 'fit' for their environment.
Animals do not adapt. After you're born, you're you and hold the same genetic information through all your life, till you die. There is a phisiological 'box', to which you can vary, adapting phisiologically to this or that weather. But it's all set ever since you're born. These ideas you're saying are a confusion of the media and general society nowadays, but these concepts have been thorn away ever since the 1930s.

After neo-darinism, and the sinthethic evolution theory, researchers have been struggling through several debates, and the last one is neutralists and selectionists, and I can say myself that selectionism is nonsense. Is trying to make of science a religion. Natural selection is terrible for a species survival.

Only populations can adapt, the individuals are born and die the same. This experiment can be done with mouses, by cutting their tails or fingers, doesn't mean their brethren will be born mutilated. And if noone in a population has, by chance, a way to overcoming some hardship whatsoever, then it come the extinction. Hence, biodiversity is important, because if the population is made of clones, the weakness of one is the weakness of all. The adapting of a population consists of the growth of the numbers of determined type of individual, and decrease of another. If they loose one of these types for good however, they might all die if the weather conditions suddenly change. That's what happened to Dinosaurs: they were under selection for too long :winking56

So, survival of the fittest is a lie. If you make a population of the fittest now, next time they will be extinct. And this goes even more wrong if you try applying it to humans.

[Jinzu]

i go for a yes...
yeah, sick and dying people don't deserve to die...
but hell, when all the people who were sick died, centuries ago.
in this one, they live.
if it go's on like this the world will be over-crowded with weak people.
some may think this is a anti-social desicion, but i can't do anything about it.

[urusai!]

Yes I do. It's a true statement. The word 'fittest' here of course, is ambiguous. The meaning I go for is how well an animal/reptile/any other organism can adapt in a new environment and survive or, how capable it is of survival.

Humans therefore have a natural advantage. Our brains allow us to be mentally capable of problem solving, therefore we are able to adapt even if the world around us changes, or if we are placed in a different environment. Animals are a different story.

[toxxin]

I definately agree with survival of the fittest. We have seen it in action. Every being on this earth as a race has its shot. Dinosaurs had their time, even now we have endangered species on the list. Humans as urusai has said have the advantage to survival due to our intelligence.

[Evanesque]

I do believe in the survival of the fittest. It's just natural.

Life can be hard and unfortunately the sick, weak and the dying will be wiped out. This is done to ensure that only the best survive. As years pass, living has become difficult, physically, mentally and environmentally. It seems only those strong enough can bear the changes and make it through.

If the idea of the fittest out-surviving the weak in one species did not exist, then the weak would dominate BUT will lose out to ther animals in other species thus cause the decline of their population and finally lead to extinction.

Thus I support the survival of the fittest theory.

[Bak3d on H1gh]

In a word yes.
I mean just look at how pesticides kill bugs, but next year less bugs will be affected because the bug(s) will have survived the previous spraying and survive to pass on the resistant gene.
Plus all animal behaviour is based on survival, including us, we only are at the top of the ladder because we the fittest survived to pass on their genes.

Survival of the fittest is the adaptation to your enviroment so it is constantly changing, though its pretty safe to say increased inteligence will generally put you on top, though simplest "organisms" can still rbing you down such as bacteria and viruses though eventually we can come up with ways to beat them.

[Mighty Aramir]

But being fittest is no longer who is stronger and who is not, the fittest this days is the one who has knowledge and shamefully, who has an image. Wether i agree with it or not, it out of the question its unavoidable

[Sal1981]

I lift my left eyebrow every time I come across this misrepresentation of Darwinian evolution.

Charles Darwin never said "survival of the fittest", that's a post-editorial addition made by the news-paper that first published his thesis. He said, and I quote: "It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change." (emphasis mine).

Just because you're strong doesn't mean you're most able to survive a change in the environment.