Herbert Spencer used the term "Survival of the Fittest" to
describe Darwin's theory or Darwinism or Darwin's Theory, a theory of
biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others. It states that all
species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small,
inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete,
survive, and reproduce.
Read the last few words again, "compete,
survive, and reproduce". A logical interpretation is that it
refers to the individuals ability to compete and survive against all species of
organisms existing on this planet. The
question I have been pondering on is how do we define fittest. In my mind, this
definition has had three broad phases and has undergone 2 major
transformations.
1.
Physical Strength: In their most primitive form, humans
relied primarily on physical strength for survival in the wild. Fighting with
wild animals, hunting for food, surviving in the open all called for high
levels of physical strength. Simply put, if someone did not have the physical
strength for tasks such as those mentioned above, they would NOT survive!
2.
Mental Strength: As humans evolved and found smarter ways
to survive, the focus shifted to mental strength although physical strength was
still a prerequisite for survival. The smarter men started becoming the
'fittest' within the human race as humans started isolating themselves from all
other species of organisms in the wild.
3.
Monetary Strength: We have now reached a day and age, where
all a human needs for survival is money! Ironically, physical strength is the
least defining trait of survival in the modern world.
If we look closer at how our interaction with the
surrounding species has evolved, we notice that in the good ol' days humans had
to fight against all other forms of being for survival. As we started isolating
ourselves from the wild, the scope of our survival changed to within our
species. We created a boundary within which we survive, and the fight for
survival within this boundary is against fellow human beings. By introducing
laws against use of physical and mental strength (not completely!), the only
differentiating factor among humans is monetary strength. Will we completely
negate mental strength as well in the future and make monetary strength the
supreme definition of survival?
Imagine a scenario where we have completely
negated physical and mental strength as prerequisites for survival. Also
imagine that the boundaries that we have created for ourselves to protect us
from the wild, break. Are we humans fit to survive in an environment free of
these boundaries? Do we have the necessary physical strength?
Humans are getting fitter to survive in an
environment comprising of humans. But outside of this environment.....
So then, are we making the human race weaker by
encouraging 'Survival of the Unfittest'?
