"Survival
of the fittest" is a phrase which is commonly used in contexts other
than intended by its first two proponents: British polymath
philosopher Herbert Spencer (who coined the term) and Charles
Darwin.
Herbert Spencer first
used the phrase – after reading Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species
– in his Principles of Biology (1864), in which he drew parallels
between his own economic theories and Darwin's biological ones, writing,
"This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in
mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called 'natural selection', or
the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life."[1]
Darwin first used
Spencer's new phrase "survival of the fittest" as a synonym for natural
selection in the fifth edition of On the Origin of Species, published in 1869.[2][3] Darwin meant it as a metaphor
for "better adapted for immediate, local environment", not the common
inference of "in the best physical shape".[4] Hence, it is not a scientific
description.[5]
The phrase
"survival of the fittest" is not generally used by modern biologists
as the term does not accurately convey the meaning of natural
selection, the term biologists use and prefer. Natural selection
refers to differential reproduction as a function of traits that have a genetic
basis. "Survival of the fittest" is inaccurate for two important
reasons. First, survival is merely a normal prerequisite to reproduction.
Second, fitness has specialized meaning in biology different from how the word
is used in popular culture. In population genetics, fitness refers to differential reproduction.
"Fitness" does not refer to whether an individual is "physically
fit" – bigger, faster or stronger – or "better" in any
subjective sense. It refers to a difference in reproductive rate from one
generation to the next.[6]
An interpretation of
the phrase "survival of the fittest" to mean "only the fittest
organisms will prevail" (a view sometimes derided as "Social
Darwinism") is not consistent with the actual theory of
evolution. Any individual organism which succeeds in reproducing itself is
"fit" and will contribute to survival of its species, not just the
"physically fittest" ones, though some of the population will be
better adapted to the circumstances than others. A more accurate
characterization of evolution would be "survival of the fit enough".[7]
"Survival of the
fit enough" is also emphasized by the fact that while direct competition
has been observed between individuals, populations and species, there is little
evidence that competition has been the driving force in the evolution of large
groups. For example, between amphibians, reptiles and mammals; rather these
animals have evolved by expanding into empty ecological niches.[8]
Moreover, to
misunderstand or misapply the phrase to simply mean "survival of those who
are better equipped for surviving" is rhetorical tautology.
What Darwin meant was "better adapted for immediate, local
environment" by differential preservation of organisms that are better
adapted to live in changing environments. The concept is not tautological as it contains an independent
criterion of fitness.[4]
History of the phrase
Herbert
Spencer first used the phrase — after reading Charles
Darwin's On the Origin of
Species — in his Principles of Biology of 1864[9] in which he drew parallels between his
economic theories and Darwin's biological, evolutionary ones, writing, “This
survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical
terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called 'natural selection', or the
preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life."[1]
In
the first four editions of On the Origin of Species, Darwin used the
phrase "natural selection".[10] Darwin wrote on page 6 of The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication
published in 1868, "This preservation, during the battle for life, of
varieties which possess any advantage in structure, constitution, or instinct,
I have called Natural Selection; and Mr. Herbert Spencer has well expressed the
same idea by the Survival of the Fittest. The term "natural
selection" is in some respects a bad one, as it seems to imply conscious
choice; but this will be disregarded after a little familiarity".
Darwin agreed with Alfred Russel Wallace that this new phrase —
"survival of the fittest" — avoided the troublesome anthropomorphism
of "selecting", though it "lost the analogy between nature's
selection and the fanciers'". In Chapter 4 of the 5th edition of The
Origin published in 1869,[2] Darwin implies again the synonym:
"Natural Selection, or the Survival of the Fittest".[3] By the word "fittest" Darwin
meant "better adapted for immediate, local environment", not the
common modern meaning of "in the best physical shape".[4] In the introduction he gave full
credit to Spencer, writing "I have called this principle, by which each
slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term Natural Selection, in
order to mark its relation to man's power of selection. But the expression
often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer of the Survival of the Fittest is more
accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient."[11]
In The
Man Versus The State, Spencer used the phrase in a postscript to justify a
plausible explanation for why his theories would not be adopted by
"societies of militant type". He uses the term in the context of
societies at war, and the form of his reference suggests that he is applying a
general principle.[12]
"Thus
by survival of the fittest, the militant type of society becomes characterized by
profound confidence in the governing power, joined with a loyalty causing
submission to it in all matters whatever".[13]
Herbert
Spencer is credited with starting the concept of Social
Darwinism.
The
phrase "survival of the fittest" has become widely used in popular
literature as a catchphrase for any topic related or analogous to evolution and
natural selection. It has thus been applied to principles of unrestrained competition,
and it has been used extensively by both proponents and opponents of Social
Darwinism. Its shortcomings as a description of Darwinian evolution
have also become more apparent (see below).
Evolutionary
biologists criticize how the term is used by
non-scientists and the connotations that have grown around the term in popular culture. The phrase also does not help
in conveying the complex nature of natural selection, so modern biologists
prefer and almost exclusively use the term natural
selection. Indeed, in modern biology, the term fitness mostly refers to reproductive success, and is not explicit about
the specific ways in which organisms can be "fit" as in "having phenotypic characteristics which enhance
survival and reproduction" (which was the meaning that Spencer had in
mind).
Also,
see the section Conflation of "survival of the fittest" and
morality below.
Is "survival of the fittest" a
tautology?
"Survival
of the fittest" is sometimes claimed to be a tautology.[14] The reasoning is that if one takes
the term "fit" to mean "endowed with phenotypic characteristics
which improve chances of survival and reproduction" (which is roughly how
Spencer understood it), then "survival of the fittest" can simply be
rewritten as "survival of those who are better equipped for
surviving". Furthermore, the expression does become a tautology if
one uses the most widely accepted definition of "fitness" in modern
biology, namely reproductive success itself (rather than any set of characters
conducive to this reproductive success). This reasoning is sometimes used to
claim that Darwin's entire theory of evolution by natural selection is
fundamentally tautological, and therefore devoid of any explanatory power.
However,
the expression "survival of the fittest" (taken on its own and out of
context) gives a very incomplete account of the mechanism of natural selection.
The reason is that it does not mention a key requirement for natural selection,
namely the requirement of heritability. It is true that the phrase
"survival of the fittest", in and by itself, is a tautology if
fitness is defined by survival and reproduction. Natural selection is the
portion of variation in reproductive success, that is caused by heritable characters (see the article on natural
selection).
If
certain heritable characters increase or decrease the chances of survival and
reproduction of their bearers, then it follows mechanically (by definition of
"heritable") that those characters that improve survival and
reproduction will increase in frequency over generations. This is precisely what
is called "evolution by natural
selection." On the other hand, if the characters which lead to
differential reproductive success are not heritable, then no meaningful
evolution will occur, "survival of the fittest" or not: if
improvement in reproductive success is caused by traits that are not heritable,
then there is no reason why these traits should increase in frequency over
generations. In other words, natural selection does not simply state that
"survivors survive" or "reproducers reproduce"; rather, it
states that "survivors survive, reproduce and therefore propagate
any heritable characters which have affected their survival and reproductive
success". This statement is not tautological: it hinges on the testable hypothesis that such fitness-impacting
heritable variations actually exist (a hypothesis that has been amply
confirmed.)
Skeptic
Society founder and Skeptic
magazine publisher Dr. Michael Shermer addresses this argument in his
1997 book, Why People
Believe Weird Things, in which he points out that although
tautologies are sometimes the beginning of science, they are never the end, and
that scientific principles like natural selection are testable and falsifiable by virtue of their predictive power.
Shermer points out, as an example, that population genetics accurately
demonstrate when natural selection will and will not effect change on a
population. Shermer hypothesizes that if hominid fossils were found in the same geological strata
as trilobites, it would be evidence against natural
selection.[15]
Conflation of "Survival of the
fittest" and morality
Critics
of evolution
have argued that "survival of the fittest" provides a justification
for behaviour that undermines moral standards by letting
the strong set standards of justice to the detriment of the weak.[16] However, any use of evolutionary
descriptions to set moral standards would be a naturalistic fallacy (or more specifically the is-ought problem), as prescriptive moral
statements cannot be derived from purely descriptive premises. Describing how
things are does not imply that things ought to be that way. It is also
suggested that "survival of the fittest" implies treating the weak
badly, even though in some cases of good social behaviour — cooperating with
others and treating them well — might improve evolutionary fitness.[17][18] This however does not resolve the
is-ought problem.
It
has also been claimed that "the survival of the fittest" theory in
biology was interpreted by late 19th century capitalists as "an ethical precept that
sanctioned cut-throat economic competition" and led to "social
Darwinism" which allegedly glorified laissez-faire
economics,
war and racism[19]. However these ideas predate and
commonly contradict Darwin's ideas, and indeed their proponents rarely invoked
Darwin in support, while commonly claiming justification from religion and Horatio Alger
mythology. The term "social Darwinism" referring to capitalist
ideologies was introduced as a term of abuse by Richard
Hofstadter's Social Darwinism in American Thought published
in 1944.[18][20]
Using
the phrase "survival of the fittest" as a criticism of Darwin's
theory of evolution is an example of the appeal to consequences fallacy: use of the
concept of survival of the fittest as a justification for violence in human
society has no effect on the truth of 'the theory of evolution by natural
selection' in the natural biological world.
"Survival of the fittest" and
anarchism
Russian
anarchist Peter
Kropotkin viewed the concept of "survival of the fittest"
as supporting co-operation rather than competition. In his book Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution he set out
his analysis leading to the conclusion that the fittest was not necessarily the
best at competing individually, but often the community made up of those best
at working together. He concluded that
In
the animal world we have seen that the vast majority of species live in
societies, and that they find in association the best arms for the struggle for
life: understood, of course, in its wide Darwinian sense — not as a struggle
for the sheer means of existence, but as a struggle against all natural
conditions unfavourable to the species. The animal species, in which individual
struggle has been reduced to its narrowest limits, and the practice of mutual
aid has attained the greatest development, are invariably the most numerous,
the most prosperous, and the most open to further progress.
Applying
this concept to human society, Kropotkin presented mutual aid as one of the
dominant factors of evolution, the other being self assertion, and concluded
that
In
the practice of mutual aid, which we can retrace to the earliest beginnings of
evolution, we thus find the positive and undoubted origin of our ethical
conceptions; and we can affirm that in the ethical progress of man, mutual
support not mutual struggle – has had the leading part. In its wide extension,
even at the present time, we also see the best guarantee of a still loftier
evolution of our race.
References
1. ^ a b "Letter 5140 — Wallace, A. R. to Darwin, C. R., 2 July
1866". Darwin Correspondence Project. http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-5140#back-mark-5140.f5.
Retrieved 2010-01-12.
"Letter 5145 — Darwin, C. R. to Wallace, A. R., 5 July
(1866)". Darwin Correspondence Project. http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-5145#mark-5145.f3.
Retrieved 2010-01-12.
^ "Herbert Spencer in his Principles of Biology of 1864, vol. 1, p.
444, wrote: 'This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express
in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called "natural
selection", or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for
life.'" Maurice E. Stucke, Better Competition Advocacy, http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=maurice_stucke,
retrieved 2007-08-29,
citing HERBERT SPENCER, THE PRINCIPLES OF BIOLOGY 444 (Univ. Press of the Pac.
2002.)
2. ^ a b Freeman, R. B. (1977), "On the Origin of Species", The
Works of Charles Darwin: An Annotated Bibliographical Handlist (2nd ed.),
Cannon House, Folkestone, Kent, England: Wm Dawson & Sons Ltd, http://darwin-online.org.uk/EditorialIntroductions/Freeman_OntheOriginofSpecies.html,
retrieved 2009-02-22
3. ^ a b "This preservation of
favourable variations, and the destruction of injurious variations, I call
Natural Selection, or the Survival of the Fittest." — Darwin, Charles (1869), On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or
the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (5th
ed.), London: John Murray, pp. 91–92, http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=side&itemID=F387&pageseq=121,
retrieved 2009-02-22
4. ^ a b c "Stephen Jay Gould, Darwin's Untimely Burial", 1976; from
Michael Ruse, ed., Philosophy of Biology, New York: Prometheus Books, 1998, pp.
93-98.
5. ^ "Evolutionary biologists customarily
employ the metaphor 'survival of the fittest,' which has a precise meaning in
the context of mathematical population genetics, as a shorthand expression when
describing evolutionary processes." Chew, Matthew K.; Laubichler, Manfred
D. (July 4, 2003), "PERCEPTIONS OF SCIENCE: Natural Enemies — Metaphor or
Misconception?", Science 301 (5629): 52–53, doi:10.1126/science.1085274,
PMID 12846231,
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/301/5629/52,
retrieved 2008-03-20
6. ^ Colby, Chris (1996-1997), Introduction to Evolutionary Biology, TalkOrigins Archive, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html,
retrieved 2009-02-22
7. ^ Evolution Vs. Creationism: An Introduction.
Eugenie Carol Scott, University of California Press, 2005, ISBN 0520233913
8. ^ Sahney, S., Benton, M.J. and Ferry, P.A.
(2010), "Links between global taxonomic diversity, ecological
diversity and the expansion of vertebrates on land" (PDF), Biology
Letters 6 (4): 544–547, doi:10.1098/rsbl.2009.1024,
PMC 2936204, PMID 20106856,
http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/6/4/544.full.pdf+html.
10. ^ U. Kutschera (March 14, 2003), A Comparative Analysis of the Darwin-Wallace Papers and the
Development of the Concept of Natural Selection, Institut für
Biologie, Universität Kassel, Germany, archived from the original on 2008-04-14, http://web.archive.org/web/20080414023545/http://www.uni-kassel.de/fb19/plantphysiology/wallace.pdf,
retrieved 2008-03-20
11. ^ Darwin, Charles (1869), On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or
the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (5th
ed.), London: John Murray, p. 72, http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=side&itemID=F387&pageseq=101,
retrieved 2009-02-22
12. ^ The principle of natural selection applied
to groups of individual is known as Group
selection.
13. ^ Herbert Spencer; Truxton Beale (1916), The
Man Versus the State: A Collection of Essays, M. Kennerley, http://books.google.com/?id=_Fg8kw8ztWkC (snippet)
14. ^ Michael Anthony Corey (1994), "Chapter 5. Natural Selection", Back
to Darwin: the scientific case for Deistic evolution, Rowman and
Littlefield, p. 147, ISBN 9780819193070,
http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=lBYuCMyaS4MC&pg=PA117
16. ^ Alan
Keyes (July 7, 2001), WorldNetDaily: Survival of the fittest?, WorldNetDaily,
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23533,
retrieved 2007-11-19
17. ^ Mark Isaak (2004), CA002: Survival of the fittest implies might makes right.,
TalkOrigins Archive, http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA002.html, retrieved
2007-11-19
18. ^ a b John S. Wilkins (1997), Evolution and Philosophy: Social Darwinism – Does evolution
make might right?, TalkOrigins Archive, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/social.html,
retrieved 2007-11-21
20.
^ Leonard, Thomas C. (2005), "Mistaking Eugenics for Social Darwinism: Why Eugenics
is Missing from the History of American Economics", History
of Political Economy 37 (supplement:): 200–233,doi:10.1215/00182702-37-Suppl_1-200, http://www.princeton.edu/~tleonard/papers/mistaking.pdf
This entry was posted in Miscellaneous
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment