"Survival of the fittest" has come to imply competition — Janus

Yes, it can also have this meaning and maybe other meanings too. Only that it's a failed interpretation, because in a competition they all survive, not only the fittest one. The fittest one is simply in a better condition than the rest. In a track field race, the fastest one wins and takes the golden medal, but the 2nd and 3d ones also win. And in a Marathon, everyone who finishes wins; the first one is simply the best.

But most importantly, we must never forget what this phrase --with its original meaning-- alludes to, esp. as related to Nazis, who used it as a principle and motto, with its known to all atrocious consequences. And of course, it is still in use by neo-Nazis and all kinds of fascists.

Competition is good. It promotes improvement. "Survival of the fittest" is bad, even as a concept. And, I believe that it should be kept with its original meaning alone. There are many other expressions that can be used for competition and other cases that might just remind of "Survival of the fittest".

I also tend to think that when it comes to social animals "fittest" applies to groups more significantly than it does to individuals — Janus

This is true too. But as with competion, I'm afraid that these interpretations are only attempts to moderate the bad effect that Darwin's (controversial) theory has.

So, again, I believe that the phrase "Survival of the fittest" should be kept with its original meaning alone.

Only that it's a failed interpretation, because in a competition they all survive, not only the fittest one. — Alkis Piskas

The idea as I understand it is that it is the competition for survival, so they don't all survive. It is not necessarily competition directly against the others as in fighting to the death, but competition for resources. Those who gain the resources survive and those who cannot die.

This is true too. But as with competion, I'm afraid that these interpretations are only attempts to moderate the bad effect that Darwin's (controversial) theory has. — Alkis Piskas

What "bad effect"? I see that part of Darwin's theory as being pretty much tautologous: it amounts to "those who can survive do and are more likely to reproduce than those who cannot survive."

The idea as I understand it is that it is the competition for survival, so they don't all survive. It is not necessarily competition directly against the others as in fighting to the death, but competition for resources. Those who gain the resources survive and those who cannot die. — Janus

I know what you mean. Only that I cannot think of any such case, I mean where people have died --certainly not on a large scale-- because of lack of resources, those being water, oil, electric power or other public utility services. But maybe you have some examples.

The only case I can think right now in which "competition" can be applied to the "fittest" principle is in sports matches bewteen two persons or teams. where only the winner "survives" (in a figurative way).
However, one should certainly not generalize from such special cases.

What "bad effect"? — Janus

I already talked about that. (Re: Nazis)

I see that part of Darwin's theory as being pretty much tautologous: it amounts to "those who can survive do and are more likely to reproduce than those who cannot survive." — Janus

Yes, I know about this. But, if I'm not mistaken, it is a circular statement: I have to survive in order to reproduce, but at the same time, in order to survive I have to reproduce. ("I" of course extending to my family (as genealogy), my group, my country, my race, etc.)

Then, what about the poor families all over the world, esp. in India, which is overpopulated), who are over-reproductive? Can they be considered as fittest, when they die from famine, diseases and all sort of things just because they are poor? And if we do consider these as "fittest", it would be like saying that the poor one day will reign the world!

I don't think that "survival of the fittest," in its barest form, is unique to "life." You see it in the evolution of self reproducing silicone crystals and their response to shifts in the enviornment. You see it in lifeless bits of "organic" matter (such matter appears throughout the cosmos it seems, sans life). You can get DNA strands to solve Hamiltonian path problems through selectively tweaking the enviornment, but DNA strands alone are not "living."

And similar sorts of principles show up in what sort of matter sticks around in the universe. Maybe even in the way "more empty" vacuum tends to be more unstable, and so will tend towards spontaneously producing quark condensate.

I think the conception of biological evolution as necessarily this sort of suis generis thing is rooted in philosophical issues, soloing in the sciences, and the fact that evolution became THE battleground over religion and that this leads to confusion here. "Survival of the fittest," works well for all sorts of things we don't think of as living.

"Survival of the fittest," works well for all sorts of things we don't think of as living. — Count Timothy von Icarus

When you consider that "survival" in evolution theory refers to the species, which is a type, rather than to individuals, this becomes even more evident. The stability of molecules for example, is the reason why the periodic table of elements is arranged in the way that it is. Specific types of molecules are more apt to survive.

The problem though, is that life likes to make use of instability, as instability provides for the special capacities which living things enjoy. This means that survival, and having special capacities to be able to enjoy being alive, are two distinct ends, which at the fundamental level must be very much in confliction. I suppose this is why risk-taking is exhilarating.

Evolutionary theory therefore, ought to take into account both of these two conflicting purposeful features of being alive, modeling evolution as a sort of balancing process. And by being an imperfect balance, employing the instability which is available within its own being, life is allowed to extend itself towards a multitude of different types of enjoyment, which it discovers through its journeys. Current conventional evolutionary theory is very one-sided, representing stability only, as survival, and this is not at all representative of what it means to be alive. This is because it completely misses what it means to enjoy being alive, and the enjoyment of being alive is what drives the will to survive.

*edited wrong tags/double post*

Sorry, I can't edit posts from my smartphone, so please dismiss the above post due to wrong tags.

3) What consequences or implications can this this phrase have for our lives if we embrace it as a principle and let it define our actions? — Alkis Piskas

It seems that in popular parlance the concept of "survival of the fittest" is used as a heuristic for identifying the right course of action, the moral course of action, and to justify it. "Those who survive are doing things right".

In practical examples, this also means that someone who commits a crime but manages not to get caught by the justice system is "doing the right thing".

Whitehead's "The Function of Reason," deals with this, the distinction for individual living entities. It's the difference between "wanting to live," and "wanting to live well." Yet, I can't say Whitehead's ideas were particularly successful in biology writ large. There is still very much a wall between consideration of the intentionality that evolution appears to produce, and evolution as such.

And this might also explain why there is so much resistance to expanding the term "natural selection," to other phenomena, even lower level phenomena that doesn't involve intentionality. If natural selection, the process that appears to "lead to intentionality," were to be grounded in a sort of "universal process," instead of a suis generis one that occurs "by random chance," then it seems to open up the door to claims about "purpose as a trait of nature," and "universal purpose."

But my thoughts are:
A. So what?

B. It seems any claims about universal purpose would still be highly speculative, so why get so upset? The reaction seems like dogmatic policing. Further, if the universe is deterministic, then claims that it "inexorably gave rise to greater complexity, life, and goal directed behavior," are simply trivially true on first analysis (only eliminitivism seems to get around this). This certainly doesn't confirm Young Earth Creationism or make a case for not teaching evolution in schools however, so why the resistance?

C. If the universe produced us, and we have purposes, then nature already obviously does create purpose. In a rather straightforward way, plungers are for unclogging toilets, hearts are for pumping blood, etc. Any comprehensive theory of the world needs to explain these, not deny them. If hearts don't have a purpose in the way plungers or corporations do, we need to be able to explain the similarities and differences in terms of something we DO understand, not claim the difference is in presence or lack "of purpose," the very thing we want to understand. That's just circular, question begging, and dogmatic.

Sorry, I can't edit posts from my smartphone, so please dismiss the above post due to wrong tags. — baker

No problem. I did. Thanks for the notice.

It seems that in popular parlance the concept of "survival of the fittest" is used as a heuristic for identifying the right course of action, the moral course of action, and to justify it. "Those who survive are doing things right". — baker

I don't think this is a popular viewpoint among all people. But it must be certainly popular among criminals, fascists, bullies and in general by irrational and insane people.

In practical examples, this also means that someone who commits a crime but manages not to get caught by the justice system is "doing the right thing". — baker

Likewise. In whatever way you look at it, it's a sick viewpoint and/or interpretation.

The concept of the "survival of the fittest" has been originated in framework where the sense of morality was totally absent. And it must be kept in that framework. The consequences I'm talking about resulted from misinterpetation and misuse, intentional or not. And I consider Darwin and the scientists who supported and still support his theory of evolution in part responsible for that. The concept could well be expressed in a different way that would be more comprehensible and would not incite --it really does!-- violence and all kinds of offensive and harmful behavior.
Most often, people behave based on mottos and ideas, rather than on knowledge, prudence or logic. Almost everyone has met the phrase in question at least once in one's life. How many do they know the theory behind it, or even what does it really mean?

because in a competition they all survive, not only the fittest one. — Alkis Piskas

Those who are repeatedly outcompeted for jobs, eventually die homeless.
The point of competition (in real-life settings) is that not everyone gets to survive.

The fittest one is simply in a better condition than the rest. In a track field race, the fastest one wins and takes the golden medal, but the 2nd and 3d ones also win.

I think you're taking the sports analogy too far. Sports competitions are games, they are not the life-and-death competitions of everyday life.

(And also, sometimes in sports the difference between the first-placed and the tenth-placed is a fraction of a second or a few centimeters. In absolute terms, the difference is trivial, and yet anyone who doesn't make it to the best three is dismissed as a loser.)

Survival only ever takes place within a context. What is fit, is what fits into it's environment. Cooperation, not competition, is paramount.

Not survival of the fittest, so much as survival of what fits. — Banno

And in a fascist environment, this means ...

Your points are good..
Well, the subject of "competition" was brought up by @Janus, who said that ""Survival of the fittest" has come to imply competition", with which I disagree, anyway.
Moreover, this has drifted us away from the subject of the topic, which --as a reminder-- is "'Survival of the Fittest;: Its meaning and its implications for our life". The meaning and implications of competition is a different subject and could form topic by itself.

Only that I cannot think of any such case, I mean where people have died --certainly not on a large scale-- because of lack of resources, those being water, oil, electric power or other public utility services. — Alkis Piskas

Also, lack of food, lack of adequate medical services. lack of access to education , contraceptives...

Then, what about the poor families all over the world, esp. in India, which is overpopulated), who are over-reproductive? Can they be considered as fittest, when they die from famine, diseases and all sort of things just because they are poor? — Alkis Piskas

This is a case in point. Of course, a society that becomes overpopulated and cannot provide for its people is not "fittest".

Right,

C. If the universe produced us, and we have purposes, then nature already obviously does create purpose. In a rather straightforward way, plungers are for unclogging toilets, hearts are for pumping blood, etc. Any comprehensive theory of the world needs to explain these, not deny them. If hearts don't have a purpose in the way plungers or corporations do, we need to be able to explain the similarities and differences in terms of something we DO understand, not claim the difference is in presence or lack "of purpose," the very thing we want to understand. That's just circular, question begging, and dogmatic. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think the problem you are demonstrating is that if you switch to "universal purpose", you need to adjust your premises accordingly. You can no longer talk about nature creating purpose, because nature would be created with purpose, therefore purpose would be prior to nature, and not the type of thing which nature creates. Then we need to look at intention as it is evident to us, within ourselves, as an example of it, in order to understand it in the universe in general.

We can see that there is a problem with looking at the object created with intention and trying to determine the intention behind its creation. This is because of the nature of the "necessity" involved in this relation. It is not a logical "necessity", but "necessity" in the sense of what is determined as needed, for the sake of something else, and that judgement may be carried out without the use of logic. Also, the object created may be used in a way other than the way intended by the creator, and this is evidence of that problem.

So we might refer to the "accidentals" of things created with intention. The reality of accidentals ensures that there is no logical necessity in the relationship between the intent and the thing created with that intent. Therefore logic does not provide us with the means for understanding the intention or purpose behind a thing, from an analysis of the thing produced with intention. Accordingly, we cannot understand the intent or purpose behind the universe, or nature in general, through a study of these as objects.

However, if we look at intention directly, as it exists within us, we can see this lack of logical necessity from the other side, from the side of intention itself, and it appears to us as free will. When we have a goal or objective we may consider numerous options for achieving that end. There is no direct and logically necessary relationship between means and ends, and this is why we presume the reality of free will. We may choose our means. Furthermore, the end or goal, as what is desired or needed, is never fixed but is adaptable and may be manipulated according the apprehension of available means. This implies that both means and ends are flexible.

That the ends are flexible has a considerable effect when we attempt to understand the intention from the point of view of analyzing the intentionally created object. Because the artist may adapt the goal to be suitable to the means available, the object created may be not a very good representation of the true intention, as the original ideal, but a representation of a very compromised form of the intention.

I recall from looking into Spencer a few months ago in journal articles, that he'd long been promoting his own Lamarckian theory of evolution. Got the impression he was a senior figure whose writings suited various economic interests, and was popular with Americans. It seemed that he was thrown by On The Origin of Species into needing to save face. I mean Darwin himself retained a little Lamarckian thinking which Darwinists don't like to mention I think, but anyway. But it seemed Spencer, rather than admit he'd been wrong, came up with the compromise catchphrase. I'm not sure why Wallace supported him.