"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase that
originated in evolutionary theory as an alternative
way of describing the mechanism of natural
selection.
It is more commonly used today in other contexts,
to refer to a supposed greater probability
that "fit" as opposed to "unfit" individuals
will survive some test.
Herbert Spencer first used the phrase –
after reading Charles Darwin's On the Origin
of Species – in his Principles of Biology,
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."
Darwin first used Spencer's new phrase "survival
of the fittest" alongside "natural selection"
in the fifth edition of On the Origin of Species,
published in 1869, intending it to mean "better
designed for an immediate, local environment".
Interpreted as denoting a mechanism
The phrase "survival of the fittest" is not
generally used by modern biologists as the
term does not accurately describe the mechanism
of natural selection as biologists conceive
it.
Natural selection is differential reproduction
and the object of scientific study is usually
differential reproduction resulting from traits
that have a genetic basis under the circumstances
in which the organism finds itself, which
is called fitness, but in a technical sense
which is quite different from the common meaning
of the word.
Interpreted as expressing a biological theory
The phrase can also be interpreted to express
a theory or hypothesis: that "fit" as opposed
to "unfit" individuals or species, in some
sense of "fit", will survive some test.
A better way is to state it as survival of
the most fitted.
i.e. the members of a species most fitted
to the environment in which they live, have
the better chance of reproduction and passing
on their own genes.
Interpretations of the phrase as expressing
a theory are in danger of being vacuous, meaning
roughly "those with a propensity to survive
have a propensity to survive"; to have content
the theory must use a concept of fitness that
is independent of that of survival.
Interpreted as a theory of species survival,
the theory that the fittest species survive
is undermined by evidence that while direct
competition is 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.
In the punctuated equilibrium model of environmental
and biological change, the factor determining
survival is often not superiority over another
in competition but ability to survive dramatic
changes in environmental conditions, such
as after a meteor impact energetic enough
to greatly change the environment globally.
The main land dwelling animals to survive
the K-Pg impact 66 million years ago had the
ability to live in underground tunnels, for
example.
In 2010 Sahney et al. argued that there is
little evidence that intrinsic, biological
factors such as competition have been the
driving force in the evolution of large groups.
Instead, they cited extrinsic, abiotic factors
such as expansion as the driving factor on
a large evolutionary scale.
The rise of dominant groups such as amphibians,
reptiles, mammals and birds occurred by opportunistic
expansion into empty ecological niches and
the extinction of groups happened due to large
shifts in the abiotic environment.
Interpreted as expressing a moral theory
Social Darwinists
It has 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 the advent of the
theory of "social Darwinism" which was used
to justify laissez-faire economics, war and
racism.
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.
Creationists
Critics of theories 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.
However, any use of evolutionary descriptions
to set moral standards would be a naturalistic
fallacy, 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 –
co-operating with others and treating them
well – might improve evolutionary fitness.
This however does not resolve the is-ought
problem.
Anarchists
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.
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 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 favored races in the
struggle for life."
In the first four editions of On the Origin
of Species, Darwin used the phrase "natural
selection".
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, Darwin implies again the
synonym: "Natural Selection, or the Survival
of the Fittest".
By the word "fittest" Darwin meant "better
adapted for immediate, local environment",
not the common modern meaning of "in the best
physical shape".
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."
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.
"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".
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.
Evolutionary biologists criticise 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".
Is "survival of the fittest" a tautology?
"Survival of the fittest" is sometimes claimed
to be a tautology.
The reasoning is that if one takes the term
"fit" to mean "endowed with phenotypic characteristics
which improve chances of survival and reproduction",
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.
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"
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.
If certain heritable characters increase or
decrease the chances of survival and reproduction
of their bearers, then it follows mechanically
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
Momme von Sydow suggested further definitions
of 'survival of the fittest' that may yield
a testable meaning in biology and also in
other areas where Darwinian processes have
been influential.
However, much care would be needed to disentangle
tautological from testable aspects.
Moreover, an "implicit shifting between a
testable and an untestable interpretation
can be an illicit tactic to immunize natural
selection [...] while conveying the impression
that one is concerned with testable hypotheses."
Skeptic Society founder and Skeptic magazine
publisher Dr. Michael Shermer addresses the
tautology problem 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.
See also
Age of the earth
Anarchism
Altruism
Robert Boyle
Capitalism
Darwinian puzzle
Ethical relativism
Eugenics
Evolution of societies
Freedom of thought
Freethought
Garden of Eden
Mutation
Natural philosophy
Neo-Creationism
Peter Kropotkin
John Ruskin
Scientific scepticism
Social Darwinism
Social ecology
Social evolutionism
Social implications of the theory of evolution
Universal Darwinism
References
External links
Origins of the phrase
AboutDarwin.com — Darwin's Timeline
Pioneers of Psychology
Evolution Quotations compiled by GIGA
Tautology links
Darwin's Untimely Burial by Stephen Jay Gould
Evolution and Philosophy: A Good Tautology
is Hard to Find by John Wilkins, part of the
talk.origins archive.
CA500: "Survival of the fittest is a tautology"
from the talk.origins index to creationist
claims by Mark Ridley.
Is "survival of the fittest" a tautology by
Don Lindsay.
Darwin's Great Tautology by the Doubting Thomas
Morality link
CA002: Survival of the fittest implies that
"might makes right"
David Hume — Dialogues Concerning Natural
Religion
Evolution and philosophy — Does evolution
make might right? by John S. Wilkins.
"Survival of the fittest" by Alan Keyes.
Darwinism and Laissez-Faire Capitalism from
the Institute for Creation Research
Kropotkin: Mutual Aid
Mutual Aid; a factor of evolution at Project
Gutenberg
Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution – HTML
version at the Anarchy Archives
