Survival of the fittest has evolved. Try Survival of the Kindest

[All-Rounder]

The bumper-sticker way of teaching and labeling Darwin’s ideas as exclusively focused on the “survival of the fittest” is not only misleading; it completely misses his idea that humanity’s success hinges on its level of compassion or sympathy.

Since Darwin’s fieldwork and writings, researchers from various fields have supported his perspective. Biologist and theorist Edward O. Wilson, who is known for his studies of ants and bees that have yielded insights into human existence, has shown that our evolution from tribal into a global society increasingly favors compassionate and cooperative over callous and competitive approaches to human interaction.

More at:

Even Darwin thought 'survival of the fittest' was misinterpreted

Even Charles Darwin thought "survival of the fittest" was misinterpreted. Instead, consider "survival of the kindest."

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Rogue Princess]

Seems like fake news to me...

I'm a bit cynical

Being kind seems to result in being chewed up and spit out and being a target for more ruthless individuals.

No good deed goes unpunished

 

[GrownupGirl]

Being kind or caring doesn't get you anywhere in this stupid world, at least not anymore.

 

[All-Rounder]

It is true that bullies and the selfish will be picking on the more altruistic for the benefits involved.



<<Wilson calls our “selfish activity” in interpersonal relations “the Paleolithic curse” that “hampers” success at all levels where groups of humans interact. Although selfishness may have been an advantage during the Paleolithic Era, when Homo sapiens lived more independently of each other, Wilson contends that it is “innately dysfunctional” in our highly interconnected societies and world.

[...]

As E. O. Wilson writes in “The Meaning of Human Existence”: “Within groups selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals, but groups of altruists beat groups of selfish individuals.”

Selfish people and even bullies may win a couple of rounds or sets in the game of life, but they rarely win the match or game; it is the compassionate people who win.>>

 

[Outdated]

I always thought "survival of the fittest" was a a very poor interpretation of Darwin's work. Survival of the most adaptable would be closer to the mark.

 

[All-Rounder]

I always thought "survival of the fittest" was a a very poor interpretation of Darwin's work. Survival of the most adaptable would be closer to the mark.

I quoted a quote that was misattributed to Darwin, apparently. I wanted to correct it.

Quote Origin: It Is Not the Strongest of the Species that Survives But the Most Adaptable – Quote Investigator®

quoteinvestigator.com

I think that selective breeding influences humans, though. So sleeping with the wrong person, will increase those certain genes in the potential offspring, such as being mean or selfishness in the species of humans through inheritance.

So, it is quite clear intelligence is genetic, so is being mean or strong, but selective breeding, Darwin's idea for evolution, selects any trait the genetic pools in the parent individuals might offer. So is evolution random and at the same time selective?

 

[Outdated]

I think that selective breeding influences humans, though. So sleeping with the wrong person, will increase those certain genes in the potential offspring, such as being mean or selfishness in the species of humans through inheritance. So, it is quite clear intelligence is genetic, so is being mean or strong, but selective breeding, Darwin's idea for evolution, selects any trait the genetic pools in the parent individuals might offer.

An interesting topic. In a way socoieties with cultures where they have pre-arranged marriages or strict rules about who's allowed to marry who take natural selection away from the process. Without natural selection we halt evolution and end up with stagnation.

There have also been many human breeding experiments over the centuries. European royal families bred themselves like race horses, breeding for specific traits.

 

[All-Rounder]

An interesting topic. In a way socoieties with cultures where they have pre-arranged marriages or strict rules about who's allowed to marry who take natural selection away from the process. Without natural selection we halt evolution and end up with stagnation.

There have also been many human breeding experiments over the centuries. European royal families bred themselves like race horses, breeding for specific traits.

That's an interesting thing. They bred themselves for specific traits like skills, talents and mental abilities?

When royalties were looking for brides/grooms, the presented people seemed to be described in terms of skills, who they are as well as visually. However behind all that, the marriages were very often for political reasons, to strengthen an alliance between kingdoms, or acquire property in other lands. Rarely, for the purpose of love. They were contracts between families for all social groups apart from the very poorest and were arranged to ensure alliances between nations, some caused wars, others ended wars.

Most Queens of England were from foreign countries, for example Henry I’s wife was Princess Margaret of Scotland, Henry II’s was Eleanor of Aquitaine, who owned a sizeable portion of southern France. Edward I’s wife was Eleanor of Castile (now part of Spain, but then an independent kingdom). Edward II’s wife was French, Edward III’s was from Hainault (now part of Belgium). There were occasional exceptions, Prince Edward the son of King Edward III married Joan, daughter of the Earl of Kent. And Edward IV married Elizabeth Woodville, which was a love match and very unpopular, he had been expected to make a better marriage.

I suppose these selected wives had an "impressive pedigree" compared to others.

 

[Outdated]

Intelligence and other traits that they believed would enhance their ability to rule, yes. And there were marriages made for purely political reasons as well but for the most part they were fairly conscious of what traits their prospective partners had. You can't have a king with a weak character, although that happened sometimes.

 

[Jonn]

our evolution from tribal into a global society increasingly favors compassionate and cooperative over callous and competitive approaches to human interaction.

I am not saying this is wrong.
I am saying I need to be convinced.

 

[All-Rounder]

Being kind or caring doesn't get you anywhere in this stupid world, at least not anymore.

What does it mean to evolve, does it mean to survive, does it mean to have rules and morality, does it mean to take care of each other, to develop a civilization, to breed more or more intelligently, to mend/quarantine the ill instead of breeding to make up for the deaths like in poorer civilizations like India/Africa?

Interesting to think about all the involvements of the concept because I think the answer differs a bit with each idea.

 

[Jonn]

No good deed goes unpunished

This is my belief.

 

[Outdated]

I think everyone of us will have slightly different ideas of what it means to evolve but to me it means the ability to change and adapt as circumstances change. I am not who I was 30 years ago.

 

[All-Rounder]

I am not saying this is wrong.
I am saying I need to be convinced.

Climbing the ladder to power, like some country leaders do.

 

[Rogue Princess]

I think everyone of us will have slightly different ideas of what it means to evolve but to me it means the ability to change and adapt as circumstances change. I am not who I was 30 years ago.

If anything evolves I very much doubt it will be human. A planet of the apes or Zoo situation seems more likely to me.

It's not like we need to evolve to suit an environment we created ourselves or have natural predators other than mankind itself...

 

[Hypnalis]

Evolution in the Darwinian sense doesn't operate on individuals.
Current best example is Covid-19.

We have an example at the society level of the effects of too much agreeableness: the population collapse.
It's the first time in my lifetime I've thought we might see actual human evolution in operation. Can't be sure yet though.

 

[Au Naturel]

I quoted a quote that was misattributed to Darwin, apparently. I wanted to correct it.

Quote Origin: It Is Not the Strongest of the Species that Survives But the Most Adaptable – Quote Investigator®

quoteinvestigator.com

I think that selective breeding influences humans, though. So sleeping with the wrong person, will increase those certain genes in the potential offspring, such as being mean or selfishness in the species of humans through inheritance.

So, it is quite clear intelligence is genetic, so is being mean or strong, but selective breeding, Darwin's idea for evolution, selects any trait the genetic pools in the parent individuals might offer. So is evolution random and at the same time selective?

Fitness is defined as leaving viable genes behind. Your child is half of your genes. Your cousin is an eighth. Leaving lots of living cousins behind is as good as leaving a child.

Think of it this way. Most traits exists on a Bell curve distribution. If there is a "normal" level of something there will be tails to the curve of people with a lot of the trait or very little of it.

Whatever the average human being is like - the middle hump of the curve for a given trait - is what has been selected for. If being Brad Pitt or Taylor Swift or Einstein offered a reproductive advantage, that's where the hump of the curve would center. (Apparently, it doesn't.) There is probably a wide range of traits and characteristics that are equally "fit" in a Darwinian sense.

 

[Aspychata]

I agree. Don't believe the hype. Too many are peddling snake oil. There is a lot of subterfuge thrown out there. Call people on their storyline. If you are reading my post, AND you are female, call them on the storyline.

 

[Forest Cat]

All I know is that this world is rough and people have been fighting each other since the beginning. And the kindest do not win fights. When I was younger I didn't really understand how the world was and I was kind to people. And people walked all over me and took advantage of that kindness. So I'm a little sceptical to survival of the kindest. It's good to be kind but sometimes you have to be rough.

 

[All-Rounder]

Eugenics in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Pretty horrifying history of how humanity wants to eliminate what is not mainstream.

I don't think I found any theory in psychology to support selfishness or meanness, more so I would say it was being assertive. Crime is ingrained in society and it gains alongside fair civilians, I don't think it will ever stop because of, coincidentally, its ability to evolve.

There's a saying: "you will more likely get what you want in life by doing good than bad." I'm inclined to believe it, and if it doesn't work only through stealing can one get something from an unwilling individual.

There is too much lying going on with celebrities, that's usually what the Holywood is based on. Is lying a good evolving mechanism because it helps you climb the ladder of career life and supposedly provide and eat more, or bad because it destroys relationships (and you're on a diet)? A non-celebrity person has social relations as well.

Because of corruption, sometimes it is necessary to lie, to the corrupt.