• Lvxferre@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is from Darwin, I think. It describes the mechanism of selection in evolution: the organisms that are better adapted to their environments are the ones more likely to survive.

    Bady likely hates it because it’s often misused, by transforming it in a prescriptive statement (from “the fittest survives” to "the fittest deserves to survive) and/or ignoring that what’s considered the fittest depends on the environment (e.g. a fish isn’t fit in a dry environment, but a cactus isn’t fit in the sea).

    • Akasazh@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Also the word ‘fitness’ is colored a bit by our current corporal culture (‘fit’ is something one can become of one aspires to be it). Whilst in the Darwinian reading it’s more like an accidental occurrence (a mutation made the species more fit by accident).

    • moobythegoldensock@geddit.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Specifically natural selection. Sexual selection is also a type survival of the fittest, but its fitness in attracting mates and assuring survival of offspring, regardless of how well this adapts to the environment. And artificial selection grants survival to the traits the selector wants, again not necessarily favoring environmental adaptations.

      • Lvxferre@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Social “Darwinism” relies on the fallacy that I mentioned, where you treat a descriptive statement as if it was prescriptive. (And yes, it’s nasty.)