Quote:
Originally Posted by Apoc
No, its not survival of the fittest. Darwinism is about survival of the most well adapted. Something with a thick heavy coat will survive better in cold climates than something without one, no matter how big and strong the animal without that thick fur may be, for example. Survival of the fittest is a term that in no way means what your saying it does. Its about genetic evolution and the ability to adapt to climate/conditions local to any certain species.
Like I said, you have no idea what 'Darwinism' actually is. Social Darwinism is a recent term that has nothing at all to do with the theory that Charles Darwin put forth. Its uneducated fools who used the term for something that actually has nothing to do with the concept in its original form.
|
One could make the argument that "well adapted"
= "fittest" in the most strict definition of the term.
The "adaptation" in this case, or "thick heavy coat" to use your analogy, is intellectual ability; the lack thereof (what we modernly refer to as being a dumbass who is just taking up space and wasting oxygen) is the lack of adaptation to the needs of the environment (in this case, an environment containing high-rise buildings with a high floor balcony). To continue your analogy, the individual can be big and strong but lack that "big heavy coat" of intellectual ability lead to the environment winning the battle (i.e. he fell off the balcony because he was an idiot).
I did a position paper about this in college as a Biology major which was much better worded than the above, however, my head hurts so this is the best I can do right now.