Are humans still ruled by “Survival of the fittest”?
The terms “Survival of the fittest” is in itself sometimes taken as a slight misrepresentation of what Darwin actually meant but it is how most people know the theory of evolution and natural selection. The basic principle is that a species evolves and changes to best suit its environment. Those individuals who are best suited will survive and pass on their genes, those who are less well adapted won’t. A fairly simple principle but I sometimes wonder does it still apply in humans?
I think if you look at it from the pure sense then the answer would be “no”. Humans don’t really have to be specifically evolved to their niche to survive and breed. The way human society has evolved has rendered that redundant and people come in all shapes and sizes and are perfectly able to survive and pass on their genes – indeed we are encouraged to accept that everyone is different and there should be no stereotypes of what is desirable in terms of the human form. Gone are the days when the best hunter would be far more likely to pass on their genes and so it would seem there is limited effect of what Darwin was talking about when he said “survival of the fittest” in terms of actual breeding.
However… we do as a society still consider some people successful and some people less successful. Some people become hugely rich and famous and I would success this generally makes them considered more attractive – or at least makes it easier for them to find perspective mates (and I mean that in the breeding sense, not the sense of “friends”). Whether they choose to act on this ability to reproduce with many different people is perhaps irrelevant – the important thing is they could. So is “success” the new “fittest”, we just don’t always make the connection between it and breeding?
So how do we then define “success”? Wealth? Fame? Status? Do we only view “good” people as successful? If I consider someone like Robert Mugabe I would say he was a terrible person but in many ways a successful one – he became hugely wealthy and achieved great fame and notoriety. He was married twice and had four children (that we know of). So not a huge number but still more than average and there are rumours of many illegitimate children. Undoubtedly he would have been able to father illegitimate children if he had wanted. So from an evolutionary sense was he a success? I would argue, yes, he probably passed on his genes many times or at least had the opportunity to.
Now I am not suggesting that people strive to become rich and famous simply to breed. However, sex is a powerful underlying motivator, particularly in men – who are ultimately better placed to have multiple children quickly, given they do not actually have to carry and bear them. A common view on many successful musicians and actors is that their lives are filled with willing “groupies” lining up to have sex with them and this has for years been seen as one of the benefits of the career and a point of envy for those who do not get to enjoy such a lifestyle. That view may now be changing somewhat in light of events such as the “Me too” movement but I would suggest that for many young men the idea of getting laid every night is still fairly tempting.
The other point of success is not only that you can potentially breed more easily but you are probably more likely to see your children survive to adulthood and breed themselves (and this is true whether you are male or female). You can afford the best for them – the best education, the best health care, the best protection etc. Obviously this does not always work – we all know the stories of rich kids who go off the rails and overdose on some class A drug but I would suggest that if you look at child death rates in nearly every country you will find more children from poor backgrounds die, compared with those from rich backgrounds.
So if this was a purely natural scenario you would expect these two factors (increased breeding ability and child survival) to influence the genetics of the overall population – the successful survive and the less successful die. Normally, to compensate for the fact that less children will survive a species will simply have more children. You see this in prey species such as rabbits and humans are really no different; the only difference is that we are one species with different groups within us. More children are probably borne into poorer backgrounds – the lower the education levels and wealth of the parents then often the more children they will have (though that is just a general rule – there are obviously rich people who have lots of children and poor people who have none). Historically, a lot less of these poorer children would have survived and by having many children, parents were trying to make sure some survived to pass on their genes – they would have not necessarily thought about it in that way but on a basic level that is what they were subconsciously doing. Those children who would have survived would have been fitter in some way.
So if this was true then would that suggest that gradually the human race will breed out “unsuccessful people” and what will remain is a race of highly “successful” people? Well, the short answer would seem to be no. Ultimately the fact that individual success has become quite detached from actual breeding and survival of children would suggest that this will not happen. Society has stepped in and taken a role in levelling the playing field. Ultimately everyone in this world can probably find a mate to breed with if they want to and often sex is not actually about breeding, contraception means it is purely a physically enjoyable act with no long term consequences. Alongside this, the advent of basic healthcare for all in most developed countries means a lot more children (be they rich or poor) will actually now survive to breeding age and so the need to be “fitter” to survive is removed.
So the human race has broadly removed the actual consequences of being less successful or “fit” but I still find the concept interesting and would argue that on some level we are still, as a species, playing out a little game of “Survival of the fittest”.