this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2023
90 points (96.9% liked)
Asklemmy
43945 readers
638 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What is its meaning?
Fittest means most suited to the environmwnt, not necessarily strongest, fastest, smartest etc
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).
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).
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.
Worse, he probably refers to social darwinism.
A very nasty school of thought thatβs (partly) responsible for everything from genocide to eugenics.
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.)