I don't think that's a question for 19th century biology. — Vera Mont

No. But I believe it's a question for today, and not only for biology ...

But I believe it's a question for today, and not only for biology ... — Alkis Piskas

Okay. So why drag Darwin into it?

that reading him made on me back when I read Darwin: he didn't endorse the notion of selfish individualism being a leading driver of evolution. — javra

In other contexts Darwin did emphasise the fundamental importance of co-operation and altruistic behaviour as being essential to human flourishing. I don’t think he saw the SOF as a model for social development and co-operation which is however how it was adapted by Herbert Spencer and others through the ideas of eugenics. — Wayfarer

Okay, thank you for the information. At least I know I'm in good company.

I made a correction in an earlier comment about that: it was Alfred Russel Wallace, not Spencer himself who talked to and persuaded Darwin about "survival of the fittest". — Alkis Piskas

Noted.

I believe one has to roll up his sleeves ans start searching the web regarding the subject to found out details about that! :smile: — Alkis Piskas

:sweat: Yes, I know. That's why I'm thanking @javra and @Wayfarer for providing the passages. I was visiting a friend yesterday and couldn't isolate a good amount of time for this forum.

3). I’m not sure it has any implications worth worrying about and I don’t think it should inform our day-to-day behaviors. It’s supposed to be occurring over generations, after all. But I think it does have implications for institutions, which may last for generations.

I don’t think it supports racism unless one believes in race or is in some way a methodological collectivist.

That being said I have thoroughly enjoyed reading Spencer lately. His areas of interest were so vast that I cannot think of anyone else who has thought about and written upon as much. His moral and political philosophies contradict the implications adopted by others, for instance eugenics, showing that his haters have wrongly and undeservedly cast him with aspersions from which his reputation has yet to recover. Such a shame.

the latter phrasing [re: “survival of the form that survives in successive generations”] can just as well be reduced to “survival of that form which survives”. — javra

I see what you mean. But is just "survives" enough? Every organism survives ...
I believe that Darwin's "reproductive success" is very clear and satisfies his theory. If we have to translate it in to "survival", we could say "the form that survives longer, in terms of generations". As we say figuratively that a person "survives through his children".

it depends on how the phrase "survival of the fittest" gets interpreted. — javra

Yes, it can be interprested in different ways. However, as I mentioned to Vera Mont, there's only one definition as far as Darwin's theory is concerned. Which, BTW, I missed to include in my description of the topic. — Alkis Piskas

To try to clarify what I was saying:

A) When contextualized by the modern field of biological evolution, the term “survive” can in a very rough way be equated to the term “outlive” (as in, "children typically survive their own parents", as you've mentioned) - this rather than holding the meaning of “continuing to live”. Since “survival of the fittest” is applied in the context of biological evolution, this phrase could then be reworded as “the outliving of those forms which are fittest”.

[Hence, to my understanding: When the term is thus evolutionarily applied, an organism that lives its whole life without reproducing does not evolutionarily survive - for there is no form it serves as ancestor to that outlives it.]

B) Next, when “fitness” is biologically defined as “the quantitative representation of a form’s reproductive success” or something to the like (of note: when thus understood, "fitness" strictly applies to the Neo-Darwinian synthesis of Darwin and Mendel, being a semantic unknown to Darwin himself), the term “fitness” too can be roughly equated to “the attribute of outliving (that which one was biologically generated by)”.

[Note that “the continuing to live ("survival" in this sense) of that form which holds greatest reproductive success ("fitness" in its modern evolutionary sense)” is not a very cogent proposition in the context of evolutionary theory. For example, an organism with very short lifespan that successfully reproduces galore will have a relatively great fitness - despite not continuing to live for very long.]

C) Then, when integrating (a) with (b), within this context of Neo-Darwinian biological evolution, one could potentially conclude that the biological phrase “survival of the fittest” can translate via its biological semantics into “the outliving (of ancestors) of that form which most outlives (its ancestors)” or, again via semantics typically applied to the field of modern evolutionary theory, into “the survival of that form which most survives”.

[To emphasize, "fitness" as, in short, reproductive success is a biological notion that was unknown to Darwin and his contemporaries (Spencer, Wallace, etc.). It was first proposed with its modern biological sense [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_(biology)#History]in 1924.[/url] So, while “survival of the fittest” could have made sense in a Darwinian model of evolution (given that "fitness" did not then entail a quantitative representation of a form's reproductive success), in the Neo-Darwinian model of evolution this phrase does run a significant risk of being interpreted as a tautology among biologists in the field.]

That’s my best current impression, at any rate.

His moral and political philosophies contradict the implications adopted by others, for instance eugenics, showing that his haters have wrongly and undeservedly cast him with aspersions from which his reputation has yet to recover. Such a shame. — NOS4A2

Out of curiosity, I once read though most of his "Principles of Ethics". I found it to be utilitarianism 101. A very different spiel than what we now commonly interpret by the notion of "Social Darwinism". So I'm seconding your comments here.

A) When contextualized by the modern field of biological evolution, the term “survive” can in a very rough way be equated to the term “outlive” (as in, "children typically survive their own parents", as you've mentioned) - this rather than holding the meaning of “continuing to live”. — javra

Agree.

Since “survival of the fittest” is applied in the context of biological evolution, this phrase could then be reworded as “the outliving of those forms which are fittest”. — javra

Agree.

When the term is thus evolutionarily applied, an organism that lives its whole life without reproducing does not evolutionarily survive - for there is no form it serves as ancestor to that outlives it. — javra

Right

when thus understood, "fitness" strictly applies to the Neo-Darwinian synthesis of Darwin and Mendel, ... — javra

You lost me here! :grin:
But it's OK. Not important.

For example, an organism with very short lifespan that successfully reproduces galore will have a relatively great fitness - despite not continuing to live for very long. — javra

Right.

one could potentially conclude that the biological phrase “survival of the fittest” can translate via its biological semantics into “the outliving (of ancestors) of that form which most outlives (its ancestors)” or, again via semantics typically applied to the field of modern evolutionary theory, into “the survival of that form which most survives”. — javra

As I mentioned to @Vera Mont earlier, words and semantics here are no that important as are concepts and principles. In fact, we are talking about a whole theory. What I mean is that e.g. the word "fittest" may have different meanings, but what is important is the whole theory that lies behind it.
A simpler example: For the Americans, the word "football" refers to two completely different games: the international one, which is played exclusively with the feet, and their own, which is played mainly with the hands. (What a linguistic perversion! :smile). Now, one can disregard semantics and consider what we are interested in: the game of the American football itself.

So, while “survival of the fittest” could have made sense in a Darwinian model of evolution (given that "fitness" did not then entail a quantitative representation of a form's reproductive success), in the Neo-Darwinian model of evolution this phrase does run a significant risk of being interpreted as a tautology among biologists in the field. — javra

I see what you mean,

I consider all this an exellent analysis! :up:

when thus understood, "fitness" strictly applies to the Neo-Darwinian synthesis of Darwin and Mendel, ... — javra

You lost me here! :grin:
But it's OK. Not important. — Alkis Piskas

To all the same clarify: Gregor Mendel is the guy who discovered genes by working on pea plants. He knew of Darwin's work but his is work was unknown to Darwin. It wasn't until later than Mendel's discovery of genes was incorporated with Darwin's notion of natural selection. This incorporation of Darwin's work with Mendel's work goes by the name of Neo-Darwinism. Properly speaking, today's biological notion of "fitness" is not a Darwinian concept but a Neo-Darwinian one - one which Darwin himself was ignorant of, since he did not know about genes.

I consider all this an exellent analysis! :up: — Alkis Piskas

Glad it made sense. Cheers. :grin:

But I believe it's a question for today, and not only for biology ...
— Alkis Piskas

So why drag Darwin into it? — Vera Mont

Because Darwin is still relevant today. Because his evolution theory and his works in general had a huge impact on the scientific world and our lives. I believe more than we can ever think of.

And regarding science today ...

"Modern thought is most dependent on the influence of Charles Darwin"
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/darwins-influence-on-modern-thought1/

"Charles Darwin is centrally important in the development of scientific and humanist ideas because he first made people aware of their place in the evolutionary process when the most powerful and intelligent form of life discovered how humanity had evolved."
https://leakeyfoundation.org/the-importance-of-charles-darwin-2/

The notions that underpin Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution can provide us with tools to tackle the challenges of the contemporary world. His work is worth revisiting.
https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2021-11-21-the-relevance-of-charles-darwin-in-the-contemporary-world-of-viruses-climate-crisis-and-artificial-intelligence/

Thanks for the clarification. :smile:

Because Darwin is still relevant today. Because his evolution theory and his works in general had a huge impact on the scientific world and our lives. I believe more than we can ever think of. — Alkis Piskas

To science! Not to the political world - either then or now. People have abused his work, dragged his name through all kinds of muck and tattered his reputation for a century and a half... That doesn't meanwe have to!

To science! Not to the political world — Vera Mont

The references I brought up talk also about influences ouside science.

Darwin’s influence is far from limited to science. His work has influenced a wide range of topics including political and economic thinking.
https://darwin200.christs.cam.ac.uk/politics-economics

The uses of natural selection argument in politics have been constant since Charles Darwin’s times.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/politics-and-the-life-sciences/article/abs/darwins-politics-of-selection/D261B9D9684DA736266F790A6E7728A7

And, of course, we must not forget about Nazis and eugenics, which are connected with Darwin.

You can find yourself dozens of references on the subject.

You can find yourself dozens of references on the subject. — Alkis Piskas

Of course I can find many examples of abuses, and a few of balanced judgment.
Darwin himself didn't mix in with any of of the extreme views. He did meticulous, painstaking research, observation, sampling and recording, which, as I understand it, he was reluctant to publish, because it remained forever incomplete. He did good science. If his moral and political views were not expressed with sufficient clarity, it may be because he didn't have an agenda, or any idea where his observations might lead other thinkers.
Attribution matters.

If we want to describe politics in Darwin’s language, artificial rather than natural selection would be the concept that performs better for explaining the courses of politics in real society.https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/politics-and-the-life-sciences/article/abs/darwins-politics-of-selection/D261B9D9684DA736266F790A6E7728A7

Darwin himself didn't mix in with any of of the extreme views. He did meticulous, painstaking research, observation, sampling and recording, which, as I understand it, he was reluctant to publish, because it remained forever incomplete. He did good science — Vera Mont

I have no doubt about that. And, as I do not recall well about the work(s) a I read from him in college, I'm not in a position to judge it (them) at present. That's why I brought up references from people who know better. Yours too is welcome, of course.

As an interesting tidbit in terms of Darwin’s ethics, he is well enough known for his anti-slavery/abolitionist stances. A far cry from what we often interpret by survival of the fittest. For example, here’s an excerpt from his autobiography:

Fitz-Roy’s [the captain of the Beagle, the ship on which Darwin traveled to the famed Galapagos Islands] temper was a most unfortunate one. It was usually worst in the early morning, and with his eagle eye he could generally detect something amiss about the ship, and was then unsparing in his blame. He was very kind to me, but was a man very difficult to live with on the intimate terms which necessarily followed from our messing by ourselves in the same cabin. We had several quarrels; for instance, early in the voyage at Bahia, in Brazil, he defended and praised slavery, which I abominated, and told me that he had just visited a great slave-owner, who had called up many of his slaves and asked them whether they were happy, and whether they wished to be free, and all answered “No.” I then asked him, perhaps with a sneer, whether he thought that the answer of slaves in the presence of their master was worth anything?

To my way of seeing, getting the captain of the ship you are a guest on (in the middle of a vast ocean you could easily fall into) angry by questioning his moral character takes, should I say, a great deal of gall. Kudos to him.

As an interesting tidbit in terms of Darwin’s ethics, he is well enough known for his anti-slavery/abolitionist stances. A far cry from what we often interpret by survival of the fittest. — javra

I have never questioned Darwin's ethics. Neither do the references I have found --some of which I have brought in here-- that are opposed to some aspects of his work.
If I create a system or theory that has flaws or is prone to misinterpration and abuse, it doesn't mean that I did it with the purpose to harm, i.e. I am unethical.

I think this was clear from my part, because I have talked about the misinterpretation and abuse of the principle of "survival of the fittest". Yet, I believe it was a mistake by Darwin to introduce a theory based on that name, which alludes to strength, power and that kind of things. But even if this didn't happen, and the name "natural selection" was kept, there are other elements in his theory that allow it to be easily misinterpreted and abused. Lack of a clear differentiation between Man and animals or organisms, in general, was also a big mistake with bad consequences. I halve talked about that.

To my way of seeing, getting the captain of the ship you are a guest on (in the middle of a vast ocean you could easily fall into) angry by questioning his moral character takes, should I say, a great deal of gall. Kudos to him. — javra

OK. Kudos to him! :smile:

Worth reflecting that Charles Darwin was greatly influenced by 'the Scottish Enlightenment'.

'The Scottish Enlightenment was a period of cultural, intellectual, and scientific advancement that took place in Scotland in the 18th century. It was a time of significant progress in many areas, including philosophy, economics, science, education, and politics.

During this period, Scotland produced a remarkable number of great thinkers and writers, including Adam Smith, David Hume, Adam Ferguson, and Francis Hutcheson. These intellectuals challenged traditional beliefs and practices, and championed new ideas such as individual freedom, scientific inquiry, and the power of reason.

One of the most significant contributions of the Scottish Enlightenment was the development of the concept of political economy. Adam Smith's book "The Wealth of Nations" laid the groundwork for modern economic theory by arguing that markets should be free from government intervention and that individual self-interest could lead to the greater good of society.

The Scottish Enlightenment also saw advances in education, with the establishment of the University of Edinburgh and the development of a national system of education. This focus on education helped to create a more informed and literate population, which in turn contributed to the development of a thriving literary and cultural scene.

Overall, the Scottish Enlightenment was a period of great intellectual and cultural achievement that helped to shape modern Western thought and values. Its legacy can still be felt today, particularly in the fields of philosophy, economics, and education.'

Darwin was historically later, but his ideas were very much influenced by it. Enlightenment values very much stressed individual thought but were also anchored in the Adam Smith's idea of 'enlightened self interest'. It was all for political and economic freedom and development and not an inhumane political philosophy.

Darwin was historically later, but his ideas were very much influenced by it — Wayfarer

Yes, and it may have helped that he was at the University of Edinburgh for two years before he dropped out and was sent to Cambridge to take the theological route.

Hah! Interesting. That I did not know. But the Scottish educational system is one of wonders of the modern world, according to some (e.g. How the Scots Invented the Modern World. Trivial fact: I attended Robert Gordon's College in Aberdeen for a couple of semesters in early high school whilst my father was on sabbatical at the University there.)

He studied medicine but couldn’t stomach the sight of blood or the suffering of the patients.

Me, I was a lazy student and couldn’t get into Edinburgh.

Lack of a clear differentiation between Man and animals or organisms, in general, was also a big mistake with bad consequences. — Alkis Piskas

Only, there is no difference. I see no justification for capitalizing the name of one species, as it were somehow to be lifted out of nature. Man has, indeed, turned on nature, opposed, subjugated and largely destroyed it - but that does not negate his origin.

OK.

Thank you for your contribution to the topic.

I give the floor to you. — Alkis Piskas

To go off in a bit different direction... I just finished "What Is Life?: How Chemistry Becomes Biology" by Addy Pross. In it, he goes to a lot of trouble to define survival of the fittest in chemical terms as dynamic kinetic stability, which removes a lot of possibly unwanted implications from the process. This is from one of Pross's papers:

Recent developments in the relatively new area of chemistry, systems chemistry have been showing that the reactivity patterns of simple replicating systems may assist in the building of conceptual bridges between the physicochemical (inanimate) and biological (animate)worlds . A key element in that effort has been the ability to specify and characterize a new kind of stability–dynamic kinetic stability (DKS), one that pertains to replicating systems, whether chemical or biological In the ‘regular’ chemical world, stability is normally associated with lack of reactivity. However, in the world of persistent replicating systems, the stability of the system comes about because of its reactivity. The system is stable in the sense of being persistent, by its being able to maintain a continuing presence through on-going replication. Of course, in order to be able to continue to replicate and maintain a presence, the system must be unstable in a thermo-dynamic sense. From that perspective it can be seen that a biological system which is characterized as ‘fit’, can be thought of as stable, but its stability is of that ‘other kind’, rather than exemplifying the more familiar thermodynamic kind. This way of thinking then enables established biological terms, such as ‘fitness’ and ‘maximizing fitness’ to be equated with their chemical equivalents: Fitness = Dynamic kinetic stability (DKS); Maximizing fitness = Drive toward greater DKS. — How Does Biology Emerge from Chemistry?

The linked website also includes a review of the very short article.

Thank you for your response to the topic.

All this looks interesting, but unfortunately I cannot undestand much of it since I totally lack the necessary background. I hope though that there are people in here who can and will appreciate more your post.

Thank you for participating in this discussion.

Natural selection is all about the survival of the genotypic line over successive generations. The genes that survive are fit, those that do not are not fit. — PhilosophyRunner

Natural selection is of course the main element in the evolution of life. But it leaves out a lot of other important elements that are also involved in this evolution.

Big catastrophic events and massive desctuctions, , etc., resulting sometines to extinction, have nothing to do with "natural selection".
All there are unintended events. But was also have intended actions that lead to the same results: genocides, killing wildlife, etc.

And then we have somthing else, wuite important. which is in conrast to natural selection: it's "artificial selection". It plays also an important part in the evolution of life.

"Selective breeding (also called artificial selection) is the process by which humans use animal breeding and plant breeding to selectively develop particular phenotypic traits (characteristics) by choosing which typically animal or plant males and females will sexually reproduce and have offspring together."
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_breeding)

So, from one side, man kills wildlife and from another side he raises domesticated animals and creates hybrids that can survive better. Neither of these are "natural selection".

Thank you for participating in this discussion.

I think it does have implications for institutions, which may last for generations. — NOS4A2

This sound interesting and I would like to know more about it.

I don’t think it supports racism unless one believes in race or is in some way a methodological collectivist. — NOS4A2

No, it doesn't support racism. It's racism that supports it. :smile:
Racism supports the superiority, supremacy and dominance of one race or group over another.
Sometimes, with huge consequences, like genocides. Just replace "fittest" with "superior".

His [Spencer's] moral and political philosophies contradict the implications adopted by others, for instance eugenics, showing that his haters have wrongly and undeservedly cast him with aspersions from which his reputation has yet to recover. — NOS4A2

I have not read his work, but I believe that what you say may indeed be true. We have talked here about misconception and abuse of the SOF principle.
On the other hand, we cannot ignore some important references referring to his works and the effect they have had on history.

"Social Darwinism is a loose set of ideologies that emerged in the late 1800s in which Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection was used to justify certain political, social, or economic views. Social Darwinists believe in “survival of the fittest”—the idea that certain people become powerful in society because they are innately better. Social Darwinism has been used to justify imperialism, racism, eugenics and social inequality at various times over the past century and a half."
https://www.history.com/topics/early-20th-century-us/social-darwinism

"In the United States, social Darwinism and American exceptionalism allowed nativists to dehumanize and criminalize immigrants, portraying them as “'unassimilable aliens,' 'unwelcome invasions,' 'undesirable,' 'diseased,' [and] 'illegal."
https://www.bu.edu/writingprogram/journal/past-issues/issue-9/huang/

"Many Social Darwinists embraced laissez-faire capitalism and racism. They believed that government should not interfere in the “survival of the fittest” by helping the poor, and promoted the idea that some races are biologically superior to others."
https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/the-gilded-age/gilded-age/a/social-darwinism-in-the-gilded-age

Thank you for participating in this discussion.

Worth reflecting that Charles Darwin was greatly influenced by 'the Scottish Enlightenment'. — Wayfarer

This is very interesting. Good that you brought it up. :up:

It's a slogan — Vera Mont

Was reading through this thread, and it was so pleasant to finally read a post where someone recognized this.

Yes, the process of evolution has been enormously complex, and perhaps, "Surival of the fittest.", is a step in the wrong direction from "Shut up and study this tangled bank."

It is interesting to contemplate a tangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent upon each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us… Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

Survival only ever takes place within a context. What is fit, is what fits into it's environment. Cooperation, not competition, is paramount.

Not survival of the fittest, so much as survival of what fits.

"Survival of the fittest" has come to imply competition, but there seems to be no reason to exclude cooperation. I also tend to think that when it comes to social animals "fittest" applies to groups more significantly than it does to individuals, and it is in the social context that cooperation seems to become more important than competition; more likely to be conducive to a fit society.