Survival of the fittest was incorrectly attributed to Darwin's theory of evolution. This is a form of misrepresentation of his theory. Darwin would not have agreed to it, in my opinion.

So, that said:

1) Is this concept or principle a "realistic" one, i.e. does it correspond and fit our common reality about life? — Alkis Piskas

No it doesn't. We already know that adaptation due to mutation has been successful as shown in species and within the cultural context (i.e. humans). But also adaptation to changing environment has also been successful. Strategy is a very effective method of coping with the environment given what you have.

Fitness is a very poor choice of word to apply to humans, let alone human social organization. It has too many meanings and potential applications. A scientific terms needs to be far more precise.
In nature, the genetic strains that replicate most successfully have the highest survival rate.
In human societies, both reproduction and survival capability are unnatural.
So, no, it can't be applied.

Your arguments are so interesting. I have always understood the theory of "survival of the fittest" on a military/conquering way. Some authors, for example, defended the power of Roman Empire among Europe because how they showed to be the "fittest". So, I guess it can be understood as a principle to just defend a cause in wars. Could be a theory which romantize warlike purposes?
As Alkis Piskas, pointed out, it could lead us in a chaotic context like the Genocide inside Nazi Germany.
Then, I must answer the following question:

1) Is this concept or principle a "realistic" one, i.e. does it correspond and fit our common reality about life? — Alkis Piskas

If it is real o no depends on the context. Probably inside a biological system or environment is useless but to promote destruction and chaos such theory does exist.

I used to think it meant something like "the best fit" meaning, most closely adapted to its environment. But with humans, even that doesn't work, since humans adapt the environment to their needs. So, it would have to mean "the cleverest" or "most innovative".... but that isn't true, because brawn can easily wipe out brain, and stupidity always replicates itself more than does intelligence.

And then there is the question of survival. Which counts for more, proliferation or longevity? Over what span of generations.

Darwin was articulate, but he couldn't have foreseen what the future speakers of English, and particularly those with an agenda of their own, would make of his words.

Survival of the fittest was incorrectly attributed to Darwin's theory of evolution. This is a form of misrepresentation of his theory. Darwin would not have agreed to it, in my opinion. — L'éléphant

Not so. It was coined by Herbert Spencer but Darwin approved it and included it in later editions of OoS - as OP says.

To add my two cents, though I now see some of this overlaps with some previous comments:

To paraphrase a former professor of mine as I can best recall, the phrasing can well be deemed tautological; consider that “survival of the form that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations” can biologically well translate into “survival of the form that survives in successive generations” and, since evolutionary survival is always implicitly understood in terms of generations (rather than in terms of one individual organism’s lifespan), the latter phrasing can just as well be reduced to “survival of that form which survives”.

That tidbit mentioned, to further opine, as to (1) it depends on how the phrase "survival of the fittest" gets interpreted. For instance, if “fitness” is philosophically understood in the more abstract terms of “the attribute of being conformant to some given” and one further infers that this conformity first and foremost addresses something akin to objective reality when it comes to life and its inherent subjectivity, then one can obtain the rather realistic view that those lifeforms which best conform to the requirements of objective reality’s ever-changing parameters will be most likely to survive (i.e., will, as forms, be most likely found to continue occurring in latter generations). Though this understanding of fitness is different from the official understanding of fitness as, in short, reproductive success, the two understanding can very well converge to my mind. Hence, when thus interpreted, for one example, the present human species can be deemed of very low fitness since it is not fitting itself into, i.e. conforming with, the ecological requirements of the biosphere, but instead diverging from these requirements … with global warming and its ever more devastating consequences as one primary outcome of this. Yes, a lot is opined here but, again, it's mentioned with intent to illustrate that the realism to “survival of the fittest” is contingent on how the expression is interpreted.

As to (2), how most interpret “survival of the fittest” is to my mind a simple mirror held up to the principle values which humanity at large currently entertains. We too often value authoritarian dominance over other, this being implicitly deemed synonymous to fitness by many if not most, as contrasted to living in harmony with other. In reality, non-human species that tend to not live in harmony with their surrounding species and environment also tend to not be very fit, apex predators included. If a predator species eats too much of its prey species, then the predator species will collapse and, if its collapse and absence of food is sufficient, it can go extinct. Maybe for obvious reasons, not many, if any, living examples of such species of apex predators (humans here excluded), but from what I recall ecological models illustrate this just mentioned tendency.

And in terms of (3), again imo, given the aforementioned perspectives, the phrasing is morally detrimental in so far as it reinforces the predominant view of “fitness” being equivalent to a kind of individualism wherein the individual person or cohort outcompetes all others in a zero-sum game. The phrasing further seeks to root this mindset into the objective reality of biology at large when, in fact, this mindset, generally speaking, directly contradicts what the natural world of life for the most part consists of. Competition stands out to us against a background of cooperation and harmony; we focus on the first and tend to neglect the second.

So, to sum my own perspective up, there’s a lot more cooperation and harmony in nature than what we are typically interested in acknowledging, such that it is this very cooperation and harmony which leads to the fitness of the species and individuals from which the biosphere is constituted. But cooperation and harmony is most often opposite to what we commonly interpret via the motto of “survival of the fittest”.

You may like Survival of Friendliest

Since Charles Darwin wrote about “evolutionary fitness,” the idea of fitness has been confused with physical strength, tactical brilliance, and aggression. In fact, what made us evolutionarily fit was a remarkable kind of friendliness, a virtuosic ability to coordinate and communicate with others that allowed us to achieve all the cultural and technical marvels in human history. Advancing what they call the “self-domestication theory,” Brian Hare, professor in the department of evolutionary anthropology and the Center for Cognitive Neuroscience at Duke University and his wife, Vanessa Woods, a research scientist and award-winning journalist, shed light on the mysterious leap in human cognition that allowed Homo sapiens to thrive.

It’s a kind of revisionist or alternative view of evolutionary history - recommended to me by a friend although I haven’t read it yet.

Wayfarer's recommendation reminded me of this complementary work, The Genial Gene.

Are selfishness and individuality—rather than kindness and cooperation—basic to biological nature? Does a "selfish gene" create universal sexual conflict? In The Genial Gene, Joan Roughgarden forcefully rejects these and other ideas that have come to dominate the study of animal evolution. Building on her brilliant and innovative book Evolution's Rainbow, in which she challenged accepted wisdom about gender identity and sexual orientation, Roughgarden upends the notion of the selfish gene and the theory of sexual selection and develops a compelling and controversial alternative theory called social selection. This scientifically rigorous, model-based challenge to an important tenet of neo-Darwinian theory emphasizes cooperation, elucidates the factors that contribute to evolutionary success in a gene pool or animal social system, and vigorously demonstrates that to identify Darwinism with selfishness and individuality misrepresents the facts of life as we now know them.

Read it some time ago. Found it an enjoyable read, and remember it being well supported by a good amount of scientific research.

Anyway, we can find elsewhere that Spencer talked about this concept to Darwin and convinced him to use it instead of "natural selection". But this is trivial to me. — Alkis Piskas

It was coined by Herbert Spencer but Darwin approved it and included it in later editions of OoS - as OP says. — Wayfarer

May I ask what was the response of Darwin when Spencer talked to him about using the phrase. And if Darwin did agree to it, what did Darwin think of "survival of the fittest"? Because as others have already pointed out in this thread, the meaning, not just connotation of the phrase is one of competition and mercilessness. "I am not going to slow down so you could catch up. I'm going full force and if you're not able to catch up, oh well."

I have always understood the theory of "survival of the fittest" on a military/conquering way. Some authors, for example, defended the power of Roman Empire among Europe because how they showed to be the "fittest". — javi2541997

This is an example of how Darwin's natural selection had been misused. It really is about the species of animals.

I only read The Origin of Species, The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, and his autobiography - this decades ago with no recollection of the editions I read, nor with much background knowledge of how he incorporated “survival of the fittest” into later editions due to, I believe it was, Wallace’s influence. So I'm no academic on the matter. But I did find this news article which supports the impression 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. Here’s a noteworthy, though inadequately referenced, excerpt from the article:

Charles Darwin not only did not coin the phrase “survival of the fittest” (the phrase was invented by Herbert Spencer), but he argued against it. In “On the Origin of Species,” he wrote: “it hardly seems probable that the number of men gifted with such virtues [as bravery and sympathy] ... could be increased through natural selection, that is, by the survival of the fittest.”

Darwin was very clear about the weakness of the survival-of-the-fittest argument and the strength of his “sympathy hypothesis” when he wrote: “Those communities which included the greatest number of the most sympathetic members would flourish best and rear the greatest number of offspring.” What Darwin called “sympathy,” in the words of Paul Ekman, “today would be termed empathy, altruism, or compassion.”

Darwin goes so far in his compassion argument as to tie the success of human evolution (and even “lower animals”) to the evolution of compassion. He writes that as the human race evolved from “small tribes” into large civilizations, concern about the well-being of others extended to include not just strangers but “all sentient beings.”

After Herbert Spencer first used the phrase, Darwin responded positively to Alfred Russel Wallace's suggestion of using it as an alternative to "natural selection", and adopted the phrase in The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication published in 1868 and In On the Origin of Species, he introduced the phrase in the fifth edition published in 1869 intending it to mean "better designed for an immediate, local environment".

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. And it has to be said that ‘the survival of the fittest’ lends itself to a way of seeing life that is convergent with capitalist social philosophy, as many have pointed out.

It’s also interesting that Alfred Russel Wallace diverged from Darwin in respect of the descent of man. Even though he agreed completely with the theory of the evolution of the biological form of h. Sapiens, he claimed that natural selection alone could not account for such faculties as mathematics, art and other intellectual abilities. See his Darwinism Applied to Man, which is freely available on the Internet.

My view is simply that h. Sapiens is not fully determined by evolutionary theory. Even though evolution indubitably occurred in line with the empirical discoveries, at the point where h. Sapiens became able to reason and create culture and technology, we ‘transcend the biological’ even if we are still in some fundamental sense biological creatures.

I don't think we're as animal as a dog or trout is an animal; something quite artificial about us, but of course this doesn't mean survival of the fittest doesn't apply to us.

Thank you for your response.

Survival of the fittest was incorrectly attributed to Darwin's theory of evolution. — L'éléphant

This is what I said at the beginning. It was Spencer's idea:
"Herbert Spencer (1820–1903) was an English philosopher who initiated a philosophy called ‘Social Darwinism’. He coined the term ‘survival of the fittest’ seven years before Darwin’s publication of his theory of natural history," (https://newlearningonline.com/new-learning/chapter-4/neoliberalism-more-recent-times/herbert-spencer-on-the-survival-of-the-fittest)

"Hearing of Spencer's idea, noted British naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace, who independently conceived of evolution by natural selection, wrote to Darwin and urged him to adopt the phrase "survival of the fittest" in future editions of On the Origin of Species. Natural selection seemed to personify nature as "selecting" successful species, he contended. Using "survival of the fittest" would do away with that misconception." (https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2021/06/03/the_problem_with_survival_of_the_fittest_778335.html

We already know that adaptation due to mutation has been successful as shown in species and within the cultural context (i.e. humans). — L'éléphant

Right. Mutation is not "natural selection".

Thank you for your response, Javi.

I have always understood the theory of "survival of the fittest" on a military/conquering way. — javi2541997

Right. The concept fits to all conquerors. The will for and act of conquering comes from mental illness and is a form of criminality. One has just to read their lives and feats, as well as their behavior in general, to ascertain that.

Which leads me to say that "survival of the fittest", if used willfully as a principle and not as "natural selection", is a criminal and/or insane attitude. I guess Darwin consider the animal kingdom alone.
But humans differ from animals and, unfortunately in this case, they suffer from mental illnesses that are absent in animals.
A mental illness is an aberration, i.e. a deviation from (what considered as) normal or "natural" behaviour. Darwin was a biologist and not a psychologist, so he regarded humans as animals and he ignored this very important human factor.

Thank you for your response to the topic.

Fitness is a very poor choice of word to apply to humans, let alone human social organization. — Vera Mont

Certainly.

It has too many meanings and potential applications. A scientific terms needs to be far more precise. — Vera Mont

Right, we can attribute to it different meanings. However, there is a scientific and precise definition for it in the present context:
Also called Dar·win·i·an fit·ness [dahr-win-ee-uhn]. Biology.
"1. The genetic contribution of an individual to the next generation's gene pool relative to the average for the population, usually measured by the number of offspring or close kin that survive to reproductive age.
2. The ability of a population to maintain or increase its numbers in succeeding generations."
(Dictionary.com, former Ofxord Lexico)

In nature, the genetic strains that replicate most successfully have the highest survival rate. In human societies, both reproduction and survival capability are unnatural.
So, no, it can't be applied. — Vera Mont

I agree.

Darwin was articulate, but he couldn't have foreseen what the future speakers of English, and particularly those with an agenda of their own, would make of his words. — Vera Mont

This is correct. However, we are not talking here just about words and semantics. We are talking about concepts and principles. In fact, about a whole theory of evolution.

Thanks for your contribution to the topic.
(Are you sure this is only "two cents"? :grin:)

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. (See https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/782308.)
Otherwise, your analysis is quite interesting and its purpose is clear.

As to (2), how most interpret “survival of the fittest” is to my mind a simple mirror held up to the principle values which humanity at large currently entertains. — javra

Ha! :smile:

In reality, non-human species that tend to not live in harmony with their surrounding species and environment also tend to not be very fit, apex predators included. — javra

Good point.

And in terms of (3), again imo, given the aforementioned perspectives, the phrasing is morally detrimental in so far as it reinforces the predominant view of “fitness” being equivalent to a kind of individualism wherein the individual person or cohort outcompetes all others in a zero-sum game. — javra

I agree.

So, to sum my own perspective up, there’s a lot more cooperation and harmony in nature than what we are typically interested in acknowledging — javra

Well said. I agree.

Thanks for considering and responding to all 3 questions!
As I see the whole thing now, it nust be quite a tiresome task! :grin:

You may like Survival of Friendliest — Wayfarer

I, liked it! :up:

The Genial Gene. — javra

Very interesting. Thanks for bringing it up. :up:

(I don't know however when I'll find the time to read all that --including @Wayfarer's recommendation-- the whole works, I mean. Considering also that I have already a backlog of things to read and that I am not a fast reader! :smile:)

Same here - but at least you know those books are being written and that there’s an alternative to the bleak SOF ideology.

bleak SOF — Wayfarer

Indeed! Our little project has fallen flat on its face! El Rachum!

Anyway, we can find elsewhere that Spencer talked about this concept to Darwin and convinced him to use it instead of "natural selection". But this is trivial to me.
— Alkis Piskas
It was coined by Herbert Spencer but Darwin approved it and included it in later editions of OoS - as OP says.
— Wayfarer
May I ask what was the response of Darwin when Spencer talked to him about using the phrase. — L'éléphant

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". (https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2021/06/03/the_problem_with_survival_of_the_fittest_778335.html). But this trivial, anyway.

what did Darwin think of "survival of the fittest"? — L'éléphant

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

This [re: conquering] is an example of how Darwin's natural selection had been misused. It really is about the species of animals. — L'éléphant

Right. It's a wrong interpretation of Darwin's concept of "fittest", as I described earlier. Yet, I think that the concepts of "strongest", "better suited for survival", etc.-- have prevailed, and this has bad consequences for the human species.

So, afterall, maybe Darwin should have known better and stick to his "natural selection", with the concept of the "fittest" staying in the background. Yet, as it is discussed in here, even the concept of "natural selection" has its own flaws.

I don't think we're as animal as a dog or trout is an animal; something quite artificial about us, but of course this doesn't mean survival of the fittest doesn't apply to us. — Agent Smith

Indeed, it applies to us in every sense. And IMO more than to animals, esp. in the sense of "strongest" or "more suitable for survival", which --for better or worse-- has prevailed. To that, we have to add two human elements that are missing from animals: free will and mental illnesses.

but at least you know those books are being written and that there’s an alternative to the bleak SOF ideology. — Wayfarer

Right. It's a comfort! :grin:

Si, si sir/madam. That is true.

Fitness is something specific: "Survival of the form (phenotypic or genotypic) that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations."

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.

In that way it is applicable to all life on Earth, including humans. The genotype of some of us will have have more copies over more generations than that of others.

However, we are not talking here just about words and semantics. We are talking about concepts and principles. In fact, about a whole theory of evolution. — Alkis Piskas

What about the theory? I think it works pretty well, even today. It was certainly a solid foundation for the new branch of scientific study that Darwin's generation pioneered.

How it relates to humans: true and correct, insofar as speciation is concerned. Generally applicable to H sapiens 750,000-7000 BCE, although some strains are difficult to follow, and become quite ambiguous in the latter millennia of that period. Since the institution of city states, organized religion and imperialism, it becomes quite murky. From about 1000 BCE, it's moot.
In applying it to the social sciences, extreme caution is advised in all eras on all continents.

3) What consequences or implications can this this phrase have for our lives if we embrace it as a principle and let it define our actions? More specifically, what are the implications of this principle for life --not only human, but every life-- from an ethical viewpoint? — Alkis Piskas

It's a slogan. For king and country! "Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité". Workers of the World, Unite. Allahu Akbar. MAGA. Because I'm Worth It.
This one phrase has neither implications nor consequences; it can be part of a successful or unsuccessful propaganda campaign in service of a bad or a terrible political agenda. (Good ones don't need slogans; they have reason and purpose.)

It can only be applied deliberately to human life; all other life continues only as long and far as humans allow it to. For other species, only one aspect of fitness still is effect: their ability to adapt to humans.

What about the theory? — Vera Mont

My remark about words and semantics referred to the element of language, based on what you said: "he couldn't have foreseen what the future speakers of English" ...

I think it works pretty well, even today. It was certainly a solid foundation for the new branch of scientific study that Darwin's generation pioneered." — Vera Mont

Yes, I believe it was a solid foundation at the time and it still is today, in its basic aspects, but it has limitations, esp. regarding human species. First of all, technology has changed dramatically since 250 years ago. E.g. @L'éléphant talked about adaptation based on mutation. Medicine can do "miracles" today. All that do not belong to "natural selection" but rather to "artificial changes". But even, if we don't take these changes into account, NS or SOF fails utterly in matters of the human mind and the human nature. A basic example is that it does not take into account human mind and consciouness.

"The problem with the theory of evolution by natural selection, according to [Thomas] Nagel, is that it does not provide an understanding of consciousness as a likely product of evolution. Therefore, we face a double mystery: We are unable to explain the relationship between the mental and the physical, and we cannot explain why and how consciousness evolved. Furthermore, given that consciousness is a feature of life, if we cannot explain how and why consciousness evolved, we cannot fully account for life." (https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/64/4/355/248583)

It can only be applied deliberately to human life; all other life continues only as long and far as humans allow it to. For other species, only one aspect of fitness still is effect: their ability to adapt to humans. — Vera Mont

Good points.

"The problem with the theory of evolution by natural selection, according to [Thomas] Nagel, is that it does not provide an understanding of consciousness as a likely product of evolution. Therefore, we face a double mystery: We are unable to explain the relationship between the mental and the physical, and we cannot explain why and how consciousness evolved. — Alkis Piskas

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