Originally posted by robertnesta
wouldnt this put a hole in the entire idea? any thoughts?
No, it doesnt put a hole in the entire idea.
Survival of the fittest isnt about the
individual surviving, it is about the offspring of the individual surviving.
Survival of the individual is only necessary until that individual reproduces in sufficient number to ensure its representation in the gene pool.
Which is one of the reasons older people sicken and die. There has been no selective pressure to ensure humans live past the age at which they
reproduce and raise their children to reproductive age.
Consider, a 20 year old male involved in crime and gang activity, and a 45 year old male accountant. The 20 year old male is shot and killed in the
same year he is 20, the 45 year old accountant lives to be 90. The relative "fitness" of the individual is not measured by the length of his own
life, but by how many of his own children reach reproductive age and bear children of their own. If the 20 year old was promiscuous, and had 8
children, by 8 different women, who all survive to reproductive age and have children of their own, and the accountant only has 3 who survive to
reproductive age, then the gang member was the "fitter" of the two in evolutionary terms despite his short individual life.
There are differing reproductive "strategies" among individuals of the same species. For instance human males (in general) prefer a strategy of low
input, high volume, human females have adopted a strategy (of necessity, they can only have one every 9 months, and each birth increases their own
risk of death) of lower volume, higher input. Of course, there is also a range of strategy within the male and female "groups." Some males as I
have pointed out, choose a very high volume approach and do not stick around to rear their young, where some males choose to have less children and
invest more in assuring they reach adulthood and reproduce themselves.
Anyway, the point is, it is not YOUR survival that determines your relative "fitness" but that of your offspring and their offspring. The "Darwin
Awards" that are awarded to people who have already reproduced are not, technically speaking, Darwin awards unless the act of stupidity kills off all
his/her genetic heirs as well as him/herself. And you cannot compare the details of the reproductive strategy of one species with another unless you
understand that it is the
outcome that is important. After all, trees aside, many plants die over the winter and their "children" do not
sprout and grow until the spring, and yet their DNA survives generation after generation.
High volume, however, does not guarantee success. If for instance the area you live in suffers some event that limits resources, and you have 8
children to feed and cannot, and they and you all starve, you have failed. In times like that, someone who has one or two children who survive the
environmental change is fitter. Reproductive strategies succeed or fail based not solely on their own inherent merits, but also relative to the
environment in which they are implemented. Which is why there is generally variation
within a species in terms of strategy. What works best
in one time and place may not work at all in another time and place.
All of the above said, there is a another factor. Events, or "nature," acts as the ultimate judge of who and which strategy was the fittest, not
individuals themselves. The individuals that can most closely align their reproductive strategy with the demands of the area in which they live,
rather than blindly following habit, are quite likely to be the winners.
