Survival of the Fittest

Social philosopher Herbert Spencer was wrong in many respects when he coined the term survival of the fittest to discuss human behavior and Victorian social policies. But social scientists would not be wrong today in comparing humans to other organisms, or to understanding (but not necessarily agreeing with) Spencer's application of survival of the fittest, especially as the guardrails of government and religion are weakened. 

Humans may appear sophisticated in some ways, but we are animals, nevertheless. Many of the laws of human behavior are consistent with the laws of nature, despite commonly held beliefs about human civilization that seemingly make us different. Yet like other animals, humans are prone to disease and vulnerable to the environment. We can adapt to change, and survive using a variety of means which may comport to our values or cause cognitive dissonance. Humans imitate, innovate, manipulate, connive, and steal. Non-human organisms, including viruses, bacteria, fungi, and more complex beings, like insects and rodents, can also adapt, and have so for millions of years, much longer than we have. We live in an ecosystem, and in communities. When other organisms thrive or die, it affects us.  

 

This new social reality (or a return to older social realities) should become more apparent in the coming years as humans across the globe deal with a number of existential issues, including war, famine, and disease--and the human-induced climate change that will pour fuel on these issues. Not only must we reexamine Herbert Spencer, we must also reexamine Thomas Malthus and determine what aspects of his theories on population may be coming back to life, and what aspects may not be as relevant. 

Related links: 

Austerity and Disruption

Shall we all pretend we didn't see it coming, again?: higher education, climate change, climate refugees, and climate denial by elites

The US Working-Class Depression: "Let's all pretend we couldn't see it coming."