4 ms·

Horrible but widespread misconception - "survival of the fittest" doesn't mean survival of the strongest with the best genes / physical traits. It means what it

by Kenji 12y ago

Horrible but widespread misconception - "survival of the fittest" doesn't mean survival of the strongest with the best genes / physical traits. It means what it says, "survival of the fittest". To fit in, to be adaptive, to deal with the situations at hand. In that sense, the wealthy are the fittest. Those who ensure their survival and reproduction the best are the fittest. Whatever traits that might require.

JoeAltmaier 12y ago
Not sure how 'wealth' is related to fitness? Poor people are renowned for reproducing much more than the wealthy in modern times.
- Retric 12y ago
  That's not actually true, more wealthy men have more children than poor men on average. Wealthy women have fewer children on average. The discrepancy is wealthy men often have children with more than one women. PS: There are a lot of incorrect studies on this issue as you really need to do DNA testing to accurately track # of children it's also important to track older people as men can have children into their 60's.
  - TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
    This has some sources: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/08/31/the-poor-and-the-dark-skinned/ http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/08/31/the-poor-and-th... But... I'm not sure it's a fair comparison. If the poor reproduce much earlier than the rich you're comparing multiple generations with a single generation. By the time our hypothetical "fit" billionaire has just finished his family of three, a hypothetical "less fit" poor male may already be a grandfather. Of course, this doesn't include unofficial offspring, multiple marriages, and so on. It seems quite hard to get accurate numbers.
    - Retric 12y ago
      Americans are below the replacement rate so having more generations results in fewer not more offspring.
nosuchthing 12y ago
In historical terms can this be accurate other than "successfully gave birth to children who than successfully gave birth.." ? I'm reminded of the intro to Idiocracy, where successful birth giving and "fitness" have long been separated : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icmRCixQrx8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icmRCixQrx8

by Kenji 12y ago

JoeAltmaier 12y ago

Not sure how 'wealth' is related to fitness? Poor people are renowned for reproducing much more than the wealthy in modern times.

Retric 12y ago
That's not actually true, more wealthy men have more children than poor men on average. Wealthy women have fewer children on average. The discrepancy is wealthy men often have children with more than one women. PS: There are a lot of incorrect studies on this issue as you really need to do DNA testing to accurately track # of children it's also important to track older people as men can have children into their 60's.
- TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
  This has some sources: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/08/31/the-poor-and-the-dark-skinned/ http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/08/31/the-poor-and-th... But... I'm not sure it's a fair comparison. If the poor reproduce much earlier than the rich you're comparing multiple generations with a single generation. By the time our hypothetical "fit" billionaire has just finished his family of three, a hypothetical "less fit" poor male may already be a grandfather. Of course, this doesn't include unofficial offspring, multiple marriages, and so on. It seems quite hard to get accurate numbers.
  - Retric 12y ago
    Americans are below the replacement rate so having more generations results in fewer not more offspring.

nosuchthing 12y ago

In historical terms can this be accurate other than "successfully gave birth to children who than successfully gave birth.." ? I'm reminded of the intro to Idiocracy, where successful birth giving and "fitness" have long been separated : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icmRCixQrx8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icmRCixQrx8