Survival of the “Fittest”

Dramatic advances in science over the last several decades have stimulated the formulation of new challenges to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. These challenges have been most penetrating in the realm of macro-evolution; that is, the appearance of new species and the origin of life itself. But on the micro-evolutionary level (small, incremental changes within a given species) even opponents of evolutionary theory acknowledge a measure of validity. At this micro level, natural selection and survival of the fittest are useful and instructive concepts—though not always in the way one might expect.

A key factor in the equation is our definition of the “fittest” who are being naturally selected. Ever since the debate began, there has been a bias among both supporters and critics to interpret fittest as strongest, smartest, cleverest, and most aggressive. But if we consider fittest to be the most suited to survival and expansion of the species, then there is no necessity a priori that the required qualities be defined as strongest, smartest, and so on. It could be the reverse, depending on the conditions present in a given epoch.

Are we cavemen?

In the popular imagination, there exists the image of cavemen, proto-humans, living alongside other primates on a more-or-less equal footing. Then a caveman possessed of superior intelligence invents a tool: a stone implement, a net, a pit for trapping animals. His tribe is given an advantage that enables it to wipe out or subjugate the neighboring tribes and the other species. The fittest survive; the non-fittest perish. Natural selection follows, the process continues over the course of time, and we arrive at the Industrial Revolution.

It seems indisputable that the caveman scenario applies to many periods of human history. The fly in the ointment, however, is that the opposite can also apply. What if the presumed qualities of “fitness” no longer contribute to the survival and expansion of the species or group? And to go one step further: What if the group self-defines the criteria of fitness, producing criteria that are radically different? If there is no exterior force to challenge the survival of the group, would it not be possible for selection to function on this self-defined basis? For example, what if the group ostracizes anyone with vastly superior strength, intelligence, or talent?

It would appear that for some time now in the West, at least since the 1960s, the standard of fitness has been other than that of the common myth. Increasing in exponential fashion has been the trend to encourage the survival and expansion of a population that is anything but strong, smart, or clever. In nearly all domains, the people who are most creative, efficient, and well-rounded, not to speak of geniuses, seem to be disappearing. And they belong to segments of society that are not reproducing in great numbers.

Talent need not apply

It may very well be that the mythical fittest actually possess—in our era—qualities that make them less fit for survival. The vast wealth accumulated in the West has eliminated the need for true innovation in order to survive. Talent is needed less and less for this purpose because so much of our existence is assured by virtue of repetitive acts, with only minor adjustments to existing systems. This may have contributed to making our society static in certain ways. Could it be that our slothful survival processes have caused slothful intellectual habits?

If it were merely a question of intellectual laziness, we might consider ourselves fortunate. The sad truth is, we have gone far beyond this stage. We now live in an age in which fittest is being consciously redefined to mean mediocre, sexless, and ahistorical; in a word, stripped of all identity. Survival for the society and for the individual is assured by conformity to blandness.

Real genius and true individuality are the biggest threats to the new Fittest. This is reflected in the now-familiar phenomenon of dumbing down, that incessant lowering of standards and erosion of quality. In academia and the rest of the mainstream “intelligentsia,” pseudo-intellectual activity and histrionics replace real schools of thought. The ever more crass denigration of standards is marketed as innovation.

It may be a painful exercise, but an objective view may require us to at least understand the new Fittest. Genius and individuality, in our era, may not actually contribute to survival, strictly speaking. They boost the quality of life, but that is an altogether different issue. Who needs quality of life when one can have a comfortable survival?

In Darwinian terms, it could be said that a large segment of Homo sapiens has evolved—in the sense of unprecedented numbers surviving, with no challenge from other species. This lies at the heart of the contemporary idea of progress. The current definition of evolution views man as an animal whose advancement is evaluated in the same way as for any species: The goal is larger, healthier herds. This view, of course, is incompatible with man as a unique, higher, reasoning being.

What happened to achievement?

Pure survival as a yardstick of progress must be contrasted with the standard that was dominant over the course of millennia: that of achievement. In order to grasp the enormity of the gap between the two conceptions, one need only survey the literature of the West from the decline of the Roman empire to the beginning of the modern era. On page after page, one detects a feeling of inferiority vis-à-vis the almost superhuman cultural output of the ancient world. Such sentiments, at their peak, formed one of the pillars of the Renaissance: the exhilarating rediscovery of long-lost treasures.

The emphasis on achievement is crucial because it is necessary for quality of life. It bestows true purpose to human action. So much of it we take for granted, in so many fields: architecture, design, music, literature, philosophy, fine art; in short, almost everything that makes life interesting and uplifting.

The force that drives achievement is competition. We tend to overlook the fact that every human society thrives on competition. What varies is the goal. The objective could be to produce the greatest work of beauty, or it could be to boost “diversity in the workplace.” Either could be the subject of subsidies, awards, conferences, fundraising events, exhibitions, and television documentaries.

Competition occurs among ourselves as well as between ourselves and the people who preceded us. We have already seen, with the achievement-driven variety of competition, the reverence accorded prior generations, and the shame that can occur when the present fails to pass muster. But currently, we have dropped the ball, refusing to take up the challenge. The abdication is almost total. We have sunk to an intellectual lameness, inventing every excuse to avoid discipline and dedication. Incidentally, all of this holds in relation to the future as well. We have lost our sense of shame at how future generations will view us.

Any comparison between ourselves and our ancestors is most often framed in terms of time-bound parameters. Having thrown out the absolute, we judge the past by standards that are drawn purely from our own circumstances. This leads to a sort of temporal ethnocentrism. When looking at bygone eras, instead of concentrating on concrete measures of achievement, we declare, for example, that they were in a primitive condition due to the entrenched inequality of their societies (and worse, the fact that they tried to justify it). This sort of critique is a pretext for retreat.

Rivaling the 1937 Packard

Along with retroactive judgment comes its flip side: Declaring past achievements to be irrelevant in today’s world. This view has a variant in which achievements may grudgingly be praised, but said to be unattainable because “circumstances have changed so much.” Their works are great for museums and tours of Italy, it is said, but to suggest today that they could be matched would be considered a point of view bordering on insanity. What, build an edifice that rivals the Sistine Chapel? Build an automobile that rivals the 1937 Packard? Don’t you know how much it would cost, how expensive the materials are, what the environmental impact would be?

If we were serious, we would resume the tradition of competition with the past that is based on cultural and intellectual output as measured by objective, timeless factors. Imagine, for example, if we had to create an entirely new school of architecture—something never before seen—that had to compete with the Parthenon, exceeding it in terms of beauty, precision, and proportionality. Imagine if our artists felt compelled to rival the Dutch masters in terms of light, color, and mood. Why not? Do we deserve any less? Why do we not demand it?

There is a conflict between survival and achievement, and we must choose how much of each is desirable. Either extreme can become unbearable. The same choice also faces the individual. If one drives obsessively toward a certain achievement, it could jeopardize one’s chances for survival. If, on the other hand, one is obsessed with survival at any cost, life can become tepid and meaningless.

Today, the pendulum has swung heavily to the side of survival. This is evident in the ever-expanding health craze, and in a general focus on one’s own well-being. Survival is a new idol, expressed in a fanatical drive to eliminate risk. While the individual is being relieved of responsibility and indeed of significance, “society” is expected to implement and enforce risk reduction in everything from bathtubs to ice cream cones. One by one, commonplace activities considered dangerous are regulated out of existence.

Don’t drink your coffee with a straw

We invent threats at an ever-increasing rate. If it’s not second-hand smoke, then it’s an exaggeration of the dangers in routine human action. We go from the ridiculous to the harebrained: At the Starbucks chain of cafés, drinking-straws are wrapped in paper that says, “Not recommended for use in hot beverages.” Children are not allowed to engage in vigorous exercise on school playgrounds, over fear of injury.

As it goes with the personal, micro level, so it goes with the macro. We are forced to endlessly consider the risk and “impact” of various and sundry pursuits, lest they endanger the health of the ecosphere, biosphere, or some other sphere. Global Warming is merely the summit of this vast ideological mountain, as ominous to the contemporary soul as Mount Olympus was to the classical Greeks.

One final note. There is a certain type of survival that tends to be ignored, the further one moves toward the survivalism described above. I am speaking of protection from crime, invasion, terrorism, or any other direct threat by a person or group of people against another. Acknowledging the existence of these real dangers would contradict contemporary notions of progress.

Under the regime of survivalism, what is the purpose of “evolving” to a more advanced stage? Are we to become ever more obedient, passive, and helpless? More protected than a flock of sheep in an enclosed meadow?