Does "survival of the fittest" still matter?

[Mr. Piccolo]

According to this article, human evolution is still shaped by the principle of "survival of the fittest." However, I wanted to see what the comrades here thought about it.

(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2941401/Survival-fittest-shapes-human-evolution-study-claims.html#comments)

We now live longer and have fewer children than our ancestors but our genes are still playing a major role in our reproduction 'choices'.

Scientists wanted to determine how much cultural influences such as access to contraception, global travel and medical advances affect who people have children with, and when.

And by studying 10,000 family trees, they discovered that up to 18 per cent of these factors are still driven by our genes.

The study showed that while only 67 per cent of children born in the 1860s survived to adulthood, that figure rose to 94 per cent during the 1940s.

At the same time, people went from having an average of five children to 1.6 children during their lifetime.

Despite these changes, the researchers found genetic differences were still a key driver when it came to how these families developed across generations.

Dr Virpi Lummaa from the University of Sheffield and Dr Elisabeth Bolund, now at Uppsala University in Sweden, studied genealogical records collected from Finnish churches that ranged from the start of the 18th century to today.

They built family trees that spanned several generations for 10,000 people to see how much of the variation in a trait is due to genetic influences, and how much is due to their environment.

The study found that during the 18th and 19th centuries, four to 18 per cent of the variation between individuals in terms of how long they lived, the size of their family and the ages at which they had their first and last child was influenced by genes.

The rest of the variation was driven by differences in their environment, such as cultural norms and access to medical help.

In particular, before and after 1880, the age at which a person had their first child ranged between 26.8 and 27 years old.

The age they had their last child was 40.5 before 1880, and 34.7 after this date.

But the differences between life span and the number of children was much wider. Pre-1880, families had at least five children and lived until 60 years old.

After this date, the number of children dropped to an average of 2.5, while people lived to 71 years old.

Dr Bolund said: ‘This is exciting because if genes affected differences between individuals in these traits, it means they could also change in response to natural selection.

‘But we know that the environment has changed rapidly and dramatically, so we investigated the genetic basis of such complex traits and their ability to continue changing through evolution.'

In fact, the study showed that the genetic influence - such as on timing of reproduction and family size - tended to be higher in recent times.

Dr Bolund said this means modern human societies can still respond to selection, and genetic differences between us continue to fuel evolution.

It is possible that in modern societies, we have more individual freedom to express our genetic predispositions because social and normative influences are more relaxed, and this leads to the genetic differences among us explaining more of the reproductive patterns.’

Dr Bolund added: ‘This is reassuring if we want to use current patterns of natural selection and genetic variation to make predictions of what will happen in modern human populations over the next few generations.

‘Our results can help us when we want to predict population responses in the face of global challenges such as prevailing epidemics, ageing populations and decreasing fertility.’

The findings are published in the journal Evolution.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2941401/Survival-fittest-shapes-human-evolution-study-claims.html#ixzz3QuusrjL2

[cyu]

I don't know the details of their research, but I always thought it difficult to distinguish between genetic and cultural inheritance. For example, if the parents were athletic, and they have an athletic child, you might assume that it was because of athletic genes - however, it may also be true that both parents simply enjoy a lot of active recreation, and as a result, their child grew up with a childhood filled with active recreation.

Similarly, if two chess-master parents train their child to become a child chess prodigy, is it in their genes, or just the fact that they keep trying to hammer chess into their kid?

If both parents come from large families, and they think 5 children is normal, is that a genetic disposition for 5 children, or a cultural one?

[Redistribute the Rep]

http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304302704579334954138196792

[Rafiq]

It does. What is class struggle, what is history if not this? The point is that it is social, not biological

[Mr. Piccolo]

It does. What is class struggle, what is history if not this? The point is that it is social, not biological

Well, the article seems to be about biological struggle. The reason I wanted to get feedback from comrades on this issue is that I have seen this study cited as an example that socio-economic outcomes are increasingly the result of biological sorting with the rich being rich because they are biologically superior to the poor.

[The Disillusionist]

Ugh.... I don't have time to respond to this thoroughly (maybe later), but I will say, as a student of evolutionary theory, that "survival of the fittest" is a misleading term, coined not by Darwin but by Herbert Spencer, who didn't fully understand evolution.

The ONLY thing fitness means in an evolutionary context is an organism's ability to have offspring which will then have offspring, propagating its genetic code. Fitness has absolutely nothing inherently to do with sociocultural concepts like wealth or social status. Neither of those things can be evolutionarily selected for; there will never be a society made up solely of people who are rich and high-status as a result of rich and high-status people having more children than poor folk, that's not the way it works.

[Rafiq]

Well, the article seems to be about biological struggle. The reason I wanted to get feedback from comrades on this issue is that I have seen this study cited as an example that socio-economic outcomes are increasingly the result of biological sorting with the rich being rich because they are biologically superior to the poor.

The article is garbage - correlation isn't causation. Not to say that there is significance in the correlation - it simply doesn't support the conclusion that it is genetic.

[cyu]

I have seen this study cited as an example that socio-economic outcomes are increasingly the result of biological sorting with the rich being rich because they are biologically superior to the poor. That's what they say just before your firing squad lines them up in front of the wall ;)

In every era, the ruling class tries to come up with various ways to justify their position in society. The more desperate they feel, the more outlandish their justifications. It is because they live in fear, that they feel they need to come up with such justifications at all. And why do they live in fear? Because once they reach the top of society, they realize that they've painted themselves into a corner. Their best hope at that point is to die a natural death, before all the people they've stepped on in the past (and continue to step on) bust down their door and find them stuck in their corner.

[Tim Cornelis]

That's what they say just before your firing squad lines them up in front of the wall ;)

In every era, the ruling class tries to come up with various ways to justify their position in society. The more desperate they feel, the more outlandish their justifications. It is because they live in fear, that they feel they need to come up with such justifications at all. And why do they live in fear? Because once they reach the top of society, they realize that they've painted themselves into a corner. Their best hope at that point is to die a natural death, before all the people they've stepped on in the past (and continue to step on) bust down their door and find them stuck in their corner.

If it's a justification, it's a justification of wealth redistribution. Capitalist apologists propose the opposite: wealth inequality is the product of inequality of hard work. The rich work hard, the poor are lazy (a bit black and white representation). This, instead, proposes that it's not hard work but naturally gifted talents that determine wealth inequality, which is not a product of free choice and trade or hard work. It's an argument against capitalism more than anything.

[consuming negativity]

survival of the fittest isn't even true

organisms adapt to their environments, genes are traced through previous organisms, those which are most capable of reproducing successfully without extinction are the most capable organisms in that environment

wait, but when do I get stronk?

you don't.

[Mr. Piccolo]

If it's a justification, it's a justification of wealth redistribution. Capitalist apologists propose the opposite: wealth inequality is the product of inequality of hard work. The rich work hard, the poor are lazy (a bit black and white representation). This, instead, proposes that it's not hard work but naturally gifted talents that determine wealth inequality, which is not a product of free choice and trade or hard work. It's an argument against capitalism more than anything.

Yes. I make this exact argument when arguing with so-called "evolutionary conservatives." That if wealth was merely the result of winning the genetic lottery, then there is no moral argument for vast inequality.

This usually brings them to a Panglossian argument, that there is nothing that can be done to change outcomes that are set by nature, so we should be happy with what we have. They contend that:

1. The more capable will naturally seek dominance and a disproportionate share of the world's wealth and status because of the "alpha" principle. The strong will always seek to lord over the weak.

2. Even if an egalitarian society was possible, it would result in dysgenics and a dysfunctional society. Think the movie "Idiocracy."

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

It would be interesting to see the methodology used, because in practice, separating genetic influences from non-genetic ones is extremely difficult. In any case, 18% is not a lot.

I don't think it has any political implications. Like, who cares if the "distribution of wealth" is natural or moral?

[cyu]

there is nothing that can be done to change outcomes that are set by nature, so we should be happy with what we have.
Kind of like nothing can be done to change God's Will, so we should be happy with the position God has created for us.

If I drive off with a rich man's BMW, that is also God's Will - or merely a natural outcome set by nature ;)

(As mentioned above, the more desperate they feel, the more outlandish their justifications.)

[Rafiq]

This usually brings them to a Panglossian argument, that there is nothing that can be done to change outcomes that are set by nature, so we should be happy with what we have. They contend that:

1. The more capable will naturally seek dominance and a disproportionate share of the world's wealth and status because of the "alpha" principle. The strong will always seek to lord over the weak.

2. Even if an egalitarian society was possible, it would result in dysgenics and a dysfunctional society. Think the movie "Idiocracy."

The reason why this is stupid is because it disaccounts for something called history, that is, HOW dominance is exercised, what the magnitude of desire, what constitutes success and so on. All of these are historically relative. It assumes that there is no variation, historically, in our relations to production - but this simply isn't true. The point is that our society too is composed of different classes: Even if we want to content that there are such a thing as "alphas" and that smarter people want to dominate others, what it ignores is the systemic background of fulfillment - you never "simply" dominate others in a vacuum, you yourself become a lackey of a wider systemic function.

Take for example the actual alpha male system, which is actually what we as humans are distinguished from socially. A new hegemon arises, but relations to production do not change - there is an infinitely proportional and balanced relationship to nature wherein history becomes impossible. No matter who is the alpha male, things will retain their fundamental character. We can then recognize that the means of becoming "dominant" are not willed by apes, it is determined by "nature", if you will.

What separates humans from other apes, however, is our ability to transform nature to our will. We literally can revolutionize the background from which the magnitude of possibility for an individual to achieve power is possible. This is not done by gifted men but by men and women attempting to fulfill their immediate ends organized as distinct groups with distinct relationships to the process of production and survival. So what's the point? That what constitutes "strong" and "weak" are not eternal qualifications of power but are socially relative. In a barbarous society wherein physical strength and vitality constitutes social strength, the designations of power are different. In our society, those in power are fat old men who would most likely not survive a day in the "nature" they like to constantly use to legitimize their status. They want to pick and choose which constitutes a natural order but the whole fucking thing is contradictory: Nature as such doesn't exist, and if they had a semblance of honesty, they'd run in the damn woods and let 'nature' do its bidding. If humans were subject to "nature" as such, frankly we wouldn't even exist biologically since there is actually evidence to suggest that the bipedal ape arose by escaping nature with more complex means of social organization - in other words, changing the world around us. Even our notion of nature is pre-conceived in our heads: remember the good Hegelian Marx, who said that in order to understand the anatomy of an ape, one should first understand the anatomy of a human.

The whole presumption rests on the vast ignorance of any possible threat to the existing order. Communists do not adhere to slave morality. Communists effectively become affirmative, we establish a new ideological language and set new qualifications for strength and weakness. Frankly, why should we Communists care about their standards of strength and dominance? The "poor", the "weak" literally posses the power to destroy the existing order. And when the terror commences, these same dishonest scum, these same fucking scoundrels in their fedoras prattling of "survival of the fittest" will make pleas to the gods of morality and mercy, to being 'humane' and so on. During the October revolution, when the proletariat possessed power, what would they have said, being lined up against the wall ready to be slaughtered by the forces of historic justice? Who is "less fit" and "weaker" now? My god, if the ability to attain and exercise power designates the will of nature, then nature, they can be in for a big surprise. They are so ignorant to think that it will be exercised on their terms.

An egalitarian society will not be established by the benevolence of capitalists or under the backdrop of a society predisposed to dominance and slavery. The absence of equality is not natural, it is imposed: the fact that every class society had to be maintained with annual blood lettings of the damned proves this. Egalitarianism doesn't mean everyone will have the same skills, or that there will be no competitions, or betters. It simply means that everyone is equal insofar as the foundations of life and survival go (i.e. the absence of private property): Not an ideal we impose but a logical consequence of the destruction of the class enemy's rule. An egalitarian society can still be disciplined, ordered. The success of egalitarianism is inversely proportional to the amount of these scum still breathing.

[Rafiq]

Just the sight of these reactionary scum, these pseudo-darwinists, just knowing they exist is enough to boil blood. Even if, magically, everything was in vain, it does not matter: We ought to have the mentality that if this was "the natural order", if such injustices will always exist, then we would do good not caring about destroying the Earth completely in the process of fighting against it. The fact that it is possible to think in this way alone means they're full of shit (picking and choosing what is "natural" or not - if all that significantly exists is natural, how do they explain Communists? Are we 'unnatural'? Crazy? Good. We ought to savior such madness).

Their existence, their mere existence should alone shed light on the hypocritical bourgeois morality which sustains them - all the shit-slinging and talk of totalitarianism, of inhumane revolutionary excess - fuck them all. The barbarians, and I'm not just talking about these pseudo-darwinists, but all this new "dark enlightenment" garbage, they will eat the liberals like nothing. Only Communism, as an ideological universe, can beat them back.

[Mr. Piccolo]

Just the sight of these reactionary scum, these pseudo-darwinists, just knowing they exist is enough to boil blood. Even if, magically, everything was in vain, it does not matter: We ought to have the mentality that if this was "the natural order", if such injustices will always exist, then we would do good not caring about destroying the Earth completely in the process of fighting against it. The fact that it is possible to think in this way alone means they're full of shit (picking and choosing what is "natural" or not - if all that significantly exists is natural, how do they explain Communists? Are we 'unnatural'? Crazy? Good. We ought to savior such madness).

Their existence, their mere existence should alone shed light on the hypocritical bourgeois morality which sustains them - all the shit-slinging and talk of totalitarianism, of inhumane revolutionary excess - fuck them all. The barbarians, and I'm not just talking about these pseudo-darwinists, but all this new "dark enlightenment" garbage, they will eat the liberals like nothing. Only Communism, as an ideological universe, can beat them back.

Thank you for the informative replies. I often find myself arguing with Social Darwinists, sometimes in unexpected places. I even have a liberal/progressive friend who believes in Social Darwinism to a certain degree. It is amazing how this dreadful ideology is coming out from under the rocks these days.

[Yuli Ban]

No. It never meant anything.

Even pre-Darwinists recognized that those who survive are those that learn to cooperate. Unless "fittest" means the same, I've always taken it as an analog for "I made my riches, fuck you and every other lazy untermensch."

[Mr. Piccolo]

No. It never meant anything.

Even pre-Darwinists recognized that those who survive are those that learn to cooperate. Unless "fittest" means the same, I've always taken it as an analog for "I made my riches, fuck you and every other lazy untermensch."

The latter definition of fitness is what is often used in the media and especially by "evolutionary conservatives" when trying to create an argument for the impossibility of moving beyond capitalism to a more egalitarian system.

I see it as a more modern version of the divine right argument. Instead of "the world is the way it is because God intended it to be so" argument utilized under feudalism, we now have an argument that proposes to prove the legitimacy of capitalism by appealing to biology.

[Slavic]

No where does Charles Darwin ever refer to the theory of "survival of the fittest" as anything but, the ability for an organism to sucessfully reproduce at such a rate and degree of efficiency that it is able to continue is species' existence.

Any talk about, strong or smart people as the intention of what is "fittest" is just false and doesn't understand what genetic evolution is even about.

The fittest organism is the one which can reproduce under a variety of circumstances. That is all.

[Comrade #138672]

"Survival of the fittest" is a mistaken idea. It should be "the probable survival of the replicators that are fit enough". Pseudo-Darwinists fetishize biological evolution, which many times has an ideological purpose. They tend to think of everything as biological adaptions, especially when it favors them.

Also, social forces tend to overrule the biological forces in many areas and are pretty much independent of them.