In this mutli-part series, Sanat Mohanty discusses why we have to look for alternatives and what kinds of alternatives we should look for. In this third piece of the series, we analyze the concept of ‘Survival of the Fittest’ and its application to evolving societies.

Part I: What is the point of this discussion?
Part II: Therefore Alternatives: Fundamentalism of our Societies

Part III: Survival of the Fittest
Nature is often described as survival of the fittest and it has been presented as the model for most efficient evolution. Why then should we not just follow this model? Why should we try to develop a model that would create less ‘fit’ specimens, or hinder evolution?

While certain models of nature seem to suggest that it is the survival of the fittest, that the weak are to be destroyed through natural processes, extension of this model to human societies wherein it is used to define social policies and human interactions is based on an understanding of human society as efficient entities, it completely misses the essence of being human, the Being (Martin Heidegger, “Being and Time”, Harper, San Francisco, 1962).

Evolution of the Human will not be manifested in growth of extra appendages but rather in greater understanding and in the creation of societies that allow for Humans to live in a way that allows each individual to realize himself or herself.

Survival of the fittest actually is counter to that. This notion reinforces institutions that disempower various sections – race based, gender based, religion based, etc – from being able to achieve such realization, irrespective of the abilities or talents of an individual in that section.

After all, it is evolution (in such a sense) that has increasingly resulted in a society women find more rights, where communities that were traditionally segregated or oppressed on the basis of skin color, or caste, have been able to realize their potential. It is such an evolution in this fashion that has led to emancipation of slaves, end to inquisitions and crusades, overt rejection of genocide, etc – all of which are deemed part of survival of the fittest. A society based on survival of the fittest would have prevented such an evolution and would have in fact resulted in a more inhuman society – it cannot be the basis of a more evolved society.

A more evolved society believes that an individual should be able to find opportunities based on his/her interests and capabilities irrespective of the station of his/her birth or the circumstances of his childhood. Survival of the fittest cares a damn – all that matters is the winner. Any society that is given to greater justice or an increased commitment to the voices of all sections of our world must then get away from survival of the fittest which campaigns of ‘winning’ by whatever way you can.

And yet, if you believe that survival of the fittest will lead to a better society, then the rest of the discussion is irrelevant.

Before we carry on with our discussion, it is necessary to broadly define some terms.

Related Links
Deschooling Society
Shikshantar’s Explorations
Vernacular Values
Energy and Equity