this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2023
18 points (95.0% liked)

Asklemmy

43989 readers
1429 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"Survival of the fittest" (when used without trying to understand its actual meaning).

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Fittest means most suited to the environmwnt, not necessarily strongest, fastest, smartest etc

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This is from Darwin, I think. It describes the mechanism of selection in evolution: the organisms that are better adapted to their environments are the ones more likely to survive.

Bady likely hates it because it's often misused, by transforming it in a prescriptive statement (from "the fittest survives" to "the fittest deserves to survive) and/or ignoring that what's considered the fittest depends on the environment (e.g. a fish isn't fit in a dry environment, but a cactus isn't fit in the sea).

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Also the word 'fitness' is colored a bit by our current corporal culture ('fit' is something one can become of one aspires to be it). Whilst in the Darwinian reading it's more like an accidental occurrence (a mutation made the species more fit by accident).

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Worse, he probably refers to social darwinism.
A very nasty school of thought that’s (partly) responsible for everything from genocide to eugenics.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Social "Darwinism" relies on the fallacy that I mentioned, where you treat a descriptive statement as if it was prescriptive. (And yes, it's nasty.)