Again, io9’s article brings me back to this point, hence the theme for this day. It concludes aptly: “Ultimately, “survival of the fittest” is necessary, but not always sufficient, for the survival of the species” (Gonzalez, io9.com article, 3/5/13). The link to the article is embedded in the citation there, and I recommend its reading highly.
It is important to note Darwin never used the phrase survival of the fittest. Rather, it was coined five years after the publication and presentation of Darwin’s On the Origins of the Species by English social philosopher, Herbert Spencer. Spencer uses it to craft what is became known as Social Darwinism and, whose bipolar political and ethical ideology aside, essentially established through his body of political works the impetus for modern Conservative thought, especially in the US.
The simple fact is that human evolution did not select for Survival of the Fittest; we naturally selected for traits that brought culture to the forefront of our people. Compound this with the fact that, regardless of Comte’s irascibly progressive positivism, moving forward in time does not and cannot equate with progressing as culture, we find that the truth regarding human biodiversity and mating selection is not so easy to understand or clear.
Currently, human persistence appears to be more a function of sheer numbers rather than of anything else. Religions state that people should bear children, and children are brought into this world. The World Health Organization knows that one of the greatest threats to any country is overpopulation and gives out color TVs and satellite service to promote reduced copulation frequency, regardless of the selection for or the persistence of negative genetic and cultural traits. Cultural DNA can be just as a birth defect in some places as Biological DNA (unfortunately) and just as deadly.