SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST

Dominion, Volume 16, Issue 121, 7 February 1923, Page 8

SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST

WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

A MISUNDERSTOOD PHRASE

Before the Rotary Chib yesterday, Mr. Lawrence Birks, B.Sc., read an interesting paper on the subject. “Tho Survival of the Fittest,” seeking more particularly to ascertain what the phrase meant as regards its application to the human race

“Probably,” said Mr. Birks, e’no phraso in the English language has been more seriously and generally misunderstood with more disastrous results to our culture and civilisation than the phrase which forms the. title for these notes, and perhaps some such misunderstanding exists among a few of the members of the Rotary Club. If so, it will be worth while to give the subject a few minutes’ consideration. One of tho most unfortunate results of this misconception as to tho meaning of the phrase is the idea which is definitely impressed on most minds that there is some inherent conflict between science and religion. The fault lies on both sides, or''rather on ail three sides.

The Professorial Idea. "The professor of religion makes a superficial study of the principles of evolution, and wrongly nrtorprets the phrase ‘survival of the fittest’ to mean the survival of the strongest, whether the strongest be the fittest to survive or not. This conception appears to him to idealise selfishness as tne ruling principle in the natural order, and he naturally rejects it as tho fundamental principle in tho development of society. “The professor of science studies and 'masters tho details of physical heredity, and in most cases limits his studies to physical characteristics! 1 ’ He determines definitely that as far as they are concerned the ‘strongest’ is tho ‘fittest,.’ and he usually fails to draw attention to the fact that he has only dealt with ono aspect of tho problem of evolution. Besides the physical. aspect, organised human society consists of a whole of other aspects—the emotional, the commercial, tho social, the moral, and the spiritual aspects. In each of theso tho law of tho survival of the fittest applies just as truly, but .in none of the.se aspects is the physically strongest or the most capable in individual contests necessarily the fittest, to survive. And although tho strongest rnay by chance, appear for a while—for a few generations at times—to predominate, he cannot build up a permanent community unless he is the fittest. in the more important spheres, particularly of moral and spiritual life.

Hard to See Daylight, “Thus, as the professors on both sides generally appear to agree on the definition of their terms and then disagree violently in tho application in everyday affairs of’ the principles involved, it is hard for the third party —Hie great mass of tho community—to see any daylight. It is not surprising if most of us simply accept as inevitable the conflict between those who recognise that physical force is apparently the determining factor in human affairs, and adjust their ideals accordingly, and those who recognise that moral force should be tho deternu'tyng factor in human affairs and try to maintain idoals based oil this conception.

“This conflict is a fundamental one. The recent great war is only one of l tho evidences of it. It is probably an extreme statement to make that the war itself—and all the misery that is following it—is duo simply to an almost universal mistake, although this is practically Benjamin Kidd’s proposition. in the definition of the phrase the ‘survival of the fittest.’ But J am confident in stating this, that had the definition of the terms and -the inexorable nature of the law of the survival of the fittest been understood by the war lords twenty to thirty years ago there would hhve been no war. Moreover, the war is another example of the fact that tho strongest, in military matters and physical equipment is not the fittest. Undoubtedly Germany in a military sense was stronger in 1914 than Great Britain. Sho was better equipped and more prepared for war. Tho victory of Britain wa-s directly due to the spirit and ideals of her peonle which caused her to be unprepared in August, 1914. That spirit and those ideals rendered her a fitter nation to survive than the German spirit and ideal” which have grown up during the past fifty- years, based on Bismarck’s ideals. Tha Fundamental Instinct.

“Darwin’s law states clearly that species and organisms as they now exist are the result of natural selection, acting through the survival of the fittest, and, extending this to communities. it means that the races and nations that hereafter will survive will be determined by natural selection among the existing races and nations, acting through the principle of the survival of the fittest. The fundamental instinct of every individual, every community, every nation, is this instinct to surive. The instinct of pleasure, ambition, the accumulation of property or wealth, or of any other ideal in the community or in tho individual—in Parliament or m the trades unions, in the democracy, or among the German war lords—are weak compared with this fundamental instinct to survive. And as long as the people accept tho teachings, either directly or by inference, that thp strongest physically or the strongest financially, are the fittest, and as long as national ideals and policies are based on this teaching, so long must the present world unrest and misery continue For these ideas are not involved in the law of evolution; in fact, they are contrary to the principles expressed in tho 'law of the survival of the fittest. Means to an End. “The world in which we, as human beings,* live is not fundamentally a physical world or a financial world. Phys cal strength and financial strength are both means to an end. What is that end ? Only when that end is clearly perceived, and its influence on our definition of ‘fitness to survive’ is definitely determined, can Darwin’s great law be intelligently applied to human beings in pomrnun’.ties or nations. I do not propose to dogmatise on any exact definition of this ultimate object .of life, nor discuss at this club what might be considered religious questions, but I think I can safely lay it down very definitely that ‘fitness to survive’ in human individuals or communities or nations consists not of physical or financial or educational qualifications, but rather emotional, social, moral, and spiritual qualities. “I do not put this proposition forward in any academic way as an interesting matter for discussion. I put forward as a definite guide in material and public affairs the proposition that tho community, tho group, and tho party which will survive in our public life is not tbo strongest or the richest, but the fittest to survive in whatever direction it is agreed by the most thoughtful that human beings shou'd be fit in order to be most useful to the community. Higher Ideals. “If this position b'o recognised, and 1 see no ©scape from it. I want to appeal to tho religious section of the

community to look on the doctrine of evolution by the survival of the fittest as applied to human affairs in a much more favourable light. The law is not one based on the destruction of the weaker; there is nothing about destruction in it. but only ‘survival.’ It docs not involve the sterilisation of the unfit or any of the extreme proposals of the Eugenists. It is simply a question of the growth and survival of the community by the development in the community through the development in the individual of a higher emotional and social instinct, a h'gher moral, and spiritual ideal, a more unselfish and altruistic conception of one’s personal duty and responsibility to one’s fellows, the direct application of the Rotary motto, ‘Service before self. He profits most who serves best.’ ” During the subsequent discussion Professor Marsden said that they were building stone walls round some of the professions in New Zealand, where every boy should be given his chance. He uttered the warning that any profession which attempted to wall itself in would die. Mr. Birks was given a hearty vote of thanks for his paper.