Did survival of the fittest make us competitive and aggressive?

In his mid-19^th century study on the Origin of the Species, Charles Darwin proposed that organisms having certain features were more likely to survive and reproduce than others, and that eventually this resulted in the ‘natural selection’ of those hereditary traits and their generalization in that species. Shortly thereafter, Herbert Spencer suggested that this process progressed through the ‘survival of the fittest’ in the struggle for life.

Despite Darwin’s objections, these concepts were applied to human society under the name of ‘Social Darwinism’, which proposed that the processes of ‘natural selection’ and ‘survival of the fittest’ would have favored the most aggressive, violent, ambitious, and greedy individuals and groups, resulting over time in the predominance of these features among human beings. This evokes images of brutish cavemen clobbering each other with clubs, with the winner becoming the chief of the tribe and carrying away the women to produce more belligerent cavemen to continue the fight, until these characteristics became deeply engrained in ‘human nature’.

However, numerous anthropological studies have shown the contrary. It is our capacity for cooperation that has enabled human life to continue, as only through mutual assistance has it been possible to overcome hunger and the rigors of nature. In fact, in most societies studied, those endowed with greater ability for reconciliation and unification have ascended to positions of authority. In contrast, the most conflictive were often proscribed and even expelled from the community in order to avoid their divisive, harmful influence. Where they were able to take power, the result was often ruinous – the downfall of social order.

Therefore, if ‘natural selection’ did apply to human society – which has been strongly questioned – it would have favored those who contributed most to the harmony, tranquility and wellbeing of the whole. As Ashley Montagu said: “Without cooperation among its members, no group can survive. Human society has prevailed be­cause of its members’ ability to cooperate, which has made that survival possible.”[1]

Actually, the term ‘survival of the fittest’ does not refer to the strongest and most aggressive, as many believe, but to the ability to adapt to the demands of the environment. Charles Darwin is attributed with saying: “It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the most responsive to change.” It is increasingly clear that selfishness, conflict and aggression no longer serve the interests of humanity – if indeed they ever did –, but rather cooperation and mutual support. We read in the Seville Statement on Violence:

“It is scientifically incorrect to say that in the course of human evolution there has been a selection for aggressive behavior more than for other kinds of behavior. In all well-studied species, status within the group is achieved by the ability to cooperate and to fulfill social functions relevant to the structure of that group.”[2]

Consequently, there is no longer any reason to believe that conflict, aggression and selfishness played a role in the survival of the human species, nor that they prevailed in our evolution. Just as the ability to cooperate and help each other has been necessary in order to reach this point in history, the future of humanity will also depend on the prevalence of these characteristics, both individually and collectively.

For further information on this topic by the same author, please click here.

Notes:

---

[1] Ashley Montagu, in Roger T. Johnson et al., Cooperation in Learning: Ignored but Powerful. Lyceum 5, 1982, p. 1.

[2] UNESCO, Seville Statement on Violence, written and signed by 20 Nobel prize winners for the International Year of Peace in Seville, Spain, on May 16, 1986.