Bearfruit

Thank you for the dialog! Three semi-related points:

On S of the Fittest
Survival of the fittest isn’t what we as a society holds to be most fit but, what is most able to adapt to the environment, for instance: smokers ruin their lungs with their cancer sticks, but if the environment turned to a carbon and tar atmosphere, something that may favor their destroyed lungs (don’t ask me how) then perhaps smokers might be more fit than those with “healthy lungs” (bad example, please don’t give some scientific-my-favorite-show-is-CSI-reason for why I’m wrong). The point is our social fitness is not the same as survival of the fittest as it doesn’t take our combined agreement to make it so, if it is, it just is.

On Social fitness…
What the comments have been eluding to are seeds of Social Darwinism, which have lead to scientific breakthroughs such as Crainiology (~1850s), where logically (and scientifically at the time) the size of the brain meant greater intelligence, and the size of the skull meant greater brain size, thus because men had larger heads than women and black people, they were more intelligent; the more intelligent were more fit, therefore Intelligent White men should rule (a racist-sexist-technocracy).

On the Natural state of Man
Survival of the fittest may be the way of nature, but when we state that “you and me baby ain’t nothing but mammals”, we are stating that the natural state of man is acceptable and should not be hindered. If survival of the fittest is that which governs all of nature, including the mammal man, then Social fitness should be acceptable as well, as we are just part of a structured system of mutational anarchy. Social fitness follows suit with Survival of the fittest and is perfectly acceptable, yet for some reason Man hates Racism and Fascism and will go to all lengths to protect against it. It must be those Stupid Christians and their Stupid Morality always trying to tell us how to live. When will they figure it out?

Science is truthiest