True Darwinism
Everyone knows that Charles Darwin said life was “the survival of the fittest.” Everyone knows it, but it isn’t true. The Theory of Evolution is based on the observation that those species best adapted to their environment over time (and that means millions of years) will survive. Changes that improve this adaptation remain to be passed on to offspring; those that worsen it are quickly lost.
In business, Mr. Darwin’s earth-shattering theory is reduced nowadays to a platitude about unrestrained competition. The idea the toughest, most ambitious, meanest and most hard-driving people and organizations must invariably come out on top is nonsense. Nothing could be further from Darwin’s theory. “Fittest” for evolution means “fitting best into the circumstances,” not something about being physically fit or mentally tough.
I am a birder. I watch birds. And birds reveal plainly that neither size, nor strength, nor aggression guarantee success. Take the California Condor. It’s one of the largest birds in the world, bigger and more powerful than any eagle, but it only survives because of people’s efforts. It cannot adapt to changes in its environment (caused by people as well) and would be extinct now without artificial breeding programs. Compare this with the House Sparrow, which is small, weak, nonaggressive and exists in billions everywhere you go.
Species success among birds depends mostly on being clever and adaptable, like starlings, crows and the like. Those that need specialized diets and environments, even massive birds of prey, are always vulnerable to extinction. Among individual birds too, success in finding a mate doesn’t depend on size, strength or physical fitness alone.
Take the House Finch (a common US bird). Brighter, redder males are preferred as mates. This is partly an indicator of health, but the red color in fact comes from chemicals in their food. It’s not produced by the bird itself. So being bright red shows you feed well, which likely means you’ll be good at finding food for your mate and offspring. You’re not more aggressive or fitter, just better at feeding yourself.
But there’s a twist. While most male birds are likely to mate with any willing female (promiscuity varies by species), so are most females keen to mate with males other than their partner. DNA studies have shown that many females slip away for a brief fling with some other male, often one younger and less “fit” to father their offspring than their regular mate. The chicks in the nest may well have multiple fathers. So much for the claim that only the genes of the “fittest” males are passed on to the next generation. Competition may be natural, but the basis on which individuals compete is rarely clear-cut. Among people, competition is even more complex. Will the winner be the biggest, the strongest, the most cunning or the most ruthless? Or none of these?
History provides some interesting clues. The Roman Emperor Augustus was neither a successful general nor an imposing figure, yet he created the pattern for his successors for four hundred years. His immediate successor, Tiberius, was both, but a disaster as emperor. Napoleon Bonaparte was neither physically big nor the typical tough-guy. Hitler was a hypochondriac vegetarian and a failure at nearly everything except becoming a mad dictator. Winston Churchill was elderly, fat and a heavy drinker and smoker when he lead Britain through its “darkest hour.” Franklin D. Roosevelt was crippled by polio.
In human affairs, as in many animal and bird species, success is mostly about adaptability, curiosity and brainpower. The ones who succeed in the long term, which is all that counts, aren’t necessarily macho or even specially ruthless. They’re good learners, quick to adapt and able to exploit changing circumstances to their advantage. Hitler and Stalin may have been powerful dictators (for a while), but neither could get past the idea of imposing their will by force alone. The authoritarian systems they created died with them. In evolutionary terms, both were dead-ends.
As I write this, it’s Veterans Day in the US and Armistice Day in Britain. The day we remember those who gave their lives in war to preserve our freedom. Were they all macho tough-guys? No, they were ordinary people willing to make extraordinary efforts when necessity demanded them. Did naked might and ruthless dictatorship win the day? No, they were destroyed.
There are some important lessons there for corporate bosses who take refuge in a flawed understanding of evolution, and run their corporations on the basis of the short-term survival of the most ambitious and macho.
Adrian Savage is an Englishman and a retired business executive who lives in Tucson, Arizona. You can read his thoughts most days at The Coyote Within and Slow Leadership, the site for anyone who wants to bring back the fun and satisfaction to management work.
Tags: 
Loading ...
Comments
mango says on November 22nd, 2005 at 1:24 am
Hitler certainly wasn’t a vegetarian. Nor does being vegetarian prevent you from having ‘an imposing figure’ or being physically powerful so I don’t see how it supports your argument.
srussian says on November 22nd, 2005 at 4:06 am
“Everyone knows that Charles Darwin said life was “the survival of the fittest.” Everyone knows it, but it isn’t true. ”
“In business, Mr. Darwin’s earth-shattering theory is reduced nowadays to a platitude about unrestrained competition. The idea the toughest, most ambitious, meanest and most hard-driving people and organizations must invariably come out on top is nonsense.”
“In human affairs, as in many animal and bird species, success is mostly about adaptability, curiosity and brainpower. The ones who succeed in the long term, which is all that counts, aren’t necessarily macho or even specially ruthless. They’re good learners, quick to adapt and able to exploit changing circumstances to their advantage.”
Is it me or do these seem to conflict?
Babz says on November 22nd, 2005 at 9:39 am
Agree with srussian about the contradiction. I don’t think Darwin was suggesting ‘biggest’ or ’strongest’ when he used the term ‘the fittest’. As Adrian does point out himself, those who survive are the ones that adapt or ‘fit’ best and quickly to their changing environment. Maybe Darwin was playing on words when he came up with the phrase? ;)
Adrian Savage says on November 22nd, 2005 at 10:16 am
Babz has it right. What Darwin said had nothing necessarily to do with being big or tough or aggressive — which is exactly my point. And I don’t see any contradiction between the sentences picked out by srussian. Read them again, guys! Darwin wasn’t talking about “unrestrained competition.” Just the observation that better adapted species tend to do better in the long term. His words are consistently misconstrued.
Hitler was a teetotal vegetarian. No slur on vegetarians intended, just pointing out that it hardly matches the stereotypical idea of an evil dictator. Oh…he was also a drug addict in later life, which may fit the stereotype better. :-)
gstrout says on November 22nd, 2005 at 12:13 pm
Hey, I have been thinking on Darwin’s theory lately.
It’s interesting that anyone can state that the survival of the fittest (the being who fits current circumstances the best) determines that which exists in nature, but then goes on to complain that what exists is not “best fitted”.
Doesn’t the Darwinian position demand that only the “fitted” survive? Doesn’t agreement with his argument naturally require that what “exists” in some sense is simply what “fits”? This argument both perplexes and mystifies me.
The idea doesn’t seem to leave much room for dissention. To coin a phrase, “You can’t have your cake and eat it too”.
Either both we and our contemporary humans with the beliefs and behaviors that make us comfortable/uncomfortable or which we find troubling/inconvenient are the products of “what fits best” in our environment and are therefore uncritiqueable by any scientific standard or we are somehow, removed from the rule of “what exists is what fits” rule of Darwinism which removes the power of the first statement.
Those who think they disagree with the above may wish to reexamine if they can truely accept the premise of Darwinian Naturalism.
If one does not reject his premise, to what then can we attribute our basis for considering ourselves and our thoughts/beliefs/practices outside of the Darwinian rule of Naturalistic determinism.
Are not our thoughts and beliefs the natural result of our mental (biological) processes? Are not these also the natural outworking of our biological makeup reacting to our environment?
If not then we have allowed the concept that we have somehow magically been given the “key outside the universe” and somehow stepped out of the naturally determined world that all other natural organisms are subject to following.
Some may find the implications of the concept disturbing. But if you don’t like my proposing it, blame my darn pesky genes and faulty upbringing for determining I write such an outrageous thing.
Pique says on November 22nd, 2005 at 6:56 pm
Unfortunately House Sparrows too seem to be dying out over here in the UK. Noone knows why, but they’re quite a rarity in London nowadays.
mango says on November 22nd, 2005 at 9:10 pm
“Hitler was a teetotal vegetarian.”
I repeat he was not a vegetarian. He ate dead animals. http://www.ivu.org/history/europe20a/hitler.html
Repeating false rumours in your article makes your writing seem untrustworthy and casts doubts on your arguments.
splod says on November 22nd, 2005 at 9:11 pm
gstrout, I think the issue is that the business environment (note, I don’t mean The Market, just corporate culture) is somewhat artificial and is capable of being shaped by the ‘fittest’. When those who control the environment adopt agressive etc. attitudes/beliefs then only those who have similar attitudes can succeed within these cultures.
Adrian Savage says on November 22nd, 2005 at 11:57 pm
Okay, mango. I’ll believe you. I — and the history books I read — were obviously victims of the propaganda to make him seem a vegetarian in the strict sense. My point, however, had nothing to do with being a vegetarian, strict or occasional. Only that Hitler wasn’t the stereotypical tyrant, despite being probably the worst in modern times.
srussian says on November 23rd, 2005 at 12:07 am
I’m sure that any misunderstanding concerning Darwin’s theory is simply due to the lack of knowledge on the subject. I doubt that the theory of evolution has such gaping problems as presented here.
Wikipedia to the rescue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism
Enjoy!
Paras Chopra says on November 23rd, 2005 at 2:16 am
I see evolution as a constant fight between two forces:
1. First one trying to preserve the genes of *best fit* organism so as to continue the existance of life.
2. Second one trying to diversify the genes of *best fit* organisms so that life doesn’t miss any organism which can be potenially more fit than currently *best fit* organism.
Here I call life as a collective of all living organisms.
So, evolution can be visualised as life trapped between two opposing forces.
Brian Link says on November 28th, 2005 at 10:42 am
Just a note – if by “House Sparrow” you mean the “European Sparrow” (Passer Domesticus), your observation of their temperament is a bit misplaced. The House Sparrow is in fact a pretty agressive little bird – one of the few small birds to attack with their beak. They are known to strike a passing competitor, on the wing, and kill or paralyze them.
I understand your point though =)
Hoku says on November 29th, 2005 at 12:17 am
About a year ago I read an article regarding a study of infant mortality rates in Nepal. Through DNA analysis the researchers discovered that mothers with a gene that allowed them to process oxygen more effectively produced healthier offspring with a much lower mortality rate. Those without the gene had a higher infant mortality rate.
The gene in question is apparently passed on to at least the first generation of offspring and maybe more. It would be interesting to plot the curves for 10 and 20 percent mortality rates and run the series to determine when the majority of the Nepalese will possess this gene but I just don’t have the time.
This is Darwin’s theory of natural selection at work in real time. It’s all about successful adaptation. A factor in the mechanism is rates of change. As the Earth’s climate continues to warm at an ever faster rate the adaptability of nearly every species of life here will be sorely tested. We are going to get an accelerated lesson in survival of the fittest.
Press coverage of global warming has focused mainly on changes in weather, economic impact, and challenges to life in the northern latitudes. Very little is said regarding changes in disease vectors relating to humans. In the southern US look for increasing cases of malaria.
Bird migration patterns are changing as well. Considering that migratory birds, carrying the bird flu virus, are staying further north and that it’s only a matter of time before the virus mutates into a form capable of human to human transmission, survival of the fittest humans takes on a whole new dimension not seen since the 14th century. Like then, social patterns will be a big factor.
Put all the factors together and you will see that the Bush administration’s focus on the short term economic impact of the Kyoto accord is more than a little myopic. Buckle up and be prepared for a wild ride with Darwin at the wheel.
Hoku says: The best things in life aren’t things.
Jess says on September 15th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Actually, Darwin never said thing one about survival of the fittest. That is just a common phrase used by non-academics used to (poorly) paraphrase his work in the Origin of Species.
upickapro says on August 27th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Okay. Here’s Darwinism NOT at work:
Myth: US Gov’t. Aid will save the starving and improve living conditions in Africa.
Truth: Africa has the top 20 spots in rankings in birthrate with approx. 6-7 kids per mother and the highest infant mortality rate. The more and longer aid is given the more children are born, the less food/medical care is available and the more infants die. Palestine is a great example of a festering welfare state gone awry. They have so many kids they blow them up.
Any solution for the world’s problems are going to have require the cooperation and self-control of those being aided.