How much do you think inequality in our society can correctly be described as the “survival of the fittest”? Why? Solution This term didn\'t come up with Darwin but Herbert Spencer used it. So \'survival of the fittest\' isn\'t actually in the first four editions of The Origin of Species. Though he did use the term in the fifth edition, which is a pity, because survival of the fittest isn\'t exactly what governs natural selection. It could be survival of the most altruistic, it could be survival of the most intelligent, it could be luck, i.e. where a change in the general environment favours an animal that wouldn\'t have been favoured otherwise, like how the death of the dinosaurs, favoured small animals, this process is called exaptation. So my point is \'survival of the fittest\' isn\'t how the natural world actually works. So inequality in our society isn\'t the natural order of thinks and is manmade. What is generally implied by the term \'Survival of the fittest\' by those who use it in a social context, is that anyone trying to do something about poverty and inequality, anyone who questions corporations, governments, financial institutions and banks and their role in causing this poverty is disrupting the natural order of things, which places them at the top. This term didn\'t come up with Darwin but Herbert Spencer used it. So \'survival of the fittest\' isn\'t actually in the first four editions of The Origin of Species. Though he did use the term in the fifth edition, which is a pity, because survival of the fittest isn\'t exactly what governs natural selection. It could be survival of the most altruistic, it could be survival of the most intelligent, it could be luck, i.e. where a change in the general environment favours an animal that wouldn\'t have been favoured otherwise, like how the death of the dinosaurs, favoured small animals, this process is called exaptation. So my point is \'survival of the fittest\' isn\'t how the natural world actually works. So inequality in our society isn\'t the natural order of thinks and is manmade. What is generally implied by the term \'Survival of the fittest\' by those who use it in a social context, is that anyone trying to do something about poverty and inequality, anyone who questions corporations, governments, financial institutions and banks and their role in causing this poverty is disrupting the natural order of things, which places them at the top. .

1. How much do you think inequality in our society can correctly be described as the “survival of
the fittest”? Why?
Solution
This term didn't come up with Darwin but Herbert Spencer used it. So 'survival of the fittest'
isn't actually in the first four editions of The Origin of Species. Though he did use the term in
the fifth edition, which is a pity, because survival of the fittest isn't exactly what governs
natural selection. It could be survival of the most altruistic, it could be survival of the most
intelligent, it could be luck, i.e. where a change in the general environment favours an animal
that wouldn't have been favoured otherwise, like how the death of the dinosaurs, favoured
small animals, this process is called exaptation.
So my point is 'survival of the fittest' isn't how the natural world actually works. So
inequality in our society isn't the natural order of thinks and is manmade. What is generally
implied by the term 'Survival of the fittest' by those who use it in a social context, is that
anyone trying to do something about poverty and inequality, anyone who questions
corporations, governments, financial institutions and banks and their role in causing this
poverty is disrupting the natural order of things, which places them at the top.
This term didn't come up with Darwin but Herbert Spencer used it. So 'survival of the fittest'
isn't actually in the first four editions of The Origin of Species. Though he did use the term in
the fifth edition, which is a pity, because survival of the fittest isn't exactly what governs natural
selection. It could be survival of the most altruistic, it could be survival of the most intelligent, it
could be luck, i.e. where a change in the general environment favours an animal that wouldn't
have been favoured otherwise, like how the death of the dinosaurs, favoured small animals, this
process is called exaptation.
So my point is 'survival of the fittest' isn't how the natural world actually works. So inequality
in our society isn't the natural order of thinks and is manmade. What is generally implied by the
term 'Survival of the fittest' by those who use it in a social context, is that anyone trying to do
something about poverty and inequality, anyone who questions corporations, governments,
financial institutions and banks and their role in causing this poverty is disrupting the natural
order of things, which places them at the top.