On "survival of the fittest"

I find the idea that "The weak" could be bred out of humanity, through history, to be quite naive. The problem with "weak" is that we define it socially. To some minds, "weak" is the incapacity to endure assaults day after day. To others, "weak" is the lack of creativity, the incapacity to innovate, the tendency to prefer the tried and tested at the expense of something new.

Humans are so diverse that they embody all sorts of possible conceptualisations of weakness and strength. Arguably, it is this very diversity that is needed for humans as a group to survive.

BY CONTRAST, if we look at what Darwin meant by "the fittest" that are assured survival, his conceptualisation is much more tautological than value-laden. The fittest to survive are precisely those that happen to survive any particular environment or conditions. The fittest to survive a very oppressive workplace, for instance, can often be those who do not really register much, emotionally or intellectually. They just do what they're told.