“The Survival of the Fittest,” was a phrase coined by British Philosopher Herbert Spencer. He was rephrasing Charles Darwin’s “natural selection” to explain his own flawed economic theory. The term was a misrepresentation of “natural selection,” that Darwin used to indicate reproductive efficiency. Spencer’s “fittest,” was indicative of, “winner take all,” dominance, individual survival in a failing environment.
“The survival of the fittest,” economically speaking, is only part of the equation. If the fittest survive in an economy, that means the less fit don’t survive. Each person is a cell in the economic body. If those cells are healthy, the body of humanity is healthy. Sick cells don’t support a healthy body, and a sick body doesn’t protect healthy cells. The purpose of economics is the economic survival of all, natural life expectancy, now and into the future. The true science of economics would study the naturally occurring economic force, a team effort that affords humanity a higher place in the hierarchy of environmental benefit. It is our natural protection from the adverse forces of nature, including the adverse forces of human nature.
The term economics is often used to justify selfish mean spirited short term goals. Economics is not a war against the least fit. That is what it isn’t. Economics is a natural strategy to make each of us, and all of us better fit biologically and ethically. We can use natural economic force to improve both the environment and the health of its occupants across geological and generational boundaries. Economics gives us tools to make us the fittest we can be. That economic fitness happens when there is reasonable expectation for people to opportunely work for other peoples betterment, and when there is reasonable trust that other people are diligently working for theirs.