The phrase “survival of the fittest” could only be an assertion from observation. How do we really know that the fittest survive? Of course, if something lives long enough for us to notice it is alive then we can say that it has been fit to survive up to that moment. While this is a simple observation and relevant point, it may not be the rule.
I witnessed a tiny moth helplessly caught in a puddle the size of a quarter that had collected at the bottom of a water filter in the kitchen. I interfered with a folded paper-towel and contacted the gem of water, absorbing it entirely. The liberated moth then used what I expect are some of its final living moments to climb several centimeters up the side of the base of the water filter. I tilted the water filter away from the side with the moth and placed a new piece of folded towel beneath and returned the filter to rest on it. Then I assisted with a bit of wind, moving the moth to the surface of the paper towel, hoping it will absorb some of the moisture from its surfaces. Perhaps the moth won’t die like the others I’ve witnessed experiencing similar occurrences. I will know shortly.
The point is this: In a world of such bright lights, thrashing winds and moist chaos; how do any moths survive long enough to serve whatever purpose they have? I propose that fitness is not the rule for specie progression. Like moths, some of us are not fit to live in this world but we all have chances. So a rule, if any, for determining the fates of species, is better concluded as the incalculable chances of chaos.
I’m sure “survival of the fittest” is flexible enough to incorporate the “incalculable chances of chaos” within its boundaries. And it can be argued with merit that they mean the same but I thought this old saying at least deserved minor clarification.
-Jeremy Edward Dion