Survival of the Fittest - a Counterintuitive Example and Evolution of Man

Charles Darwin (click) had put forth the theory of natural selection (click), which has been defined by Wikipedia as follows:

Natural selection is the process by which certain heritable traits - those that make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce - become more common in a population over successive generations.

Natural selection is frequently referred to as "survival of the fittest" for sake of simplicity.

Let me give a hypothetical example. There are two varieties of moths in a population - A and B. A flies faster and has a better sense of smell; B is slower and cannot smell as well. The moths feed on flower nectar for survival. Also, they are equally likely to successfully reproduce. These two varieties live in an area where there is a scarcity of flowers. Let this flower be called the O variety. Common sense would suggest that A should be able to get to flowers faster - both because of better sense of smell and faster flying. Thus, fewer of the B variety would be able to survive, and gradually their numbers would decrease. There would come a time when the ratio of both the varieties in the population would stabilize in the region. This because, despite A's ability to reach the flowers faster, pure chance would allow the B variety to also feed on few flowers. Moreover, B-moth has to mate only once to pass down its genes even if it dies of starvation.

Now imagine, someone introduces a new plant (N variety) in the region such that its flower produces a very strong fragrance. The problem with this plant is, it is insectivorous (click), i.e., its flower traps and digests (kills) insects to fulfill its protein requirements. Now obviously, A-moths would reach the N-flowers faster and die. Gradually, the ratio of A:B moths would decrease. Whether B-moths outnumber the A-moths would depend on the relative strengths of fragrances of the O- and N-flowers. If the N-flower has stronger fragrance, then most of the A-moths would get attracted to it and die without reproducing. The situation for B-moths would be more complex. Whether their absolute numbers decrease significantly or not would depend on the number of N-flowers available. Meaning, if N-flowers are themselves not very successful in surviving, then they would only be able to decrease the number of A-moths, which would leave B-moths free to feed on O-flowers and mate gaily (with moth of the opposite sex, of course!). But if N-flowers increase significantly in number, the entire moth population might get eliminated from the region.

The important thing I wanted to illustrate was when talking of fittest in the sense of survival, the said traits need not be what we ordinarily think of as good (e.g., better sense of smell and faster speed of flying). Those traits must help the individual organisms survive and reproduce as well. So as part of evolution, species on the whole do not 'improve', but become better suited for the environment.

Human species has come a long way from having to struggle for basic survival. 'Success' in many societies is not even linked to ability to reproduce. Ability to attract a suitable mate does not necessarily transform into passing down of genes, thanks to contraception and family planning. Many inheritable diseases may manifest after the affected individual reproduces. With possibility of cloning in the future, even those unable to reproduce conventionally may be able to pass on their genes.

All these factors have made a few people concerned that the 'quality' of human beings would worsen. But there is inherent paradox in this idea. 'Quality' of human beings has nothing to do with human conceptions of desirable or undesirable traits. From perspective of natural selection, fit v/s unfit had always been about ability to pass on ones genes.

So will the human species stop evolving?

This question cannot be answered in simplistic terms. Unfortunately, because of being exposed to pictures that show evolution of species in a linear fashion with various stages (e.g. tree-dwelling lemurs getting transformed into upright walking humans), we have come to believe that evolution is all about gross physical changes. But then many changes could be subtle and not manifest physically. What allows new traits to emerge in a population are gene mutations (click), i.e., an inheritable change in an existing trait or appearance of a new one. So in case of humans, though new mutations would keep on emerging, they are unlikely to displace people of pre-existing traits, because, they will not necessarily make them reproduce at faster rate.

Surging ahead in time, when societal pressures to reproduce to continue the family would diminish, factors like inherent attraction to children and nurturing behavior, both of which are enhanced by a hormone called oxytocin (click) could become important. Thus in future, not necessarily physically stronger or better looking or more intelligent people, but those with higher oxytocin levels and desire to rear children would be evolutionarily more "successful"! Of course, all this is merely my conjecture.

A Journey called Life

Every one has dreams, ambitions. I am no different. If an ambition can be likened to reaching the peak of a mountain, then yes, there were times when I wanted to climb atop a mountain that would have brought me glory, and may be, also given me satisfaction. But then, that was the past. I used to see the mountain through my limited vision. It is only the peak that was visible. Not visible was the path that led to that top-  or rather, what I thought to be the path. When we' are young with equally narrow visions, we think straight. We think it is simple - start walking in the direction of the peak, climb where the turf is steep, and don't stop.

As I "grew up" I realized that it is not only me who wished to reach the mountain top, and however hard one tries, one's path is going to be crisscrossed by others' paths. What was unknown to me was the fact that what our limited vision shows us is only the mountain top, and many times not even where we are standing at that time. Even if a lucky few among us can make out where they are standing, it does not guarantee that they could see THAT path that could actually lead them to the top.

Somehow it is so incorporated in the ways of the world, that what others can see is: from where a (successful) person starts, and where is he now (that is, the top of the mountain), but not how he got there. Maybe he might have pushed a few people down on his way to the top. May be, a few people who could not make it were equally or more capable, but tried to climb from the wrong side of the mountain as their vision did not give them a panoramic view; may be they would have reached had it not been for bad weather which no one could predict; may be they missed it all because of one wrong footing; may be they reached there when that mountain was not discovered and no one attached glory to actually "conquer" it; may be when they reached, no one actually saw them reach there and so no praises were sung; may be... And then, a few very lucky ones could take a chopper up there. No such luck with me.

With realization of a few of these facts I began to ponder what is the fun in trying to climb atop a mountain where factors other than sheer talent and determination could play major roles? Is it really worth? I have a limited life; is it really worth climbing up and to be remembered for a day or two, in highly amnestic public memory? No. Does it mean I will never climb up a mountain? No, I will, if situation demands, but the mountain would have to be a "check point" to reach somewhere; that "somewhere", which would be more interesting, irrespective of whether or not reaching there would be a matter of pride, or if laurels would be showered upon me on reaching there.

I realized that "success" as we know it, is different for everyone. Just because climbing atop a mountain is difficult, does not mean I have to try reaching there. Neither just because everyone thinks that those who are able to reach there are "successful". Eventually success, just like life, has to be a journey. One should feel content at the end. If a lake with scenic beauty impresses me more, there is nothing wrong in sitting there, taking in all the beauty that its environs have to offer. Who knows if the mountain peak could be quite barren! To make sure one would have to climb up to the top. So, why take chances...


Alas! Even when was I decided I liked the lake more than the mountain peak, I was still young, with a wider vision, but yet not wide enough. To simply survive is not life, but definitely to be alive one needs to survive. The demands of life extend beyond: where one wants to reach at the end. To tread the path also one requires "resources" - food, clothing, shelter, and what not. Unfortunately, like fruits hung on trees, these resources are not always available on the path we take - at least not on the trees that border the path we wish to take. You may have to go a bit deep into the wilderness that flanks your path. And, even there you realize it is not only you who wants those fruits. Others have already plucked quite a few of them. You end up spending most of the time plucking fruits rather than walking on your path.

And then there are some, who choose a path that has fruit-laden trees everywhere - not really thinking where the path leads. Rather, it is not some, but the majority.
Well, that is what life is like. I think the happiest are those, who, as is obviously stated by many, are able to enjoy the journey, pluck fruits when needed, and not try to hoard too much out of their paranoia, or sadistic pleasure of not letting others have them; nor are those happy who totally forget about the fruits they have to collect, and get lost in their way, and perish - unknown to any one...