What are your pet peeves re English usage?

I remember that from A level bilology!

FYI - I understand that Darwin himself never actually used this phrase. It was Thomas Huxley, who declared himself "Darwin's Bulldog"

Ah, Obviously a bulldog without linguistic sense.

You can thank your old buddy Herbert Spencer for "survival of the fittest." But it was not, as most incorrectly think, an attempt to state Darwin's description of natural selection in simple terms. In nature, survival is the evidence that an individual is fit, so in that regard, Clary is right. However, Spencer coined the phrase to describe people in society, as he pioneered the "philosophy" of social Darwinism. His premise was that the "fittest" were those people who best adapted to a changing environment. His thesis was that all individuals might be fit to survive a certain environment, but that as the environment changed, those with the greatest adaptability, those who were "fittests," would survive the effects of change, while others did not.

But, even in that context, it's a rather stupid turn of phrase.

No, it was Herbert Spencer. See my post above.

Serves me right for relying on my poor memory! Thanks for stopping the mis-information, Set!

Well, you were right about "Darwin's bulldog." Huxley made it his business to defend Darwin and a theory of evolution through natural selection, which made him one of the "major players" in the early history of the storm of debate which arose from the theory.

I demur. Survival of the fittest does not sound like tautology to me, nor stupid even.

The most adaptable (or better equipped) will survive, the rest will perish. What's illogical or tautological about that?

I tend to agree with you, McTag: no tautology there. But, that said, I also understand where the others are coming from. The notion that the fittest will survive is inherent in the word 'fittest'. So, why belabor the obvious?

Fitness is determined by survival in the terms of an evolutionary discussion--those who survive are fit, and those who do not survive are unfit. Therefore, there cannot logically be either a comparative or a superlative statement about fitness which refers to survival as the measure. Either you survive, or you don't, which means either that you were fit, or you weren't.

I still disagree.

"Fitness" refers to the present (or the time in question)

"Survival" refers to the future (or after the time in question)

So "survival of the fittest" means those who are fittest now, will survive later.

So IMO it's a perfectly logical and valid term, and it's nonsense to say it means "survival of the survivors" as mentioned before.

As i did not write "survival of the survivors,' and although i understand why it was written, i have no reason to and am not obliged to defend it.

I think you're missing a point here, McT. Present and future do not apply as determinants of the meaning of survival and of fitness in the context of individuals in an evolutionary process. The means by which a individual is determined to be fit, is whether or not that individual survives--therefore, no comparative or superlative statement about fitness is applicable, it is an absolute condition. Survival demonstates fitness; failure to survive demonstrates "unfitness."

Spencer used it, however, with reference to "social evolution," and referred to individuals or groups of individuals. To that extent, whether or not he knew, he was describing the effect of adaptation on a species as opposed to the individual. An individual may survive, but fail to reproduce. The members of a species which is "fitter," or most fit, will not simply survive, but will have a breeding opportunity, and pass on their genetic material. To that extent, the rather clumsy expression, "survival of the fittest" might be applied to species, or groups, as opposed to individuals.

However, even then it is not an absolute governing principle. A species which is "more fit," or "most fit," may thrive and prosper, and fill more ecological niches, and be prepared to exploit more or new food sources. That does not mean, however, that the "ur-species" from which it descends is necessarily doomed. If conditions which no longer favor the adaptation arise, and there are members of the earlier form present, they may in their turn have a better breeding opportunity, prospering in their turn, while the adapted species languishes in conditions for which its adaptations do not confer an advantage.

And that is why Spencer ultimately failed to make a plausible case with his "social Darwinism," because he oversimplified the processes which Darwin and Wallace described, and he (Spencer) also oversimplified the determining factors and their consequences among human social groups. So, for example, the Amish and the Mennonites and other such religious groups who eschew modern technology continue to survive in our world, despite the putative advantages that the rest of us enjoy through having embraced, or our forebears having embraced technological advances.

Any way you look at it, the expression "survival of the fittest" is a naive, and rather dullwitted contention.

In my never humble opinion . . .

There is a certain circularity about this argument I'm not comfortable with, but I'm not willing to follow it into deeper waters (Social Darwinism) where I have no expertise.
In the context of "English peeves" I would be interested to know if anybody else thinks "survival of the fittest" is a phrase deserving of the scorn and disapproval which has been heaped upon it here.
To me, it's fine.

Yes, but I do agree with Setanta that it sounds more profound than it is.

Why do newscasters and the like say 'See you again at 10 o'clock/tomorrow'? They won't.

clary -- See you again is simply a greeting/closing statement. Frankly, the co-worker who leaves with you at the end of the day could and probably does say see you again tomorrow and might not. It's a formula that gives recognition to amicability and nothing more.

I know. I'm just being picky. But there's no way the newcasters will 'see ' you, but of course your coworkers will.

But the newscasters are inviting you to tune in tomorrow.

Twice in my life, I left people who were friends who died in their sleep that evening. Life is dicey and you never do know.

Well pooh. It's in the language. You might as well object to phrases like "To the victor the spoils" or "None but the brave deserve the fair" I think.

OK . . . i object to those expressions.


(Just trying to help, Boss.)

Crackers resembling saltines but without the salt should not be called "saltines." C'mon.







Have never (at least, not since I gained a passing understanding of the theory of evolution driven by natural selection) been comfortable with the phrase "survival of the fittest" myself, and for the reasons already mentioned. The fit survive. Who is fit? The one who survives.

Let's throw a spanner into the works and suggest that fitness and survival are both subjective. Certainly, surviving as a human is different today then it was during the Middle Ages. It's even different than it was 40 years ago.