The morality of beasts | Frans de Waal | Big Think
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 июл 2021
- The morality of beasts | Frans de Waal | Big Think
Watch the newest video from Big Think: bigth.ink/NewVideo
Learn skills from the world's top minds at Big Think Edge: bigth.ink/Edge
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frans de Waal has studied the behavior of primates for five decades. Some of his many important observations center around the evolution of morality and just how much we have in common with the animal kingdom.
The idea that animals are always in conflict with one another and competing for resources is “totally wrong,” de Waal says.
Other primates, specifically chimpanzees and bonobos, have demonstrated a range of traits and tendencies typically regarded as human, including empathy, friendship, reconciliation, altruism, and even adoption.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRANS DE WAAL:
Frans de Waal is a Dutch/American biologist and primatologist. He teaches at Emory University and directs the Living Links Center for the Study of Ape and Human Evolution, in Atlanta, Georgia. He is known for his popular books, such as Chimpanzee Politics (1982), Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape (1997) and The Age of Empathy (2009). He has been elected to the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIPT:
People sometimes describe nature as a dog-eat-dog world. Some of the biologists depict nature as a battlefield basically where selfish tendencies tend to prevail. And from morality, the evolution of morality there's very little room. What they mean is that all they see is competition. I win, you lose, winning is better than losing and so on. That's totally wrong. I fought against that sort of characterization of animal society all my life, because just like human society it is built on a lot of friendship and cooperation at the same time. We'd like to deny that connection that exists between us and animals. Certain tendencies, such as a sense of fairness, empathy, caring for others, helping others, following rules, punishing individuals who don't follow the rules, all of these tendencies can be observed in other primates. And they're saying these are the ingredients that we use to build a moral society.
The whole spectrum of both very positive behavior and very negative behavior can be seen in other animals. Animals can be heroic and they can be genuinely altruistic and we actively tested in our chimpanzees. We've done an experiment where a chimpanzee can choose between two options. One option rewards only himself, the other option rewards himself plus a partner who sits next to him. And our chimpanzees preferred the latter option. They prefer a task where they can reward the partner at the same time as themselves. The primates are a very cooperative society in general. The reason they live in groups is that on their own they cannot survive. So they have to have companions from whom they get support, with whom they live together, who help them find food, who warn them against predators. And they have long-term friendships in their society just like humans have. There's a lot of studies on how animals do favors for each other. And if you think about how this works it has to be based on gratitude. Like you do something for me, and I do something back to you. There must be some sort of emotional mechanism in there. And there's descriptions in the wild of people who, for example, who cut loose a whale who has been caught in a net, and they describe how the whale doesn't just swim away. The whale goes back to all these people and nuzzles them or lifts them up out of the water, and then he disappears, and they feel the whale is expressing his gratitude for whatever happened. So there's all sorts of signs that animals have that capacity.
In the ‘70s I discovered that chimpanzees reconcile after fights. Many animals have this process where a relationship is disturbed by fighting, but the relationship is still valuable to you, so you need to do something about what happened to it. When I saw in the chimpanzees that they sometimes kiss and embrace each other after fights, and later in bonobos, I saw that they have sex after fights. I immediately understood that reconciliation is common and then later of course, many other studies have found reconciliation not just in the primates, in elephants and dolphins, in wolves, in goats. And adoption is also typical. So for example, in Tai forest, in Ivory Coast, there is a documentation of 10 cases of adoption by males, adult males, who have adopted an orphaned chimpanzee. So the chimpanzee loses its mother, chimpanzees are dependent on their mother for at least eight years of their life...
To read the full transcript, please visit bigthink.com/videos/survival-...
I have always understood "fittest" as "best fitted to the environment". Which can mean a group or a biotope and all the interactions in between.
Yeah because that's what we actually observe in evolutionary biology instead of obscurantist nonsense
Correct Kierker Klotz. It doesn't mean who if the most fit. It's a misnomer.
Nature is always eager to kill us, ask Covid. And "Survival of the fittest" is complete nonsense, because sometimes a creature with "good" genes (=adapted to the environment) has bad luck and dies without offspring whereas one with "not so good" genes survives (and reproduces) due to pure luck. Random mutations are one thing, and selective pressure is a completely unrelated thing. Both happen simultaneously, but there is no "progress", no adaptation, just getting not killed by nature before having reproduced … We are all descendants of survivors and today we are survivors, too. Tomorrow is another day.
Rutger Bregman’s book Humankind delves into this even deeper. In short, it’s survival of the most cooperative and collaborative.
@Fckytggl Mthrfckr Well I am a Boomer and I never understood it literally and I read Darwins "On the Origin of Species". Why do you think this is just a "Boomer" thing?
He never characterized survival of the fittest as the strongest surviving, the person who titled the video heard his description of animal society and assumed it was survival of the fittest. He never even uses the phrase in the video.
You’re going places.
Well using the exact phrase is not always important. You can discuss the concept without talking about it directly. When I title my essays, I don’t necessarily use the title throughout my essay to prove the validity of the title.
Well the fittest in bonobos and other primates is the better leader and the more social and giving.
Well, in my understanding of Darwin's survival of the fittest means that species with specific traits can survive in the specific environment. When environment changes species must have different traits to survive. Those species with bigger variety of traits survive as a group, as species, not as individuals. Sometimes worse individuals survive as group, because they have specific color ( of other trait) to blend in.
Competition is about hierarchy and domination, not survival.
@@vg7985 the “fittest” can be many things, the most beautiful, the bigger, the faster, the smarter, the most sexually active, the more caring, the better at finding food…unlimited options
as many others have said: "fittest" talks about adaptability, not strength. As for cooperation, it's sad that most humans still struggle with the concept that when we cooperate, everybody wins vs. you only look for your own interests and only you win. When your neighbors/all humans are doing better, everybody benefits, including you.
The phrase "Survival of the fittest" can be misinterpreted by others and I think MAYBE Frans De Waal did that. I think people see "Survival of the fittest" as synonymous with "dog eat dog world" but species/organisms on this planet have different ways of survival when we observe and describe in detail how it is they do that.
Cooperation and altruism within the same or towards different species is one way to survive. Those who cooperate and be altruistic very well will be the fittest. Hence the Survival of the fittest.
There are many different relationships between organisms/species. Symbiotic relationships like: Parasitism, Prey/Predator, Mutualism, Commensalism.
The thing with humans and some other animals is that human individuals or groups of humans do not employ only one survival mechanism. Humans are cooperative, altruistic, competitive(To the point of greatly negatively impacting or harming others to be selfish), parasitic and some are down right impulsive predators who only see it their way. Some humans survival mechanism changes depending on the situation and experiences that change them.
Truth is all those ways of survival need balance and not go to any one extreme. You don't want to be so altruistic you give everything you have away and you yourself cannot survive nor do you want to be so competitive you will do whatever it takes to win to the point of harming yourself or others.
If we all wanted to act the same crucial resources(Materials, foods, information/knowledge) needs to be in abundance and shared. You can see why humans are different from country/tribe to tribe. Some countries have better resources both in substances and human resources(Knowledge, intelligent people). Information on how to care for each other is not distributed evenly among the entire human population. Shit there are tribes that don't even know what a computer is.
Thank you.
Yep.
You beat me to the punch.
I was going to post similar but you missed one thing survival of the fittest was originally was originally used to describe evolutionary advantages
You are being too kind. This man has no idea what 'survival of the fittest' actually means. He obviously thinks it means kill or get killed like all animals are in an arena or something.
came here to make the same comment lmao.
I thought that you understand what was meant in Englisch. In German we translated it as survival of the "strongest". This led to misinterpretation especially by the Nazis.
In French, we don't have the same nuance with our translations of "fit." Words like fort, costaud, etc., refer only to physical strength and toughness. We say "survie du plus apte", which really means being best adapted to your environment. The term from Herbert Spencer was always translated like this in French, which means even the earliest social Darwinists understood the term correctly.
Human survival has mainly been based on tribal affiliation. Violence has been necessary for survival but so has empathy, connection and cooperation.
Hostility has mostly been towards members of opposing tribes but social bonds have been beneficial to members within the tribe. But even that isn't as black and white.
Sometimes what's better than fighting is being diplomatic and having peace treaties and working together. It's important to realize that it isn't as one dimensional as many might claim it to be so.
I think we're on the same page, but I'll still say that I disagree with a notion that human - on-human violence was ever somehow "necessary".
@@Overcaffenated Well nature has had millions of years to figure this out and the reality is, the ability to be violent is inherent.
The world is a dangerous place and there are predators and rival humans who have posed a threat to our ancestors so at times, the ability to fight back has greatly aided in survival.
@@Overcaffenated you can afford to say that because we currently live in a relatively peaceful age. Back then protecting your own well being could mean violating another's.
@@rhobx but there has to be more peace than war, more cooperation than violence etc, as in order to grow we need to grow more than we fall apart. We have a tendency to memorize negative experiences and that is why they stick out. But most of our history has been non violent, inevitably. We are simply biased to the violence, as it is painful.
@RT-106 Music who says that earth needs to need us? She is the feminine that brought us to life in the first place, maybe she just loves us and is willing to die with us in that love? And we are dying because we don't feel worthy of that love? I mean how many people get stiff just hearing that word? But we can't life in this plane if we don't learn to love it and that means we have to learn to love ourselves. It's not nature that hates us. Nature nurtures is. It's ourselves who hates us. And that kills us. So we have to learn to love ourselves and nature teaches us how, we just have to listen.
“Don’t be pushed around by the fears in your mind. Be led by the dreams in your heart.” Keep smiling you will Succeed, sharing some love with ya all.
❤
I'm surprised he never mentioned one giant caveat. The undeniable association between how related two organisms are and how well they're willing to treat each other. On average there is a very clear progression in how much love and care we show to another organism. From least to most it would look something like:
insect-->dog-->stranger --> cousin--> your siblings -->parents--> your own children. With each step is an associated increasing degree of commonalty between genomes.
Be a Bonobo-kind-a-human
Fucking after fights?
@@alessandromorelli5866 ye
Or you could be a chimpanzee-kind-of-human, everything’s a spectrum
@@name5702 I identify as Thomas the Tank Engine.
@@laaaliiiluuu everything’s on the table
Hmm.. survival of the fittest also refers to not only the individual but also the group. The most well adapted social groups (efficiency, security, passing on of knowledge) is a form of survival of the fittest group. Yes the individual model of survival of the fittest is a misnomer, but survival of the individual in context of their ability to fit in with a group is an adaptive quality.
@@prescriptivereasoning And as Frans de Waal pointed out there are a range of modalities that can be contributive to survival and reproduction all the way from out and out destruction of any competitors to mutual cooperation of competitors to achieve the survival of self AND other. The later has the added bonus of increasing diversity which increases the groups chances for survival. Nevertheless, survival of the fittest is nothing but a sound bite to assist those who otherwise can't wrap their head around the nuances of natural selection. Wouldn't it be slightly more accurate to say that natural selection involves the demise of the least fit since it is those who are first removed from the gene pool?
@@ExtantFrodo2 just don't engage. Doubt you or that person want to have a 2hr convo to respect eachothers position. And jusging by their response to my comment, they are set anyways.
@@prescriptivereasoning As per my comment to someone else, I don't have the willingness to engage you further. Best of luck!
@@prescriptivereasoning Pffft. Why be an ass? You're great at words of criticism but woefully bereft of any critical content. Meaning, rather that just piss all over the place, why not take a moment to shine and show other you actually know what you are talking about? In short, what did I say that was wrong and how was it incorrect?
@@joeyt8256 no doubt.
The narrator has never said that survival of the fittest is wrong. It was more of an addition to survival of the fittest. In other words: the title is a clickbait.
Survival of the sexiest.
Not inaccurate.
Yup, that's the evolutionary theory of sexual selection.
I think it’s very easy for humans to forget that were animals because were just a lot more complex and lead complex lives, but at the basic level we pretty similar to most living organisms on the planet
I heard the concept of survival of the fittest when I was 10. Fit fitter and fittest meant one thing to a 10 year old.
Than I learnt that we not only survived as a species when many other similiar prototypes didnt but we are the dominan species on this earth I knew immediately something was wrong.
Turned out the error was not with the assertion survival of the fittest. It was with my understanding what fit meant.
If it had meant what I initially thought it meant, Men wouldnt be struggling with dad bods today.
When resources are abundant people get along much better. When there’s scarcity that’s when we turn into animals.
GREAT SHORT! This is about how we live and thrive together, against a backdrop of war mongers, fear breeders and disinformation campaigns being waged to enlist the ignorant in a war against community and democracy. Empathy, reconciliation, relationship, altruism are chief among these ideas, as perfectly outlined. All hail the bonobo! Man’s greatest teachers, if we dare to comprehend and enact such a thriving community.
A rising tide raises ALL boats.
Survival of the fittest means adaption, learned in 2nd Grade elementary school.
Damn.
People always forget that two things can be true at the same time. For instance, the world can be competitive, harsh and cutthroat, but also kind, forgiving, and rewarding. The same person can be both selfish and selfless depending on the situation. People fall into the trap of believing everything is either one or the other. Its the hero vs. villain mindset. In reality, most people are both.
As @Dark Matter indicated, “fittest” in evolution has always meant ability to survive in one’s environment. It says nothing about fighting vs cooperation in general. “Survival of the fittest” has not been disproven.
'Survival of the fittest' isnt wrong , you just need to stop conflating it with physical strength and violence.
I'd say the majority of people use it as strongest and dominant. People understand it better and properly if they looked into it. But the majority of people haven't and probably won't, or they don't understand the implication of the more accurate meaning.
There's a great message for humanity here. Always seek the higher road. Peace!
Actually…. Last week my daughter gifted me a sweater. With a print. And I love it!
The text says:
“ I am NOT the bigger person.”
And under the image in the middle it continues…
“…I will HIT you with a chair!”
I guess the higher road is a bit out of reach in this context 😉
Whahahaha 😂😂😂😂
I really like this discussion as it puts competitiveness in it's place as far as evolution is concerned and why it is not necessarily always a "good" thing. Mother Jones magazine back in the mid 90s had a small article entitled something like Survival of the most cooperative.
Yeah :D
You can't overeat your prey or overgraze your fields and live long term. Even if you are a lioness. It's all a system of dependencies. Human think we can have our cake, eat it too all and then make more cakes later for future overeating.
Some species evolve to compete in groups, like humans, wolfs and chimps, ants, and colonies of cells. It's not like these species chose to cooperate instead of competing. They just figured that as a group, they are more competitive. It doesn't mean that survival of the fittest is wrong. Here the fittest is the one who is the most cooperative to its own kin, while being the most hostile to foreigners.
Whoever was responsible for the video title simply doesn't understand the term. Maybe an intern at Big Think.
Video title: Why survival of the fittest is wrong
Creationists: *Oh yeah. It's all coming together*
That’s what you got out of this video?
I think you just read title bru. He didnt debunk Evolution or something😂😂😂
Thanks
Have Frans more often please
Dr. de Waal never mentions survival of the fittest in this video and whoever titled this video doesn't seem to understand what survival of the fittest even means. lmfao. Change this title.
Frans de Waal is such an inventive, leading scientist. I'm Dutch and many of our scientists are technocrats with little creativity. But this man is a genius.
Cooperation, empathy, caring for others completely antithetical to US society
We’re a great species precisely because we cooperate and spread vital knowledge throughout every part of the world.
Tell that to the survivors of Hiroshima.
@@michaelreich9714
Geez, who wizzed in your wheaties?
@@Circuitssmith Pete Rose
The problem with the reality of the “survival of the fittest”, which is true (despite the title of this talk), is that people psychologically confuse ‘fittest’ with ‘strongest’, and why cockroaches will rule if we continue to use nuclear fission for a significant part of our energy needs, and which will rule sooner if we have a nuclear war.
I’m glad they’ve changed the video title, "survival of the fittest" is so misunderstood. People usually think that "fit" in this context means being big and strong and aggressive
Survival for the fittest is good, but consideration is also great.
It doesn't matter who is right or wrong. What matters is going forward without arguing over who is wrong or who is right.
Life will provide you with an opportunity to ascertain what your opponents are targeting and how they can be targeted as well.
So don't fight just for the sake of fighting and live to fight another day...
Well "survival of the fittest" is not really wrong, because there are several different ways of survival, what fittest means in this context is that the individuals in a certain species or even whole species survive by adapting and those that are best at adapting to the circumstance they find themselves in will survive better then others.
Its easy to think its just the strong survive but this is false in all social species, because there is always a social element to survival there too. Take monkeys as an example, a very strong but tyrannical becomes the patriarch of the flock, but he will soon be replaced by two less strong males who can cooperate, so when we look at long term success of a flock its always the altruistic leaders who last the longest because the flock depend on them to some degree. He cares a lot about the young and the female monkeys too. He breaks up fights and lets the flock live in relative harmony.
Being fit is no longer being pushed. Conformity is now being pushed.
Conformity is the foundation of a social species. When's the last time you walked out in public wearing nothing but your own pubic hair shaved, then glued, all over your eyelids in order to stand out?
Makes just as much sense as wearing clothes on an extremely hot and humid day. But one is taboo, and one is not.
To be human IS to conform. You should come to terms with it. Even being contrarian is conforming of a different kind.
@@jaieet Okay, so conformity is relative, and that includes being nonconformist. So, how could I respond to that sort of thinking? I guess I "should come to terms with it" and conform to your way of thinking. Geeze. This ain't worth it.
@@zd4v1d Because it's inconvenient?
@@jaieet Depends on what you mean by inconvenient, 'cause, ya know, it's relative.
@@zd4v1d Yes. Relative to you. Hence why I asked if coming to terms with conformity was inconvenient.
Here's a different question if you like: What specific steps have you undertaken to not conform to the environment around you?
Is your system of morality unique? Do you dress in ways that set you apart from other people? Do you refuse to socialise or make friends?
What makes you special outside of your own ego?
If anything, I would think you would applaud a lack of desire to exercise or lose weight for social clout. :P
Frans De Waal is the greatest
The characterization of a senseless, ruthless word that has no coordination through mutual connection only persists insofar as it allows to be justified an individual or group's continued misanthropy toward others. Everything discussed in this video, for better or worse, is a product of human perception, and it is self-evident to anyone paying attention IN real life that humans are perfectly capable of and almost unavoidably depend on unified mutual cooperation, so anybody from a highly individualistic culture such as the one that brought us RUclips and the internet is not very likely to conceive of human relationships in this way if there is some mental obstacle toward being able to perceive that.
What i mean is, in our modern hyperconnected world, selfish people who demonize others for irrational reasons as a means to justify some unsustainable/immoral/harmful/physically or biologically impossible objective (rich people with unlimited profit with no ecological/social fallout, religious zealots with dogma as a means to obfuscate or curtail availability of useful non-religious knowledge about the world from secular origins, anti-vaxxers with their endangering of innocent children in the name of scapegoating some twisted version of "freedom" they imagine to be real-the list can really go on) only do so quite possibly out some kind of trauma or otherwise mental roadblock that inhibits their natural ability to perceive the positive byproducts of all us cooperating with one another. In short, cooperation is simply outside their periphery because it interferes with their ideological goals, and they feel obligated to "win" at their particular game because they perhaps have lacked the insight that comes with realizing in practice that cooperation and compromise are far more sustainable objectives than being the victor of any given "contest" [sic].
How refreshing it is to see such a well written comment on RUclips!
Many cases of cetaceans adopting; some sperm whales supposedly adopted a deformed dolphin; belugas adopted a narwhal; mother dolphin adopted melon headed whale calf; humpback whales known to save seals and dolphins from orcas
Even animals know they cannot live forever and preserving the community is very important
Couldn't help but notice that guy's ear at 0:39
it was once that way. unless we have experienced similar situations we cannot fully comprehend its meaning. but as things are ever changing and such things become lesser more places globally it would seem to be not so anymore
The autor describes survival of the fittest to a T. Fittest can mean the best in working together with a willing and fair group.
Fantastic. Great video and goes into a better understanding of nature and its characteristics
Good content spoiled by click-bait title
When you have an understanding of "survival of the fittest" which is bellow the level that most of us had at 16 in biology lessons then you probably shouldn't be making a preachy RUclips video. Fitness refers to how good your "fit" is for your environment, and the phrase describes an animals ability to pass on it's genes. Species are social because overall they benefit from their social interactions across their lives and so are more likely to pass on their genes.
He never characterized survival of the fittest as the strongest surviving, the person who titled the video heard his description of animal society and assumed it was survival of the fittest. I don’t think he even uses the phrase in the video.
@@57goku Well, he said "[...] these cases of altruism that don't fit any evolutionary scenario but nevertheless occurred." So at least he doesn't sound like he has a good grasp on possible "evolutionary scenarios" that would involve cooperation more complex than basic you-scratch-my-back-I-scratch-yours interactions.
@@Vilktakisss That's more because he explains in 6 min what he has been studying for 50 years and as a reaction on what he says in the beginning of the video. I assure you, he does know what he's talking about. Read his books, they are worthwhile.
I've always enjoyed reading Frans de Waal's books. He clearly 'gets it,' about animals, communication, cooperation. I've captured hummingbirds in my house numerous times (use a black t-shirt. They always play dead and you think you've broken them. Outside - zoom - All good). Usually the next day if I'm outside in my yard I'll notice a hummingbird (same species, sex- probably the same bird) hanging around near me for a several minutes. Curiosity? Anywhere on the hill where my house is they will buzz me or my tenant, clearly recognizing us. I was also once 'chewed out' by a red tailed hawk when I released a mouse I caught in my kitchen. As soon as the mouse scrambled under cover, the hawk landed on the utility pole and started squawking at me. I wish I'd recorded it, then we'd know what "you dumb ass" is in Hawk-ish.
Instead of saying it's wrong, we should just reexamine what "Fit" means. It can solve this whole thing without rethinking all of biology.
This video dealt with highly intelligent animals and humans. When it comes to lobsters let's say, then it probably works out
Btw there are millions of times when fitness does win out, so "wrong" in the title is incomplete.
Fittest comes from "to fit". Those who can adapt to their environment the best will survive. That's what survival of the fittest means.
Well said sir.
DO YOU GUYS EVEN READ THE COMMENTS ???
I like the new look of Big Think 👍
But please use DARK BACKGROUND as,
1. It goes easy on the eyes
2. Is good to watch at night, as most people use RUclips after work at night.
3. Gives better contrast
4. Even subtitles are visible against dark background
DON'T USE WHITE📵
USE DARK BACKGROUND behind those talking guys in the video !!!☑
The video title is laughably absurd, and I doubt Dr. de Waal would agree with it. In the term “survival of the fittest,” the word “fittest” doesn’t mean being the biggest, strongest, toughest, etc. It means being the most adapted to one’s environment. This can include being smaller, less visible, better at hiding and, yes, better at cooperating in groups. The title suggests that being evolutionary “fit” contrasts with traits like altruism and empathy when, in fact, these are some of the most important traits in both natural and group selection. I’ll also point out that many of these so-called desirable traits are only prevalent withing a species. Animals are not as kind and welcoming to other species. And again, this is the whole point of “survival of the fittest.” Species have survived by taking care of their own and defending themselves against “outsiders.”
Coming to the comment section after the video title has clearly been changed is confusing at first hahaha
Absolutely brilliant
Being able to adapt is a more efficient trait.
That was interesting, thanks,. Also, not a fan of background music in this moment :)
Helping my neighbor(s), helps me in the long term.
🛸👽💖🤖🌌🖖
great that you changed the title. As the first one didn't fit the substance of the video
"The idea that animals are always in conflict with one another and competing for resources is “totally wrong,” de Waal says."
That's true, but that's not survival of the fittest, and I can't imagine what "biologists" he's met that think otherwise. Schoolkids?
Survival of the fittest mean the most fit for the environement
Co operation is also an adapted survival mechanism
Actually it does serve a male chimp to adopt a young chimp. He will have a strong companion in a few yrs if the youngster is male. If female it "may" be a reliable future mating partner (not sure if chimps do this, but at least one type of baboon does)
This was a surreal video. Brought ear to ear Grin on my face!!!
🌟😇🌞
Not that i fully disagree with the sentiment, but is it really fully altruistic when you get some of the share yourself as well? Also they might care of others ie adopting babies because it helps the tribe which is good for themselves.
How is this different from the discoveries of John Nash?
I met some of my best friends through fights... We disagreed, words had limits, I thrashed them, and so: friends. wait... that doesn't seem correct....
I would like for a new field of science to emerge called "organic economy" (or something of sorts).
Right now, the Economy we have is probably the only "science" (if we can call it that) that activelly works against other fields of science, or just flat out denies them (including how our own society/humans want and interact). Has the speaker said, we are NOT always competing.
We can do better. For our planet, and for our own sake, we must do better.
The mechanism for evolution is often wrongly understood as survival of the fittest but this is not how it works. Mutations do occur at the genetic level. Now mutations can be harmful, harmless or beneficial. If the mutation is harmful then big disavantage, if harmless, no change in terms of adaptation, if beneficial then better adaptation in a given environmental niche.
Well sure, it is not always right for primates and a few other really complicated animals like whales, but it'd really hard to put up these arguments for insects, reptiles, most birds, amphibians and the like. His statement that it is "completely wrong" is not granted.
By no means does this prove the survival of the fittest wrong.
It merely shows that to be the fittest doesn't necessarily mean the most physically powerful or exploitative. It can include any form of behaviour that increases a species' chance of survival
I like this guy a lot and absolutelyyyyyyyy adore Robert Sapolsky.
He has an Evolutionary Behaviour series of lectures on RUclips, it's awesome!
@@hunterG60k if you’re referring to Roberts, yes I’ve listened to just about everything from him on the youtubezzz! How bout you?
@@monztermovies I was, yes. Realised afterwards that my comment was a bit ambiguous. Same, he has such a unique way of talking. I've literally listened to him for hours 😁
Within a species, there may be struggles of the fittest for food or mate. Across species, there's a lot less of that. For instance, a group of lions kills a gazelle. What's left over might be eaten by scavengers. Evolution is about adaptation and cooperation.
Until the hyenas with M-16's show up.
Thank you
Great 👍
Survival of the fittest makes sense to me, it may be morrally wrong in our senses but it is correct in terms of the wild
Humans are humans even though we are living creatures as animals are, there's a pale comparison when all things are considered.
This doesn't disregard survival of the fittest. This supports survival of fittest. for survival of one's race all these things are needed and these are for survival of the fittest.
The title and the video are not matching. Very simplistic way to prove something wrong. Sorry, Darwin was right, not you.
Only the totally UNWISE can believe that something came from nothing and intelligence came from non-intelligence. THIS is pure ignorance. Darwinism IS pure ignorance. And when pure ignorance thinks that it is knowledge, it has condemned itself to continued ignorance. Wisdom is to know the limits of one's understanding. Only then can one gain true knowledge. This I know from experience.
@@tomrhodes1629 You can limit your understanding all you want. Me I don't care to be that ignorant. It just amazing that you don't use the brains god gave you - like it was a sin to do so.
Thank you for this video. I am still baffled how and why humanity has grown so distrustful of our own kind. I see humanity as pack or heard species. And we are totally dependent upon our unity as a whole. A lone average Human in the wild with no supplies has at most a week of survival. Baby kittens would probably survive longer left all alone than a full adult human. If you think of just how many hundreds and probably thousands of people and there work go into producing something as simple as the socks on your feet. There's the farmer who grows the cotton, the Hundreds that work at the Factory to build the tractor that plows the cotton field, the chemical engineers who formulate the pesticides and soil nutrients to achieve the best yield of cotton. The pilot who fly's the crop duster. To the farm hands and harvest seasonal workers. The Truck drivers that transport the cotton to the factory that has huge looms and mechanical engineered machines all designed to turn the cotton to thread. And then the huge looms that weave thousands and thousands of tiny cotton threads into fabric. The garment workers who cut and sew and press and embroider the socks on your feet. More drivers probably a ride across the ocean from Asia to the docks in LA and New York. More trucks and drivers and distribution hubs that are run by robots that someone had to build and design and develop until it was more efficient than human hands. Then it gets to your local retailer, and the cashier and the security and the greeter at the big box stores. Thousands maybe tens of thousands of individuals have in some way, contributed to something as simple as putting a sock on your foot. So tell me that you are an independent and self sufficient self made man. It's total bull shit. Humanity is going to die off if we don't figure this out very quickly.
Actually reciprocal actions between an animal community do fit an evolutionary scenario.. it’s kin selection.
Sniff
The males taking care of babies are not purely altruistic, and in fact DO fit evolutionary scenario's. that child is going to hold a large percentage of that male's dna as a nephew, and in fact will benefit the chimps later in life, plus the male will be able to take resources as a mother would. Saying it "does not fit evolutionary scenario's seems like simply not understanding the concepts.
Survival of the fittest is not wrong.
Life is but a competition.
Some think it’s wrong, for human is superior to animals.
But are we not animals too?
We were once «uncivilized» and believed in spirits, evolution from within, an interconnected world and a human duty to care for mother Earth. Later we got «civilized» and believed in an outside creator/God. We got rights due to a believed superiour position on earth and our belief told us to focus not on life on earth, but on God in Heaven (our death).
Interesting...
I'm not a scientist but I think this isn't what I was taught "fittest" means...I always thought fittest means the one who adapts to it's environment the quickest or something like that.... I could be wrong though .
being quickest can fall into category of fit to its enviroment.
if that enviroment for example has fast predators, being quicker than a predator means you are fit to that enviroment.
but fit in context of survival of the fittest can be anything that helps that organism to survive for longer and reproduce.
it isnt related to physical fitness
@@spatrk6634 yea this is exactly what I was trying to say. I didn't mean quick in the sense of moving fast away from predators, I mean quick to adapt to the changes in the environment " quick in this context= adapting before you die.". But your comment helped me have a better grasp at the concept .thanks
@@flintvalentine4020 i often just think of "survival of the fittest" as survival of the luckiest.
because sometimes there is not that much significant difference in population that some are more "fit" than others, it just comes down to who is the luckiest to reproduce more, spreading their genes into the gene pool
That's the bad media interpartion based on the greed of man unfortunately when ever man want to prove the greed is ok he just pick anything from anywhere -even miss interperating the writer-just to prove an ignorant point that cause damage to everthing .
Survival of the fittest is still correct.
The title is wrong but not what he says.
Imagine saying this not seeing how everything acts on it from politicians to animals. Every human knowing or unknowing acts on it. Every animal acts on it. It being primitive survival instinct that gets called upon from our deepest ancient animal instincts, just as actual animals do. It's a world built on eating, and procreating. IF you aren't eating and passing your genetics on you're not living right.
They don't call them Weiner Dogs fer nuthin'. Mustard or Ketchup?
Thx for the nice video .Nature has it's laws of balance ,treat it with resepct and it will give u wonders .
Humans have mental powers that haven't been tapped yet. Through meditation and mental exercise we grow more enlightened and spiritual. Should we be happy about devolving into animals or would it be better to try and raise ourselves to a higher level of consciousness?
Animals: no ego, not living in the past nor the future but always in the moment. You call that devolved and humans evolved?
@@evadebruijn Not humans as they are but as they could be.
We are all Creator; human & animals. Human are just special.
When a country abandons or neglects its people you can’t blame people who think they are now left alone to fight for survival and become very greedy.
Survival of the fittest may or may not have ANYTHING to do with the 'dog eat dog' mentality. Adaptability.
This video has NOTHING to do with Darwinistic evolution (survival of the fittest). This video deals with competitive social tendencies versus cooperative tendencies. Both exist to some degree in any social creature. They vary in balance and expression. The video speaks in gross generalities and treats the two extreme modes as binary when it is more shades of grey. It also seems ignorant of the speaker to state that altruistic behavior has no evolutionary advantage after spending the entire video explaining the evolutionary benefits gained in social animals. There's a reason this man isn't respected as an expert but rather a fringe antagonist. His research is solid and his observations are commonly well presented. It is his conclusions which present a level of bias that should bring into question his entire body of work.
Anthropodenial and Xenofilic are interesting concepts not talked about enough.
Nice Video from Frans de Waal, very bad/misleading titeling though in many ways, but especially since i.e. beasts, which we are too, having the appearance and execution of morality, altruism etc. does not in the slightest answer or contradict that it is a dog eat dog world.
I.e. since this is pretty much just focused on chimpanzees, one could bring up the Gombe Chimpanzee Wars to refute several things brought up in the video without evidence.
So yeah nice as it is, but for such a big channel, with a lot of resources and such a name, disappointingly mediocre and one-sided for the alleged topic, should have just not clickbaited with the thumbnail asking if it´s a Dog eat Dog World and thus allegedly looking to answer that question.
That's what I call logical, critical and rational thinker +1 Bigthink is great, but I have feeling they are too relaxed when it comes to what material they let through sadly :(
its fittest of the survival
I wouldnt call a sociopath the fittest.
Survival is actually very much not important for evolution: imagine you would get 10x stronger 10x smarter and live 10x longer if you would get sterilised at birth. No gain what so ever for evolution. Its really more procreation of the fittest and fit isnt only a function of brute force but very much also the ability to to adapt to your enviroment, so coorporation etc is part of that.
It's not survival of the fittest... evolution is survival of what ever survives. That is not the same thing as survival of the fittest.
Competition is an experience - co-operation is the restraint to be unselfish ?? Not sure
I understand "fittest" is against tough of life. Not like what you talk about.
Fitness is an English word that does not mean "against tough of life". The third meaning might help you understand how it is used here.
Fitness: n. The state or condition of being fit; suitability or appropriateness.
n. Good health, especially good physical condition resulting from exercise and proper nutrition.
n. The extent to which an organism is able to produce offspring in a particular environment.