Survival of the Fittest? Really?

     "Survival of the fittest." This is a phrase that is used by various people at various times. But what does it really mean? According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, the most appropriate definition for "fit" is "adapted to the environment so as to be capable of surviving". So, we would assume that "fittest" would mean that a person was BEST adapted.
     One huge problem with looking up definitions is that the definition makes use of other words which have their own definitions. In this case, we have the word "surviving" used in ADDITION to the word "survival" within the original phrase. So, it appears that "survival" is redundant -- the "fittest" would automatically survive since that is part of the definition. But people like redundancy (particularly with acronyms -- WAN network, for example) so that's OK.
     We still have three major descriptive words in the above definition: adapted, environment, capable. I won't keep pulling in definitions from the dictionary because eventually they tend to cycle. Definitions end up based on the connections between words and experiences. We learn what "green" really means by correlating between a perceived color and the name. We learn what "a building" means by having someone (parent, teacher, friend, ...) tell us which constructed objects are considered to be a building. And so on.
     But a big part of the word "adapted" is that it implies change. That indicates that the bird, butterfly, human, tree, or whatever may not have originally been easily capable of surviving. Note that the change may, or may not, have occurred within a single entity's lifetime. The adaptation may have taken place over generations -- with the best of each generation creating just a little bit better (a new best) for the next generation. This is close to the original Darwinian usage of the phrase.
     However, it is possible for change to occur within a lifetime. This relates to another key word within the definition -- "capable". In the case of a tree or a bird, they are capable (have "attributes required for accomplishment") of survival at that time or not. They cannot learn to put on a coat, or build a house, or develop a medicine, or whatever. They survive or they die based on their existing capabilities and instincts -- with the big factor being whether they can survive long enough to create that next generation that may be able to survive better or longer. Other animals may have some degree of ability to adapt to become capable such as a raccoon learning to use a stone to open a clam.
     Humans are remarkable in their ability to change (if they want or are forced to do such). They can fabricate devices, think up strategies, and make triage decisions based on what they believe is needed for survival. And, bringing in the last of the three key words, they can do it based upon the current (or projected) environment.
     Which brings us back to the word "fittest". Humans are well suited for adapting and for being capable of survival. But just how they need to adapt and of what they need to be capable depends fully on their environment. An environment can mean a physical environment. For cold, people can make and wear warm clothing, build a shelter, collect and use fuel, and so forth. For severe heat, the problems are more complex but it can be managed. Living undersea would require other adaptations and so forth. In each environment, certain physical attributes would be of inherent use but the greatest area of capability to adapt is the access to, and ability to use, materials to be able to adapt, and survive, within the physical environment.
     For humans, environment for the "fittest" is more often a social context. This can be split into general society or within a business/industry/subsection of the society.
     The smartest person may be the "fittest" within a academic world. However, depending on the political environment of the academic setting, the ability to manipulate managerial opinion may be of greater value -- leading to a situation where the smartest is NOT the "fittest". Most of us have lived through the complex environment of a high school (or secondary education role). Being the "fittest" is a combination of many different attributes and it is likely there will not be consensus within the entire school. One sub-group may consider one member the "fittest" while a different sub-group, with different characteristics, considers a different person the "fittest".
     One potential definition for civilization is a society having rules and methods of enforcing those rules. This divides up the social environment into two rough groups. The first group has the rules, and benefit of enforcing the rules, defined by an individual. The second group has the rules, and benefits of enforcing the rules defined by the members of the group (in a pure democracy) or a subset of the members of the group (many other political/economic models).
     The first group can be described as a "Mad Max" type of post-Apocalyptic world or a "cave person" type of pre-settled world which stabilizes when the "fittest" person emerges in the group. The "fittest" individual is often the person who is the most ruthless; the most willing to do whatever they want, or need, to do to get what they want. There can be delegated authority but it exists only to support the ruling individual. If the members of the group do not unify to alter the situation, it can expand to larger numbers of people under a dictator (or absolute monarch or emperor).
     It is a type of "fittest" that many would hate because "there can be only one". There are members of groups of people, who romanticize the survival of the fittest, that think that THEY will be that ONE "fittest" out of the many in the group -- but each of the hundreds, thousands, or millions think that and only one will really be that.
    I like the second group. I am one of the many who welcome the rules and enforcement created, and enforced, by the group. I am unlikely to ever be THE "fittest" but I can attempt to be one of the many "fittest". It is a type of environment in which I can strive to adapt to survive and still allow others to attempt to be their own "fittest". Such an environment exists only because groups of individuals can create enforcement of rules. Thus, people cannot murder. People cannot steal. People cannot do things to harm the group. And so forth.
     Groups of people create rules and enforcement of rules to benefit the group -- which can be a neighborhood, city, state, country, or planet. The group membership delineates those who are expected to follow the rules and benefit from the enforcement of the rules. Change in group composition can cause fear and anger within some in the group because it can change the number, and choices, of the various "fittest" subgroups and individuals (and, thus, a previous "fittest" (or privileged) person or subgroup may lose that status -- or the exclusivity of their benefits).