"Survival of the fittest" is a commonly used phrase, but do we really understand what it means? Maybe an example can clear things up. The 2nd Industrial Revolution took place in the 19th century. During the revolution, there were some highly successful men whose businesses were doing very well. These men came to be known as the "Captains of Industry". These captains used wit and experience to get ahead of the competition, which resulted in their positions at the time. For example, Carnegie made sure he owned a part of the entire system (mining, shipping, refining, steel, products, sold) so he could effectively control the entire system. Then there was Rockefeller. Rockefeller would make deals with the Pennsylvania Rail Road that if he got a few pennies less of a charge, he would keep a steady business intact with them. This deal gave him the ability to sell for less, which ensured that he steal all the business. This eventually inevitably crippled all the other businesses. Now in this given scenario, Rockefeller certainly seems to be the "fittest" because out of all his competitors, he was the one who came up with this ingenious idea that resulted in his dominating success. So it can be argued that he rightfully deserves the opportunity to gain all the business for himself and cripple his competition. However, the thing with "survival of the fittest" is, what happens to the ones that aren't fit? Being successful to the point of domination has the inevitable consequence of having others suffer a great deal. Is this really the right thing to do? I believe that it is not, because that's not who we are. We are not people who feast on the weak. We are people that help each other out, and the ones that still follow survival of the fittest are in for a hard time when they're suddenly not the "fittest" anymore, because anyone's luck can turn.
