I believe we aren't just that we have a mor sophisticated survival. So we must have a more sophisticated fit. It hasen't stopped aplying it has just changed. Now fit is considered the ability to supress others so that you can control all. Fit is considered in money and ability to smear someones charecter so that they willnot be accepted and therfore will not survive.
Survival has also changed, it used to be considered that life was survival. Now if you are well-to-do, all around, have a nice hous, and get decent wages you are surviving.
So truly it is not that people are to sophisticated for survival of the fittest. We have just changed the rules.

wow, what the **** is this? this is the most sensless thing I've ever read. What the **** is he even talking about?
I give this post a 5

YES!!!!!!!!!for once your world collapses, you will starve to death. WHY? Because you are most concerned with keeping up with your neighbors. That Escalade means more to you than the survival of your family.

VOTE IN THE STREETS!

Survival of the fittest, on economic terms, is a concept that can only apply to humans. Humans have not transcended the confines of conflict with their fellow man, only the ending of capitalism and the emergence of communism can bring the end of conflict.

I also vote that this is the most senseless thing I have ever read online. This thread is so dumb but also illustrates just how wrong you people are about reality.

To Abe E: "Survival" and "Fittest" both mean the same as they ever did, and NOTHING but Capitalism has done more to make both survival and fitness accessible to so many people. You are forgetting that, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution and Capitalism in its modern form (property rights and such), "survival" has consisted of people living more than twice as long as they did before - "fitness" consists of, among other things, the fact that the infant mortality rate has more than quartered because of Capitalism. The people not surviving in this world today are those who have not had nearly enough capital invested in them - these people need more Capitalism, not less. Your view of what "fit" is considered is just so screwed up, I don't know what the hell you were thinking when you wrote it.

To Redstar: Capitalism, in its pure form, effectively bans force from human relationships and this is why the freedom of person is in direct proportion to the amount of Capitalism in their country. You will notice that as such, Capitalist countries do not make war with each other. Why would they? All conflicts in this world involve at least one totalitarian power. They're usually either religious, Socialist or Communist. Marxist style governments, including Communist Russia and China, killed 97 million people in the 20th Century. And yet here you are, like some unfathomably twisted jackass, suggesting that the barbaric, soul destroying system of Communism is going to end conflict. You are quite obviously smoking crack. Free trade, bound by contractual law and property rights, is the most natural, moral, ethical and progressive system in the history of the Earth, and mankind should be exceptionally proud and protective of it. Instead, we have idiots like Redstar who think that humans should be enslaved involuntarily into an anthill and stagnate themselves into the trashcans of history. Crack is bad for you son, and I hope you jack it in soon.

"Are People to sophisticated for survival of the fittest?"

"No, people are not too sophisticated to revert to their most basic of all instincts. Just look at what happened after hurricane Katrina."

"No, people are not too sophisticated to revert to their most basic of all instincts. Just look at what happened after hurricane Katrina."

I've tried explaining this to the commies a thousand times but they think that all humans are as sweet as candy.

Commies have only to look at themselves to see that their idealistic view of humanity is completely flawed!