We have gotten so used to "The Survival of the Fittest" over the last century that "The Survival of the Just-Barely-Fit" seems somehow wrong. "The Fittest" sounds like an ideal that we should look up to and emulate but, of course, that isn't possible. There is only one who is "The Fittest" and that isn't enough to provide for the next generation, much less populate the globe. If we say "The Fittest and those almost as Fit" we are getting closer to reality, but we have to define "almost as Fit" and when we do that we get those who are "just barely Fit enough". So no matter how we approach the question we come back to "The Survival of the Just-barely-fit".

"The Survival of the Just-Barely-Fit" is certainly as memorable as "Survival of the Fittest" and is a lot easier to get comfortable with. We may admire "The Fittest", but we can all empathize with the ones who just barely squeaked through. A principle like "The Survival of the Just-Barely-Fit" leaves us some room to feel valuable, rather than wondering if our ancestors cheated.

But a scientific principle has to be more than memorable and empathic, it has to work. While "Survival of the Fittest" isn't likely to create good neighbors , there is a sense that it isn't grossly counter to experience, either. If we want to replace it with "Survival of the Just-Barely-Fit" it isn't enough to show that it is more reasonable. We also have to show that it works better.

Home; Next; Previous; Top