Stevenson and Haberman say that "the basic point of Darwinian theory is that the biologically fittest individuals are those that survive longest and leave the most progeny" (207). So if you live a long life and you have lots of children, you are more fit than someone who dies early and doesn't have any children. When I say it that way, it makes me wonder if this is really what it means to be fit.
Let's take for example someone who dies in a terrible accident that wasn't their fault. They're driving at the speed limit, on their way to visit their grandmother, and a drunk driver crashes into them from the opposite direction at 60 mph. Was that person not physically fit? Maybe they were really sexually attractive and had the promise of reproducing many children. Just because they died in a freak accident shouldn't mean they weren't physically fit. Maybe Stevenson and Haberman just forgot to include this.
So now that we can rule out accidents as a determination of what makes someone fit (there's always an exception to the rule after all), what else might define someone as "fit" in the modern day? We're no longer animals, so we aren't simply concerned with reproduction and survival anymore. We also think about morals, personality, religion, intelligence, etc. when we're considering who we want to mate with. Different people are looking for different qualities. I might want to mate with someone who has a good sense of humor while someone else might be looking for someone who is rich and famous.
I don't think there is a good definition for "fit" anymore. We are too complicated to be able to define any characteristics that every person wants when considering a mate. Our level of fitness is completely dependent on each individual. One person might see me as perfectly fit while another might see me as completely unfit. Our subjectivity negates the possibility for one universal definition of "fit".
No comments:
Post a Comment