Compare Darwin’s concept of fitness with the sociobiologists’ concept of inclusive fitness. What are the implications of the difference between the two concepts for the explanation of human social behavior?
Charles Darwin described fitness as an individual’s capability to survive and reproduce. According to him, fitness is determined by an organism’s ability in adapting or acclimatizing to the surroundings. Physiological and morphological features that allow an organism to adequately adjust to the environment are called adaptive features.
Those organisms, which possess the adaptive features, are tagged as fit, whereas those who do not, are tagged as unfit for survival. It should be noted that features, such as strength, aggression and competitiveness do not necessarily conduct to fitness.
According to the sociobiologists, fitness is determined by how successful one is at passing on his genes but that does not imply how successful one is at producing offspring. The sociobiologists emphasize upon one’s genes, which means a person tries to help them survive who carry the set of genes. By helping the close relations, a person spreads his own genes. This is the concept of inclusive fitness.
Darwin explained fitness of an organism as its ability to survive and reproduce in a healthy manner, which is, spreading of one’s genes. The sociobiologists modified Darwin’s concept a little, emphasizing a person’s tendency to protect the individuals, who have a similar genetic makeup. Thus, socio-biology accounts for a wide range of social behaviors of human beings.
Human Social Behavior refers to the behaviors exhibited by an individual in a social structure of living. They include types of emotions, actions, moral values, tendency to share resources and protect one’s relations.