Blame this on Herbert Spencer. He read Charles Darwin's On The Origins of Species [1864] and found in it an endorsement of his own economic theories. So, he coined the term 'Survival of The Fittest'.

Later, Darwin was persuaded to accept the term 'Survival of the Fittest' by his collaborator and fellow traveller, Alfred Russel Wallace, and thought that the term 'avoided the troublesome anthropomorphism of selecting'. So, he wrote, in the fifth edition of the Origin, published in 1869, 'natural selection, or the survival of the fittest', implying a synonym, though he was aware that the new term is inherently restrictive and does not adequately convey the nuances process of 'natural selection'.

Interestingly, while this term survived in Economic thinking, modern biologists preferred to use 'natural selection' instead of 'survival of the fittest', because 'fittest' is understood, commonly, to mean 'in best physical shape', which is not what Darwin and his fellow researchers saw or meant. Modern Capitalist Economists just love the term 'survival of the fittest' because it hands them the greatest justification being akin to laws of nature why capitalist market economics is best suited to humanity.

But, 'survival of the fittest' is not what happens in nature. Instead, it gives us wrong notions about what it takes to survive. As Darwin observed, "It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change." We do not seem to see adaptability to change as one of the qualities of the 'fittest' and therefore, the term does take our attention away from what it takes to survive in the nature.

The usage also implies that nature is biased against survival, except of only the 'fittest'. But, while some species are more adaptable than the others, many of them seem to survive. So, natural selection is actually about 'survival of the fit enough' and far more complex and diverse than the narrowness of 'survival of the fittest' seem to imply.

Besides, when applied in a social context, survival of the fittest seem to justify the winner takes all approach that reigns supreme in our time. This does not help, as it means we can continue to consume resources in building faster cars and individual jet planes, when, as a result, a few poor Maldivian and Bangladeshi citizens would sink. Because we do not care, we have so far failed to design a society, which can fuel innovation and progress while ensuring that the less able is cared for adequately and the proceeds of our individual enterprise is shared fairly.

However, in the nature's scheme of things, the species that eats itself is necessarily the weakest, because it eventually will run out of ways of reproducing and sustaining itself. While we reveled in the glory of our industrial creation, we have fast tracked ourselves to a point where we may end up altering the balance of nature irreversibly - the same nature that sustained us and helped us come this far. We have also discriminated against our own - against the weaker and the different making ourselves vulnerable to nature's fury in the process.