I wonder how politics of the last couple hundred years would have been different if the soundbite for Darwin’s theory hadn’t been:
Survival of the fittest.
… but rather:
Survival of those who best fit in.
“Survival of the fittest” makes it seem like we’re talking of a critter of which the following is true:
For all environments `e`, the critter is `the_fittest(e)`
… when it’s actually:
There exists at least one environment `e` for which the critter is `the_fittest(e)`.
… which are pretty different things, as the passenger pigeon, the triceratops, the trilobite, and various North American megafauna discovered.
Much more pleasant to imagine yourself the first, ∀, critter, though.
@marick It is even simpler than that: "Survival of the fit enough".
Whatever else is going on, you only need to meet the bar of being viable. No need to waste energy to reach the apex in all of the environments. You can put it to make a niche of your own instead. Or not, the evolution wouldn't judge.
@dpwiz You are correct.
In terms of dueling slogans, I don’t think that would work. It’s very important to suggest to the reader that they are on the right side of history/evolution/economics/God – some extra-human entity that sets down The Rules.