Our one-sided view of evolution

In addition to what Seth says below, it would appear that we also grossly misunderstood the term "survival of the fittest".  In the true sense of the words, it means the survival of those species most in harmony with Gaia, with other species and with the evolution of the ecosystem.

Unfortunately, most scientists view "survival of the fittest" as meaning the biggest, baddest species which dominates others survives.  If that were the case ... there would still be dinosaurs around.  Dinosaurs were, in a sense, over-optimized for their environmental context and thus had no evolutionary potential to survive the climate changes of the ice age etc.  It was species living more in harmony with all other species, who were less optimized, that ultimately survived and thrive to this day.

“The trouble with most ideas concerning evolution is that they are all one-sided – all loaded, of course, at man’s end at the expense of the other species, and [with] all thinking in terms of progress along very narrow consecutive lines.  Such ideas have much to do with the way you think of yourselves, and what you consider human characteristics, and the light in which you view those who vary in one way or another from those norms.”

(Dreams, “Evolution” and Value Fulfillment Vol 2, Session 914)