"Survival of the fittest" is often misunderstood. It was originally meant to imply that the most well-adapted species prevail, not necessarily the "fittest" species. This means that the success of certain traits is not solely dependent on the efficiency of those traits. Rather, it is a complex interplay of environmental conditions, competition, pests, and much more. The success of a trait can largely depend on luck, such as favorable conditions for its spread within a stable population or its extinction due to an event. The fragility of populations is evident in the many species currently facing extinction—evolutionary marvels that suddenly disappear. Traits may take millions of years to develop or may never emerge again. When applied to humans, this is an important realization as it undermines race theories and eugenicist ideologies. The sole basis of these dehumanizing ideologies is a perceived superiority easily refuted by evolutionary insights. There is no basis for considering any physical traits as inferior. However, there is a good reason why this argument is rarely heard: a discussion about the value of human life is incompatible with insights from ethical philosophy. Human dignity is inviolable, and every individual determines their own worth. A discussion about the value of human traits or peculiarities should not even be entertained, as such a discussion is inherently undignified. Unfortunately, there are increasingly societal concepts that garner support with antiquated and dehumanizing views. It is important to employ reason and humanity to oppose such developments.