I guess there’s no reason for survival of the fittest to equal more intelligence.
Easy to forget that “fittest” is only relevant to the environment/context you are living in - if intelligence does not make you “fitter” for that then it will probably disappear.
Intelligence requires bigger brains, which comes at a cost - huge energy requirement (20% of total for humans), weight (for birds), head size (issue for human birth), etc.
Many animals have no need for intelligence/generality since they have a very limited behavioral niche (e.g. herbivores, crocodiles, sharks), so it wouldn't have evolved in the first place, but even for those that do the benefit has to outweigh the cost.
If every animal was a generalist they they'd all be in competition with each other, so I'd expect if you ran simulations you'd find that an ecosystem full of species that don't compete head-on is more stable, and therefore likely to result.
Inteligence is the endgame answer, brute forcing it gets you 85% of the way, but only inteligence will get you to 99.9%. Sometimes the local maximum is enough.
It's not circular, it's just true in the purest sense. As all mathematical theorems are either tautologies or consequences of assumptions, therefore pure assumptions.
For me survival of the fittest just means that with high probability those genes will survive who have a high probability to survive in an evolutionary setting. Is this trivial? In this wording it is trivial. But it can be useful. (And also it is not that trivial in a different wording. Just like other theorems, e.g. the theorem about the
perpendicular bisectors of a triangle's sides. If a point O is equal distance from A and B and B and C then it is equal distance from A and C. Tautology, circular, assumption, name it what you want, it's math.)
I think it is 'fittest with respect with the current / incoming environment', in contrast with 'strongest' / 'fastest' / some other absolute measurement, at the expense of the rest.
Fittest means best fitted to the prevailing environment, but of course the fitness being tested is ability to survive and reproduce (i.e. keep on playing the game of evolution).
It's almost a circular/tautological description ("survival of the survivors"), but "fittest" does at least allude to why some survive better than others (better adapted to prevailing environment), as well as the fact ("fitt-EST" vs "fit") that it's a competition for limited resources. Fitness is a matter of degree.
Survival of the fittest to reproduce. Not just to survive, but to spread. The key profundity is that it's so banal, there's no need for a God directing it.
Easy to forget that “fittest” is only relevant to the environment/context you are living in - if intelligence does not make you “fitter” for that then it will probably disappear.