Natural Selection

[Caretaker]

Maybe humanity is perhaps the fittest of the species around, simply because of our cognitive abilities, leading us with the ability to cope with, um, not so desirable environmental factors.

[Burry The Rag]

Hey Ro-bear,

You are a slippery one, Burry. Long on equivocation, short on direct responses. But no matter.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In all seriousness, I answered as directly as I could. Please rephrase the question if I did not provide a satisfactory response.

Are you clear yet as to haw environmentalism is consistent with natural selection? To me, it's as simple as recognizing that natural selection is an undirected, unconscious process and that the willful destruction of species is quite the opposite. The decline of the dinosaurs has little in common with the decline of the bison.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yet that intervention, which I maintain is a good thing, does not hold true to nature of survival of the fittest. Texas Freethinker maintained it may not be good. I understand that thinking. I’m not yet sure what you are professing. Obviously there are some conditions we can control and some we can not. It seems you draw a distinction between natural and human induced damage. I don’t know why you can do that.

 

Imagine a scenario, where a Humpback whale has beached itself. It is known the US Navy is conducting rigorous sonar testing just offshore. This activity is the suspected cause of the unfortunate situation. On the same stretch of coastline, one month later, a similar misfortune happens. However, this time irregular tidal activity, due to unusual astronomical factors, is assumed. Can you maintain we have a greater obligation to rescue one whale than the other?

 

Peace!

 

BtR

[Ro-bear]

You seem focussed on responses to the exclusion of causes. I only care why the whale beached itself if I'm at fault. I trust the machinations of nature far more than those of man; they have a longer and better track record.

 

I phrased my questions for a yes or no response. You apparently don't see or won't acknowledge your inconsistency or the consistency of environmentalism with natural selection. I'm running out of ways to point these things out. Perhaps fresher horses are in order.

[Burry The Rag]

Hi Ro-bear,

I phrased my questions for a yes or no response. You apparently don't see or won't acknowledge your inconsistency or the consistency of environmentalism with natural selection. I'm running out of ways to point these things out. Perhaps fresher horses are in order.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The question:

Do you think we should devote as much time and effort to preventing lightning strikes as to preventing arson? Would that be fruitful?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is unanswerable with a simple “yes” or “no.” You indicated as such:

If you answer "yes", you are inconsistent with your making no distinction claim. If you answer "no", you are not a practical person.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The reply I provided:

The threat should be assessed and proper the actions taken. If, as you present: Arson is responsible for more environmental damage than lightning and it is more easily preventable. Then obviously that should dictate the focus of our efforts. Given different parameters, when possible, I would make a greater attempt to prevent natural disasters. We should strive to minimize the damage regardless if the cause is natural or generated by humans.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Was as direct as I knew how to be. Again I ask, what is my inconsistency? I'm here to learn. If my logic is flawed, please indicate how.

 

Peace!

 

BtR

[Ouroboros]

I haven’t read the other posts yet, so I’m sorry if I duplicate the arguments in any way.

 

Hey All,

I’ve been reading the “Knowledge” thread which contains a fair amount of discussion regarding natural selection. Just for the sake of clarity I believe an accurate description to be:

 

I’m no scientist, but I understand as the generations pass (which is a very long time for some and very, very short for others) the strong survive, the weak die and thus the species either gradually becomes better suited to its environment or slowly dies off.

Sorry, but that is not completely correct. It’s the survival of the fittest, not the strongest. A small animal that can hid, but being weak, can survive better than a strong animal that can be poisoned (snake), trapped by a pack (wolfs) or other kinds of attacks.

 

Look at it this way. Microsoft Windows was not the best operating system on the market, and still isn’t, but it thrives and survives and destroy competitors because of its marketing and financial structure. So Microsoft survives because of its fitness to the market, not its technical strength of the product.

 

Take the green frog that Guacamole has as an avatar, it’s poisonous and hence it survives, even if its colors are bright and calls for attention.

 

 

This is considered to be a good thing. I plan to use this principle in my vegetable garden. By reseeding from only the best producing plants, as season follows season, I anticipate slowly crafting a strain of vegetables which will be better able to grow in the conditions my yard provides than were the seeds I originally purchased.

 

But isn’t protecting an endangered species or maintaining a wildlife habitat interfering with what is seen as not only an effective, but desirable, process? Does not this intervention enable the weak, which would otherwise pass on, to survive? Won’t this medaling, over time, yield negative results?

Unfortunately one of the components of the selection process today is the human intervention and pollution. The only way to let evolution take the natural path is for humans to disappear.

 

Weak could mean the fittest, as I stated above.

 

I’m not advocating disengagement. As a Christian, I feel I have an obligation to care for the Earth and its creatures. But I’m confident most here view that as bunk. I’m sure someone has a rational explanation how these two ideas are congruent.

 

Peace!

 

BtR

 

PS: This isn’t a straw man, I’m really wondering about it.

No, this is a good question to bring up.

[Ouroboros]

Hey Madame M,

 

(This is not straw man, it really, really isn’t.) I see no problems with it either. In my initial post, I indicated I was “medaling” with my vegetable garden. It just seemed to me, what is professed as good is in conflict with how we act.

 

Peace!

 

BtR

 

I wish I could post the whole article from Discovery about the Avida experiment, because one thing that Avida proved to the scientists, is that life survives.

 

This is in short one of there experiments:

 

They punished deliberately any "organism" by testing their abilities to survive and killing them off if they were to successfull.

 

This happened: the "organisms" developed the trait to go dormant (pretend to be dead) when they tested their abilities, and hence avoided to be killed.

 

The scientists didn't know this at first, and got a big surprise when they found out. They had been out smarted by a computer simulation of an virtual organism.

 

And you have to understand that the program was not programmed that way, the virtual organisms evolved to react this way, by pure random mutations.

 

So in this case, the fittest was not the strongest, but the smartest.

[Ouroboros]

I'd say it's kind of working against natural selection indeed, but then, we aren't forced to "dance to the tune" of evolution. Indeed, we humans are (as far as we know?) the only species on this world able to understand how this selection works. Thus, we are the only ones able to "bend the rules" of evolution to our advantage... or at least our will. I doubt that all our decisions will really result in an advantage for us - we're not infallible after all.

 

There are, without doubt, cases where it would be good for us humans to stop evolution. There are other cases where this would be a very bad idea. As a shoot-from-the-hip reply, I'd say that in the long run it's probably better to let evolution take its course. But I may well be wrong.

You're right. It's wrong to call it "Natural" selection, it should be called "Human" selection.

[Ouroboros]

Hey Ro-bear, Skankboy and Thurisaz,

 

In natural selection theory, is not the changing environment the main (or only?) premise why any species could become extinct? I think it's good we're involved and think we would benefit if humans were moreso. It simply seems to me there is a wrinkle in theory and practice.

 

Peace!

 

BtR

One of the components of natural selection are the predators. They kill life forms that don't have the right abilities to hide or avoid being killed, or at least produce enough offspring to survive as a species. Humans are predators too, and would be a part of the natural selection, except that we not only kill for food, but for so many other reasons, and also change the environment through expansion and pollution.

 

It's not a wrinkle in the theory, the theory is a complex chaos formula (read up on fractals and Mandelbrot), the formula itself is simple, but the interaction between the participants make it chaotic.

[Burry The Rag]

Hi Han,

 

It’s the survival of the fittest, not the strongest.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Point taken. You are correct.

Unfortunately one of the components of the selection process today is the human intervention and pollution. The only way to let evolution take the natural path is for humans to disappear.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How so? If humans evolved, are we not as much a part of nature as any other natural element?

No, this is a good question to bring up.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks.

 

Peace!

 

BtR

[Ouroboros]

Let's also keep in mine that human's are decidedly selfish when it comes to environmentalism.  We aren't trying to save the world, we are try to save the world that is inhabitable for human life.  In a way, we do this in a "reverse evolutionary" manner, changing the environment to fit us and not vice versa.

Very true. Except for Green Peace that rather save an animal than a person.

[Ouroboros]

Maybe humanity is perhaps the fittest of the species around, simply because of our cognitive abilities, leading us with the ability to cope with, um, not so desirable environmental factors.

That's correct, but only for the time being.

 

We have the ability to wipe ourself out. We are the biggest threat to ourself.

 

Eventually, unless we become more cognisant of our impact to nature (global warming for instance), we will eventually make humanity extinct or at least drastically reduced.

[Ouroboros]

Hey Ro-bear,

 

In all seriousness, I answered as directly as I could. Please rephrase the question if I did not provide a satisfactory response.

 

Yet that intervention, which I maintain is a good thing, does not hold true to nature of survival of the fittest. Texas Freethinker maintained it may not be good. I understand that thinking. I’m not yet sure what you are professing. Obviously there are some conditions we can control and some we can not. It seems you draw a distinction between natural and human induced damage. I don’t know why you can do that.

 

Imagine a scenario, where a Humpback whale has beached itself. It is known the US Navy is conducting rigorous sonar testing just offshore. This activity is the suspected cause of the unfortunate situation. On the same stretch of coastline, one month later, a similar misfortune happens. However, this time irregular tidal activity, due to unusual astronomical factors, is assumed. Can you maintain we have a greater obligation to rescue one whale than the other?

 

Peace!

 

BtR

All these questions are very difficult to answer, and I think we can only do what we can do.

 

Actually we can see that the science of Evolution can have a good impact of humanity, since it can give us better understanding of the balance of nature and life, so we can adjust our society to making less impact, but humanity can still survive.

[NimbusBirdMgp]

I believe in Evolution in certain ways. Natural Selection seems sensable and also not sensable. As far as adaptations go.

 

I see the myths about Angels in ancient times. We humans envy the Birds that can fly and take to the air and sky. Why haven't we started to sprout wings about now?

 

I think it is unfair to not be at the present adaption to what the present situation is, because it changes also. How can nature keep up, if the surroundings are changing also?

 

That seems why we need to be inventive, intelligent enough for creating something else for us to adapt to from the hostilities of our environment.

 

Now we have been able to create aircrafts, airplanes and other machanical things to get us to fly.

 

I'm not very well adapted to this world and climate. thanks to air-conditioning or else I might not have survived. I can't stand heat. or was born in Canada where I could adapt to a more cooler climate. But being in such the right place has been a conspiracy of mankind to keep me from going where I need to survive.

 

With diversity? It be fare for many adaptations for many things in life.

 

Somehow it is all like there is a limit to something in the supernatural world. Like there is and then there isn't. Something comes in the infinite small universe to alter and fix the DNA. But I have a harder time trying to figure what really does that. I have more thoughts but it is hard to get it all here.

 

I just think Religions and Cults try to take half truths for its own chauvinisms and getting control of others.

[Ouroboros]

Hi Han,

 

Point taken. You are correct.

How so? If humans evolved, are we not as much a part of nature as any other natural element?

Thanks.

 

Peace!

 

BtR

Yes, we are a part of the natural element, especially if you take the view to believe evolution. If you are religious, you could easily take the viewpoint that humans are separate from the nature, with his spiritual part and connection to God. So my suggestion had little to do with the scientific approach (human is an animal too), but more to be a "political correct" so it would fit every belief.

 

Otherwise you are correct, humans are part of the natural selection and without some form of guideline, and we will eradicate most life on Earth, and ourselves too.

 

And I'm not supporting a guideline that is religious, of the reason that US is extremely shortsighted and damaging to nature with the religious Bush at the top, compared to the tribes in the jungles of Africa.

 

There are scientists that have started to bring up ethical guidelines, or at least started the discussion about it, to prevent science to be the killer of all life. And I’m thinking in particular about nano tech.

[Burry The Rag]

How can nature keep up, if the surroundings are changing also?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey NimbusBirdMgp,

 

Again, I'm no scientist, but is that not the basis of Evolution?

 

Peace!

 

BtR

[Saviourmachine]

Whatever will survive is best fitted / adapted. Whatever you do, kill or protect species, this law won't be broken.

 

If you protect species because you see that it gives long term advantages to mankind (rational decision), or because you feel empathy with them (emotional decision) doesn't matter. Do like you want, and I'm sure people would do the best thing (if they are not rationally or emotionally unfit...). Good luck!

[Caretaker]

That's correct, but only for the time being.

 

We have the ability to wipe ourself out. We are the biggest threat to ourself.

 

Eventually, unless we become more cognisant of our impact to nature (global warming for instance), we will eventually make humanity extinct or at least drastically reduced.

Ah, yes, Genocide... Concentration camps.... WMDs

 

 

But I tend to think that the human species will figure out to survive even the greatest of atrocities. We may dwindle our population down to 10,000, but I don't think humanity is that helpless.

[Ouroboros]

Ah, yes, Genocide... Concentration camps.... WMDs

But I tend to think that the human species will figure out to survive even the greatest of atrocities. We may dwindle our population down to 10,000, but I don't think humanity is that helpless.

I think we can do it. We can figure out how to survive as a species, and even as a large population too. But the problem right now is that the leaders don't have the will to do it.

 

The question of oil production and resources, and pollution and global warming, is on the bottom of the prez list. There are scientists trying to urge the prez to prioritize these issues before they become critical. But it seems it will be handled just like the Y2K bug, we don't fix it until one year before it will potentially kill us. But it's a gamle, because we don't know how fast the ball is rolling in this case. We might have started a chain reaction that won't be easy to stop.

 

Personally I didn't worry about these things up until lately, when new reports of the global warming shows that the speed of heating up will increase. It will accelerate, and a lot of animals and plants will die just because of the migration to the north.

[chefranden]

Hey Skankboy,

 

True! Obviously humanity has done great and irrevocable damage to our environment. But is changing our environment necessarily bad? I would much rather go to my garden (or grocery store) for something to eat than roam the streets of my suburb as a hunter/gatherer.

 

Peace!

 

BtR

 

This is just an artifact of your culture. Many Native cultures all over the world have fought to extinction to maintain the right to roam as hunter/gatherers. Probably you would have too if you'd of been raised that way.

[chefranden]

Very interesting Thread!

 

I think that you all will want to read Ishmael by Daniel Quinn for some rather provocative new insights into the matter.

[Burry The Rag]

This is just an artifact of your culture.  Many Native cultures all over the world have fought to extinction to maintain the right to roam as hunter/gatherers.  Probably you would have too if you'd of been raised that way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey chefranden,

 

Perhaps. But is this only culture or is it also progress? Although I consider myself to be "outdoorsy" there are many things I do to insulate myself from nature. I live in a house I did not build. I wear clothing I did not make. I post to this site which I did not create. I don't think one can maintain that insulation from nature or changing nature to suit one’s preferences is, in and of itself, a bad thing.

 

Peace!

 

BtR

[chefranden]

Hey chefranden,

 

Perhaps. But is this only culture or is it also progress? Although I consider myself to be "outdoorsy" there are many things I do to insulate myself from nature. I live in a house I did not build. I wear clothing I did not make. I post to this site which I did not create. I don't think one can maintain that insulation from nature or changing nature to suit one’s preferences is, in and of itself, a bad thing.

 

Peace!

 

BtR

 

Progress? What is that? Where is it going? Why is it going there?

 

Progress has given us 13.5 quadrillion lethal doses of plutonium along with the insulation. You wear clothing often made by people desparte for a few pennies for a handful of rice a day. You eat bananas tended by people that work for a plate of beans consumed in a cardboard hut on land stolen from them by United Fruit and the US Marines Progress insures that we will have 50,000 deaths in assosiation with car crashes this year with perhaps another 100,000 maimed. Progress helps us kill 59 Iraqis for every American soldier killed and given us an endless war on terror.

 

I don't think that I need to go on do I?

[Burry The Rag]

Progress?  What is that?  Where is it going?  Why is it going there?

 

Progress has given us 13.5 quadrillion lethal doses of plutonium along with the insulation. You wear clothing often made by people desparte for a few pennies for a handful of rice a day.  You eat bananas tended by people that work for a plate of beans consumed in a cardboard hut on land stolen from them by United Fruit and the US Marines  Progress insures that we will have 50,000 deaths in assosiation with car crashes this year with perhaps another 100,000 maimed.  Progress helps us kill 59 Iraqis for every American soldier killed and given us an endless war on terror.

 

I don't think that I need to go on do I?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey Chefranden,

 

Nowhere did I state everything is peachy. However, I am glad I am not required to grow, find or kill my food. I appreciate that I live in a world where I may obtain a mortgage in order to buy a home. (If you could see the bookcase I built, you’d know why.) I am much more comfortable in a world where I may converse on the internet. I can learn of your ideas and perspectives. This group of individuals gathered here, and the exchange of thoughts, would be seemingly impossible without such technology. Not everyone has the benefits most of us take for granted. Does my full belly, nice house and internet postings mean everything is perfect? Absolutely not!

 

Peace!

 

BtR

[chefranden]

Hey Chefranden,

 

Nowhere did I state everything is peachy. However, I am glad I am not required to  grow, find or kill my food. I appreciate that I live in a world where I may obtain a mortgage in order to buy a home. (If you could see the bookcase I built, you’d know why.) I am much more comfortable in a world where I may converse on the internet. I can learn of your ideas and perspectives. This group of individuals gathered here, and the exchange of thoughts, would be seemingly impossible without such technology. Not everyone has the benefits most of us take for granted. Does my full belly, nice house and internet postings mean everything is perfect? Absolutely not!

 

Peace!

 

BtR

 

You didn't answer the questions.

 

Progress? What is that? Where is it going? Why is it going there?

 

Oh, wait, I forgot! You are going to heaven. God is testing you with riches that he took away from those poor wretches, to see if you are worthy.

 

Sorry.

[MrSpooky]

But isn’t protecting an endangered species or maintaining a wildlife habitat interfering with what is seen as not only an effective, but desirable, process? Does not this intervention enable the weak, which would otherwise pass on, to survive? Won’t this medaling, over time, yield negative results?

 

I’m not advocating disengagement. As a Christian, I feel I have an obligation to care for the Earth and its creatures. But I’m confident most here view that as bunk. I’m sure someone has a rational explanation how these two ideas are congruent.

 

Burry, Science is a descriptive study. Ethics is a prescriptive one. What IS the case is not necessarily what SHOULD be the case. It's a major mistake to think that what is "natural" is supposed to automatically mean "good."

 

It's perfectly natural for people to suffer from disease and die horribly, but is it okay to allow that to happen?

 

There are three major levels of any ethical evaluation such that the levels exist in a hierarchy...

 

1. The Objective Facts (i.e. scientific descriptions of the world): Our understanding of causes and effects that occur in nature.

 

2. Meta-Ethics: The more subjective field that determines WHY something is unethical. This can range from utilitarianism to Kantian ethics to human rights theory.

 

3. Normative Evaluation: The formulaic combination of facts and meta-ethics to understand what action in what situation is "good" as opposed to "bad."