14 replies to this topic

[Doki]

Human assisting in 'Survival of the fittest'




If they are not fittest then making them survive is not act against natural selection?

Edited by Nabi, 30 January 2009 - 07:57 AM.

[Trof]

Pandas have one very usefull feature for their survival. They're so cute that they made humans to help them reproduce. Very clever, since humans nowadays rule the Earth

[Doki]

Do we really rule the earth?

[oldman]

Are humans, and everything we do, and everything we make, not part of the natural world?

[perneseblue]

Nabi, on Jan 30 2009, 10:23 AM, said:

Do we really rule the earth?

One could argue that in the crudest sense, power over something is the ability to destroy it where and when one desires. With the advent of nuclear weapons, humanity could destroy the Earth. And thus by this definition we do rule it.

Of course, there are other definitions of what it means to rule a planet. If ruling meant being able to govern it, fix it and improve it... well humanity may no more rule the world as a 2 year old may rule a town.

oldman, on Jan 30 2009, 02:48 PM, said:

Are humans, and everything we do, and everything we make, not part of the natural world?

It depends on the definition of 'natural' that is in use. What humans do is produce things in quantity that are not normally found in a particular environment. Is a pride of lions floating in the middle of the Atlantic natural?

[casandra]

perneseblue, on Jan 30 2009, 06:43 PM, said:

It depends on the definition of 'natural' that is in use.

But haven't we already made that very basic of all definitions- anything produced by man is artificial or man-made and not natural?

[perneseblue]

casandra, on Jan 30 2009, 03:53 PM, said:

perneseblue, on Jan 30 2009, 06:43 PM, said:

It depends on the definition of 'natural' that is in use.

But haven't we already made that very basic of all definitions- anything produced by man is artificial or man-made and not natural?

I would agree. However people seem to make strange exceptions.

[GeorgeWolff]

The "natural" distinction is bull. They are surviving by fitness - to human emotion.

[Doki]

Trof, on Jan 31 2009, 02:24 AM, said:

Pandas have one very usefull feature for their survival. They're so cute that they made humans to help them reproduce. Very clever, since humans nowadays rule the Earth

GeorgeWolff, on Jan 31 2009, 09:47 AM, said:

The "natural" distinction is bull. They are surviving by fitness - to human emotion.

This is a form of symbiosis?

perneseblue, on Jan 31 2009, 08:43 AM, said:

Nabi, on Jan 30 2009, 10:23 AM, said:

Do we really rule the earth?

One could argue that in the crudest sense, power over something is the ability to destroy it where and when one desires. With the advent of nuclear weapons, humanity could destroy the Earth. And thus by this definition we do rule it.

Of course, there are other definitions of what it means to rule a planet. If ruling meant being able to govern it, fix it and improve it... well humanity may no more rule the world as a 2 year old may rule a town.

In one sense it is the power to destroy but looking at the present age, there are groups that have power to destroy our habitat but we refuse/fight to accept that they rule. Taking evolution into consideration, is it right to say that the one who is most evolved (or who is fittest to survive) is the ruler?

[swanny]

Nabi, on Jan 31 2009, 02:00 PM, said:

Trof, on Jan 31 2009, 02:24 AM, said:

Pandas have one very usefull feature for their survival. They're so cute that they made humans to help them reproduce. Very clever, since humans nowadays rule the Earth

GeorgeWolff, on Jan 31 2009, 09:47 AM, said:

The "natural" distinction is bull. They are surviving by fitness - to human emotion.

This is a form of symbiosis?

perneseblue, on Jan 31 2009, 08:43 AM, said:

Nabi, on Jan 30 2009, 10:23 AM, said:

Do we really rule the earth?

One could argue that in the crudest sense, power over something is the ability to destroy it where and when one desires. With the advent of nuclear weapons, humanity could destroy the Earth. And thus by this definition we do rule it.

Of course, there are other definitions of what it means to rule a planet. If ruling meant being able to govern it, fix it and improve it... well humanity may no more rule the world as a 2 year old may rule a town.

In one sense it is the power to destroy but looking at the present age, there are groups that have power to destroy our habitat but we refuse/fight to accept that they rule. Taking evolution into consideration, is it right to say that the one who is most evolved (or who is fittest to survive) is the ruler?

What does it mean to be "most" evolved? Either a species is evolved in a certain environment, or it isn't. Even using the "fittest to survive" definition (and couldn't we open a can of worms over that definition?), I could argue that anywhere that H. sapiens occurs in numbers, Rattus spp are most evolved, and therefore rule. And let's not forget ants and cockroaches.

I think we need to consider many, many parameters to decide which organisms are the fittest. In our case, we seem to buck the "natural order" whatever that might be. We are not the fastest, or the strongest, yet we rule, in a pragmatic sense. We are generalists, not specialists, and perhaps that's why we have been so successful (consider the horse, whose legs have evolved to the point that their ancestral prehistoric pentadactyl hands and feet have become a single digit with the mother of all nails). Or maybe it's the combination of being adaptable and having an opposable thumb that has set us apart to become the dominant species (is that a more useful term than "the rulers", I wonder?). Being most evolved isn't necessarily the best thing if you aren't able to adapt to changing conditions...

As for the question of who is the ruler, I'm afraid it has less to do with the degree of evolution as the arsenal at one's disposal. Look at Dubya! If he was the peak of evolution, then evolution is in trouble! Don't mistake power for evolutionary status.

Heretical statement: In this year of Darwin worship, please try to avoid labelling everything Darwinian! I'm not sure old Charlie would be too happy at how his theories have been manipulated, and I don't just mean the actions of the neocons and religious right. In the context of this thread, there is also such a thing as politics.

Remember: we are dominant, not rulers. We do not control anything of any real consequence on  the planet.


Rant over, I'm going home!

[robsabba]

Nabi, on Jan 30 2009, 09:00 PM, said:

In one sense it is the power to destroy but looking at the present age, there are groups that have power to destroy our habitat but we refuse/fight to accept that they rule. Taking evolution into consideration, is it right to say that the one who is most evolved (or who is fittest to survive) is the ruler?

"Most evolved" makes little sense. How do you measure how "evolved" a species is in this context? You can claim humans "rule" the planet,  but there are a lot more bacteria and insects than humans. If one looks at populations, this planet is ruled by bacteria and has been for billions of years.

[GeorgeWolff]

Consider also that there are more microbial cells in and on the human body than human cells.

[dlambert]

GeorgeWolff, on Aug 21 2009, 08:07 PM, said:

Consider also that there are more microbial cells in and on the human body than human cells.

Are there really?  

[lab rat]

Yes. A physician once told me that an occasional patient will lose a small amount of weight after taking a broad-spectrum antibiotic. (A pound or two at most; I wonder how much of this is actually water-weight.)

[paulg01]

Of course it is pleasure to feel yourself as a King of the Earth, but that kingness ends  in the close forest, when even simple things as you think they are when you are sitting in front of TV, suddenly grows to the huge problem!
Post Affiliate Pro Review
Post Affiliate Pro