Registered: May 2002
Location:
Posts: 8649

[I've concurrently posted this on the SETI board Em linked me to yesterday, so it is tailored for them more than for you, but I would still be interested to hear your thoughts]

I think it possible that evolution is a wee bit trickier then it appears as outlined in The Origin of Species. I wouldn't be surprised if evolution's two prerequisites for advancement, "willingness" and "ableness," are inversely related. As a species is more able to survive, it becomes less willing.

Would it be so odd to think a plethora amoebae (or whatever the generally agreed upon first sign of terrestrial life was) may have appeared and disappeared for a great many epochs (with absolutely no need to thrive, reproduce, or "fear" death) before one genetically deficient one [whom I prefer to label Horatio] was "born" with a primative resemblence of an inferiority complex? Essentialy, Horatio sensed death was near and, unlike any other amoeba previously created, got scared. Pardon my personification of its thought, but the reasoning might be something like, "Oh crap, I'm going to die. I'm not content with that. I want to live forever. What do you mean I can't? Hmm, the next best thing would be to leave a part of me here... a legacy.... I know, I'LL DIVIDE!" And so it goes, Horatio then became our very first ancestor. Of course, his lineage all shared the same genetic defficiency... a fear of death, so they too wanted to survive.

I'm rambling, I know, but I think a truly enlightened living creature would sense the futility in a temporal existence and have no need to exist. Perhaps that is how most life begins, except for Horatio and his genetic deficiency. Slowly, I believe, evolution is steering us towards the original insight that removes fear of nothingness.

What philosophical consequences do a diatribe like this imply, even if only partially accurate? 1) Though life may be abundant, evolution may not be (if the primordial signs of life were fully content not reproducing). 2) This certainly explains a lot of human insecurities. 3) In a system where life happens and, like our planet, reproduction also happens, evolution would occur, but ONLY so far as to bring the sentient and dominant beings of the planet to an original stasis, then life would once again cease to exist on those levels.

Yeah, I'm not the most articulate person and I'm probably also crazy.... your thoughts?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2001
Location: California
Posts: 4252

That makes sense but it is pretty well explained by natural selection.

I doubt there was a "Pure" life with a sudden divergence like "Horatio", more likely as in all other natural structures there is a gradient from one state to another. The lives that feared death more survived more often and just like breeding dalmations for more spots, the changes occur over many generations.

Animals are still born with no fear of death but they still tend to live shorter lives. If the tendency is genetic, it is easy to see how a characteristic could disappear completely. If it is developmental the trait is lessened by social interaction. If the trait is from outside sources the level will stabilize at an equilibrium with the level of outside forces regardless of evolution.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2001
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 4678

I disagree mmm.

First of all as I understand it, evolution refers to a species, and not an individual; so I think you'd be more accurate to discuss the survival instinct of a species as a whole, which to my knowledge has never really been studied with an eye to comparison among species...ie, this species triumphs over its competitor because it had a more vigorous survival instinct. I can fully see that "wanting it more" could be just as valid a survival trait as any other, but lacking any data, isn't it just as fair to assume that any species will attempt to survive to the best of its abilities? After all, the study of natural selection to date has only concerned itself with those abilities--this animal runs faster, this one is better at cracking shellfish, et cetera.

Second, I have long read philosophical meanderings on the value of "backing down." A blade of grass survives a tempest that uproots an oak tree because it bends with pressure rather than resists it. Your post makes me wonder--are there circumstances where an organism can ensure its survival by retreating from the "rat race" of Nature, red in tooth and claw? Or does this suppose a kind of will that we can't assume even exists in animals?

Good postage.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

quote:

---

Originally posted by squee

Second, I have long read philosophical meanderings on the value of "backing down." A blade of grass survives a tempest that uproots an oak tree because it bends with pressure rather than resists it. Your post makes me wonder--are there circumstances where an organism can ensure its survival by retreating from the "rat race" of Nature, red in tooth and claw? Or does this suppose a kind of will that we can't assume even exists in animals?

---

Isn't that part of survival? Fight or flight?
Either way, it's survival mode. If you can be successful in determining what works best in a given situation, you get to live, maybe even long enough to evolve.

Apparent in nature as well as the rat race

***edit***

By the way... that second part was very Taoiest of you

Mmmm... very good post!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2001
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 4678

Speaking of the propogation of the species, how many kids are we going to have, anyway?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

quote:

---

Originally posted by squee
Speaking of the propogation of the species, how many kids are we going to have, anyway?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2001
Location: Lat: 43° 42' 0 N, Long: 79° 34' 0 W
Posts: 2820

Uh, if you had no fear of death and were fine with ceasing to exist, wouldn't there be a lot fewer of that species?

I can picture it now.
"I am not afraid of that bus."
"Although the bus is fast approaching, it does not scare me."
"I am not afraid of the bus, because I am not afraid of death."
SMOOSH.

I suppose that can be categorized as fight or flight as well.
In some cases, it might even be categorized as common sense.

I'm a bit confused on your statement about how a species that is more able to survive is less willing. Can you give me some examples? An example that immediately popped into my head was raccoons (a rare disturbance for many of us, I'm sure, but a real pain in the ass for at least some of us). Raccoons should be less and less able to survive, along with foxes and coyotes in our urban city. Essentially, they should be gone. The fact remains, they have found ways to continue populating the city by residing WITH people. Thus, their struggle to adapt has paid off, from what I see.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2001
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 4678

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oracular_Jinx
Uh, if you had no fear of death and were fine with ceasing to exist, wouldn't there be a lot fewer of that species?

I can picture it now.
"I am not afraid of that bus."
"Although the bus is fast approaching, it does not scare me."
"I am not afraid of the bus, because I am not afraid of death."
SMOOSH.

I suppose that can be categorized as fight or flight as well.
In some cases, it might even be categorized as common sense.

I'm a bit confused on your statement about how a species that is more able to survive is less willing. Can you give me some examples? An example that immediately popped into my head was raccoons (a rare disturbance for many of us, I'm sure, but a real pain in the ass for at least some of us). Raccoons should be less and less able to survive, along with foxes and coyotes in our urban city. Essentially, they should be gone. The fact remains, they have found ways to continue populating the city by residing WITH people. Thus, their struggle to adapt has paid off, from what I see.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

Since we are completely off topic...

Assume that there is an evolutionary process. Assume there are members of the species that are predestined to be weeded.

Does that make charity irrevelent?

For instance. You give your 52 cents a day to save Starvin Marvin. If they are eventually predestined to die off as a weaker specimen of society, aren't we just pissing in the wind (as it were)?

Can we, as a species, change what is "pre-determined"?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2000
Location: Burleson, Texas
Posts: 520

To drain the swamp .... or not to drain the swamp ...??? that is the REAL question.....

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2000
Location: Dumbfucksville!
Posts: 12164

I'm very wary of swamp dust, IBeFree. So, if you decide to drain, please wear a protective mask.

Regarding evolution: You can't have nothing... and then... from that nothingness... end up with a human being. Even if you had all the time in the world. UNLESS, that is, WE'RE NOT HUMANS AFTER ALL!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Sedona, Arizona
Posts: 18823

quote:

---

Originally posted by squee
I disagree mmm.

Your post makes me wonder--are there circumstances where an organism can ensure its survival by retreating from the "rat race" of Nature, red in tooth and claw? Or does this suppose a kind of will that we can't assume even exists in animals?

Good postage.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2000
Location: Dumbfucksville!
Posts: 12164

And I'm beginning to look exactly like my computer. In evolutionary terms, this is called "adaptation".

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2001
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 4678

wonderaz, I was thinking more of a species being more able to survive because it does not compete...I mean, let's say you have four or five similar species of jellyfish competing for the same ecological niche...with various environmental pressures and whatnot...I wonder if one species might be more successful in the long run if it does not compete with the others...maybe the others will kill each other off or something? The more I think about it, the less robust the idea sounds. Unless the competitors destroyed themselves then the survivors would just keep getting stronger and stronger. Maybe it's not such a good idea after all.

But I still wonder if among species there is some impulse that makes the losers "lose" after a certain point...or do they keep fighting to the last? Hmm.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Sedona, Arizona
Posts: 18823

Makes sense to me.
I also see these roaches doing that. They did find a niche where they have no competition. This could explain why they haven't changed in 200 million years, there was no need to adapt to anything different.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

quote:

---

Originally posted by GoFuckYourselves!
. UNLESS, that is, WE'RE NOT HUMANS AFTER ALL!

---

I, personally, am soilent green

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

quote:

---

Originally posted by squee
I wonder if one species might be more successful in the long run if it does not compete with the others. Hmm.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2000
Location: Dumbfucksville!
Posts: 12164

Communism is a failure because their whole modus operandi is to KEEP PEOPLE DOWN!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: May 2002
Location:
Posts: 8649

Oh, and communism failed because Marx sucked at interpreting Hegel.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

quote:

---

Originally posted by GoFuckYourselves!
Communism is a failure because their whole modus operandi is to KEEP PEOPLE DOWN!

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: May 2002
Location:
Posts: 8649

quote:

---

Originally posted by toocrazycosmo


Communism failed because there is no way to factor out greed for money and power.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

quote:

---

Originally posted by mmmsivart


Heh, yeah, I too saw the episode of Duck Tales that incorporated the bottle caps as currency.

---

Everything on T.V. is true

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged