On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 20:08:31 +0000, Absorbed <purestdeformity@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>ibshambat@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>> Another false direction is that of seeing the world as a battle of all
>> against all, or of competition as man's sole nature. In fact, studies
>> of nature have shown that there is plenty of behaviors done by animals
>> that benefit the species even at the cost to themselves,
>
>At the end of the day, an animal shall either reproduce or not. If the
>"cost" of a gene prevents the individual from reproducing, those genes
>exit the gene pool. The gene pool is forever converging towards an
>ever-changing, hypothetical optimal set of genes, which basically means
>that "costly" genes are gradually eliminated from the gene pool.
>
>In an attempt to reconcile their morality with evolution, or to justify
>their own actions or beliefs, some people attempt to argue that doing
>something that reduces their fitness actually increases their fitness,
>which is clearly a contradiction. Evolution is a cut-throat competition,
>survival of the fittest. Cooperation may be part of that, but only while
>it gives a competitive edge. It can be discomforting to discover that
>all your emotions are just a manifestation of your genes' selfishness,
>the result of a cold and mechanical process, but it's the reality
>nonetheless.
>
>> Another false direction is the idiotic concept of "adequacy" invented
>> by Alfred Adler and used by pigs of all kinds to accomplish the worst
>> goals known to man. This is a concept that not only sees man as less
>> than what man is, but also sees nature as less than what it is. No man
>> is an adequate physical match for a tiger; he uses better technology
>> to outsmart the tiger and in so doing advances the lot of mankind. It
>> is innovation, not similitude, that is the source of all improvement;
>> and innovation does not come from measuring oneself against existing
>> methods. It comes from developing something original - and it is to
>> this, that not only humanity but in fact nature owes everything that
>> it has had since the bacillus.
>
>To add to your explanation, if it was hypothetically in mankind's
>interest to fly unassisted, we wouldn't suddenly evolve wings on our
>backs. Evolution is a mechanical process that selects the fittest of the
>genes available; it doesn't think "oh, I want two legs, ten fingers, and
>some wings" and then create them.
Multicellular plants and animals are already a
collaboration of simpler cellular types. The
chloroplasts of plants and the mitochondria
of animals are their own creatures with their
own DNA that live within plants cells and animal
cells. Without the symbiosis of those inhabitants
of cells that provide and convert energy, there
could be no plants or animals.
Victorians made much of 'nature red in tooth and
claw' during the aggressive expansion of empire.
But more striking than the combat of creatures
in a struggle for existence is the cooperation of
nature for the benfit of all. The life cycles of
parasites and symbiotes is astoni****ng. They
can't exist without interdependence.
Now mankind finds itself in abject slavery to
the grass -- maize, wheat, rice, oats, rye, barley
etc.-- and the roots and fruits. For them we slave
night and day, clearing and tilling the land, and
killing their enemies without quarter. We move
rivers for them. We terrace mountains for them.
We're also captive of the cows, pigs, sheep, chickens,
turkeys and goats. There never have been so many of
them, until we became so solicitous for their health
and welfare.
Even the human pathogens would be nowhere
without the humans.
|
