| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Before Lucy, there was Ardi | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 2 2009, 05:58 AM (1,823 Views) | |
| Brewster | Oct 6 2009, 12:42 AM Post #21 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Let's see if I can explain things differently. I consider competition ONE factor in evolution - important, but not alone. Evolution could proceed without competition as long as the species has not mastered its environment. My friends the Orcas had to evolve to their present state, and seem to have developed a very good level of intelligence along the way. Many species of insects - particularly ants and termites - have developed a social interdependance that pretty much eliminates competition, apart from limited territorial fights. Probably other examples come to mind, such as alligators - but they all seem to have one common element - once they have mastered their piece of the environment, they virtually stop evolving. In fact, even sexual competition seems to decrease. A couple of interesting reads: Theory of Competition in Evolution Human Brain Evolution All this leads to my original concept - while a species may be able to progress to the top of an evolutionary niche without competition, once they have reached that comfort zone, they will stop. But most species have had to /still must compete, and that drive to compete is part of their nature. For humans, it leads to the situation that exists in many parts of our present world - we continue to invent, compete, and learn far beyond what is necessary for simple comfort. In fact, to the point that we are destroying the very environment that supports us. And THAT evolutionary trait is what will drive us to the stars. Or destroy us. And, as we have already said, this is based off a single model, but I find it hard to believe that the same is not true anywhere else. As I said to start, one possible answer to Fermi's Paradox. |
![]() |
|
| ngc1514 | Oct 6 2009, 11:01 AM Post #22 |
![]()
Moderator
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You need to read Arnold Toynbee's A Study of History. You are describing what Toynbee called a fossilized civilization. He uses the example of Egypt after the end of the Old Kingdom and the First Interregnum when Egypt decided to keep everything in their civilization as it was during the Old Kingdom. Hieroglyphics didn't change over the next 2000 years, the government and religious structures remained the same with minor variations. Your Orcas are in the same position. I'm interested in your use of the phrase "top of an evolutionary niche." How do you decide what is at the top of the niche and what isn't? Isn't every specie at the top of its own evolutionary niche? I'm also not very comfortable with your term "comfort zone." How will a specie at that point "stop?" Mutations are ongoing constantly. One may provide a tiny increase in reproductive success and the specie will evolve. I find it depressing if the model we see here IS true everywhere! I still think your whole concept of competition to the point of self-annihilation is an aberration and not a useful evolutionary technique. |
![]() |
|
| Brewster | Oct 6 2009, 12:43 PM Post #23 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think very few species ever reach the top of their niche. I would define that niche as the point where individuals have very little to fear from either predators or lack of anything they need (food, water, etc.) Unless their environment changes dramatically, there is no reason that they could not go on exactly as they are indefinitely. Yes, mutations happen, but since there is nothing that could significantly improve their ability to survive and prosper, the mutations have no mechanism to become pervasive, nor even dominant. No "survival of the fittest". I would agree with your definition of "fossilized civilization" - much the same happened to the Chinese, Roman, and Ottoman Empires. Competition to the point of self-annihilation is very definitely NOT a "useful evolutionary technique". But since for 99% of all species never reach the top of the niche, there is no reason to develop a self-limiting mechanism. I certainly do not consider it depressing, however, as I cannot imagine any other instinct that would drive a species past its comfort zone and out into space. Unfortunately, if it really IS a contributing factor in Fermi's Paradox, it can obviously cut both ways, and should be a cautionary factor to our race. Maybe that's why I am so concerned about Climate Change - it has all the potential of proving whether our species can control its drives or not. I would be interested if you can think of any evolution-developed instinct beyond a constant desire for more that could drive an intelligent species to continue to make better and better tools and to finally leave the comfort of its self-created perfect environment and venture out into space, and therefore meet other species. |
![]() |
|
| ngc1514 | Oct 6 2009, 11:42 PM Post #24 |
![]()
Moderator
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Let's move away from evolution and the invention of what we consider intelligence for a bit. I think we can both agree that if the earth's history was rewound back to the first time a molecule replicated itself and allowed to play forward, the odds of the evolutionary pathway of the world repeating is close to zero. Just another way of stating that evolution does not have a goal, it's just the way life on earth works. I'm not arguing against your proposed "constant desire for more." I'm arguing against the idea that competition is the only force that can drive that desire. You need to come up with a goal for that desire that could ONLY be attained through competition and impossible to attain through cooperation. Isn't cooperation the goal WE are attempting to attain now as a means of correcting to the thousands of years of murder, mayhem, destruction of the earth's resources or whatever ill troubles the planet and its biospheres? If you agree that we're trying to substitute cooperation in place of competition, then why is it so hard to imagine man arising as a species that uses cooperation from the get-go rather than competition? I'll grant that goals may be reached sooner through competition than cooperation, but will not concede that point until you can show an instance where it may be true.
Once intelligence is thrown into the mix, speaking in terms of instinct becomes a difficult position to hold. Intelligent behavior and instinctive behavior are two entirely separate things and I agree there is no instinctive behavior that would have pushed man to the moon. But intelligence came way before our desire to walk on the moon and walking on the moon could have been accomplished as easily through cooperation (which was definitely necessary to finish the task) than competition. |
![]() |
|
| Brewster | Oct 7 2009, 12:18 AM Post #25 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Perhaps cooperation could drive us past simply providing a comfortable existence, but I know of no case where it has, either within the human race or in any other species. Once again, unfortunately I'm dealing with only one example, Earth. I do not believe that intelligence supersedes instinct, it only provides our instinctive desires with a better method of achieving their ends. I sincerely hope I'm wrong, because otherwise we WILL destroy ourselves. I'm mildly encouraged by our resisting the temptation to use nuclear weapons on a large scale, although I think the obvious immediate damage caused our instinct for survival to kick in. The reaction so far to the gradual changes happening re Climate Change does NOT give me reason for hope - it seems we'd much sooner go on destroying our planet if it means a more comfortable existence in our lifetimes. Once again, can you provide a reasonable scenario where a species which evolved through cooperation rather than competition (or its cousin, acquisitiveness) would have the desire to reach outside its community? Every time I try to imagine such a civilization, I end up with a "fossilized civilization", where the obvious dangers of interacting beyond their environment to their comfortable lifestyle far outweigh any gains to the community. |
![]() |
|
| ngc1514 | Oct 7 2009, 01:13 AM Post #26 |
![]()
Moderator
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Gonna have to have you define "comfortable existence," Brew. And for an event where cooperation was not only used, but was needed, how about agriculture?
Every symbiotic relationship between species is the result of cooperation. And I thought we were leaving evolution out of the fray for the time being. Ok, I was leaving it out. But, I'll turn the question around back atcha and ask the same thing: Can you provide a reasonable scenario where a species evolved through competition? Since evolution takes place at the genetic level, you need to show how competition got down there and twiddled genes. |
![]() |
|
| Brewster | Oct 7 2009, 06:53 AM Post #27 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I thought I already did - any species which has no constant threat of predators or other external menaces, and a steady food and water supply to the extent that it does not need extraordinary measures to maintain either, and in fact has all the necessities of life easily and routinely at hand has a comfortable existence. That is true. Do you know of any purely agricultural society which has moved forward technologically once the tools, etc. are in place to maintain that comfortable existence as defined above? Egypt comes most closely to mind, but it was scarcely agricultural at the ruling level during most of its existence, and whenever it did try to lapse into quiet cooperation, it was overrun by competitive invaders who had surpassed it technologically. I think "every" is a strong term - I think most of those relationships began as a predator/prey relationship, which evolved as they did due to advantages on both sides. I won't argue that for now, but you left off the rest of the point - which of those cooperative relationships has the desire to reach outside of its community? And I don't consider human stomach bacteria as an equal partner to humans... In terms of control of mobility etc., it is far from an equal partnership. I cannot imagine how you could... I think one of us is lost on this point. Virtually any species which has not reached that "comfortable" point is evolving through competition - for food, mates, resources. Basic Darwinism. And I'll ask again - what would drive a cooperative specie or set of species, living a comfortable existence long enough that the competitive drive has died out, or in some sort of world where competition has never been necessary, to suddenly take on the rigours of biological, technological or geographical exploration? And without that, how would they reach the level of technology needed to reach across space to meet us and have a mutually beneficial conversation? |
![]() |
|
| ngc1514 | Oct 7 2009, 10:53 AM Post #28 |
![]()
Moderator
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think you have evolution backwards, Brew. The necessary mutations to enable a species' continued existence takes place BEFORE the evolution-driving event takes place. Species do not change to accommodate new conditions, but are genetically predisposed to have a slight reproductive advantage under the new conditions. Arguing otherwise is, again, Lamarckian and not Darwinian. The range of the discussion has grown far beyond where I thought we were going - Fermi's Paradox as it relates to human destruction of ourselves.
Once intelligence is thrown into the mix, we can decide whether to compete or cooperate. That's where I threw instinctive behavior out the window. We're heading off to Ohio in a couple of days and I've got stuff that needs to be dealt with before then. This has been fun, but I'm not going to have the time to spend on it as I have. If you wish to explore further, make your point and I'll get back to it. Thanks for the fun! |
![]() |
|
| Brewster | Oct 8 2009, 12:39 AM Post #29 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I sincerely hope you're right, although based on past observations I'd say the odds are poor. From what I have seen, while individuals may choose to override their instincts, probably based on past experiences, as a species instinct wins, probably because we do not all have the same experiences. As for the Lamarkian/Darwinian comparison, while you are right in theory, in practice the differences dwindle. We now know that small mutations are a constant. Which mutations become pervasive and which dormant/eliminated entirely depends upon the environment. It's the effort to best take advantage of that environment that drives species choices. (You may object to the wording, claiming it's not "choice", but the inherent reproductive advantage conferred. Fine, but there is no practical difference.) I'm back to the same question. In a non-competitive world, where all necessities are plentiful, what would influence a species (or what possible reproductive advantage could there be, if you prefer that wording) to adopt / reject any particular mutation? It would be totally random, and almost assuredly never become dominant. On top of which, since they are at the top of their particular ecological niche, it's hard to imagine a mutation that is not harmful to their position. In all of prehistory, I have never heard of a species which has reached that "comfortable existence" which has then changed in any significant way. It's only when some major ecological disaster occurs, or the species moves into a very different environment (which, of course, moves it out of its comfort zone) that competition is forced upon them, and evolution resumes. My argument remains the same, until you can show me an example otherwise. Competition (either inter- or intra- species) is the absolute driving force in evolution. A fully cooperative society (human or otherwise) is a stagnant one. For species to continue to evolve, biologically, socially, geographically or technologically, it must learn to harness that instinctive competitiveness without losing it entirely. Our future development absolutely depends upon it. And I believe that, like every other force of nature, will be no different anywhere in the universe. So far, Fermi's Paradox does not give me hope. If SETI or or other space exploration can find other advanced civilizations that have solved/never encountered the problem, I will joyfully admit that I'm wrong. Wow! That went on much longer than I intended! I'm getting very long winded in my old age! |
![]() |
|
| ngc1514 | Oct 8 2009, 01:32 AM Post #30 |
![]()
Moderator
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Just a quick aside... picked up the Spencer Wells book, The Journey of Man a few minutes ago and hope to get some reading in on the trip to Ohio. I'll let you know what I think after I finish it. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · RV AND CAMPING DISCUSSION · Next Topic » |






![]](http://z3.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)




12:40 AM Jul 14
