Survival of the fittest has evolved. Try Survival of the Kindest

[Rogue Princess]

There is too much lying going on with celebrities

You can't be mad at an actor for acting

 

[All-Rounder]

You can't be mad at an actor for acting

Why not?

Celebrity fads can have repercussions with the followers, the mainstream of a population, copyers. They believe acting is real. Sometimes they spread misinformation and are believed over doctors, scientists and experts. They also support products not necessarily helpful.

I was more so talking about the corruption of the system, for example how Meghan Markle has gained actor roles she did not deserve through lying about an affiliation to a popular society, when the ones who did deserve it lost the role. How she also used her celebrity to propagate a side of politics, even though it was interdicted in the royal family.

 

[Boogs]

I quoted a quote that was misattributed to Darwin, apparently. I wanted to correct it.

Quote Origin: It Is Not the Strongest of the Species that Survives But the Most Adaptable – Quote Investigator®

quoteinvestigator.com

I think that selective breeding influences humans, though. So sleeping with the wrong person, will increase those certain genes in the potential offspring, such as being mean or selfishness in the species of humans through inheritance.

So, it is quite clear intelligence is genetic, so is being mean or strong, but selective breeding, Darwin's idea for evolution, selects any trait the genetic pools in the parent individuals might offer. So is evolution random and at the same time selective?

Random, but of those numerous random possibilities, there's a selection mechanism. "Survival of the fittest" can be acceptable, as long as you carefully consider what survival means. When assumption, biases and discriminations make the definition, then it's lost it's way. It doesn't have to revolve around survival of an individual alone!

 

[Boogs]

Eugenics in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Pretty horrifying history of how humanity wants to eliminate what is not mainstream.

I don't think I found any theory in psychology to support selfishness or meanness, more so I would say it was being assertive. Crime is ingrained in society and it gains alongside fair civilians, I don't think it will ever stop because of, coincidentally, its ability to evolve.

There's a saying: "you will more likely get what you want in life by doing good than bad." I'm inclined to believe it, and if it doesn't work only through stealing can one get something from an unwilling individual.

There is too much lying going on with celebrities, that's usually what the Holywood is based on. Is lying a good evolving mechanism because it helps you climb the ladder of career life and supposedly provide and eat more, or bad because it destroys relationships (and you're on a diet)? A non-celebrity person has social relations as well.

Because of corruption, sometimes it is necessary to lie, to the corrupt.

Lying is essential for 'normal' social interactions, and (I believe) is a major mechanism that allows us to maintain such large and complex communities where we no longer rely on known individuals for day to day survival.
So no surprise it goes beyond what's helpful, and becomes systemically destructive.

 

[Rodafina]

I always thought "survival of the fittest" was a a very poor interpretation of Darwin's work. Survival of the most adaptable would be closer to the mark.

Maybe he meant survival of the one who can fit best. (Showing adaptability, like you said.)

^ (Joke.)

 

[Rodafina]

I think kindness is extremely important and can be very strong, but it hardly seems like the best survival strategy. In terms of survival, at best, kindness can ingratiate you toward others who may help in assisting your survival.

Kindness seems to be one of those things that can occur after survival needs are met. Kind of like Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. When food, water, and safety are secured, our brains can start to focus on other things like morals and values. I see kindness falling more into these categories.

If we look at the animal kingdom, there are very few species who rely on kindness for survival. Although there may be some examples of supposed altruism in the animal kingdom, the predator/prey model of survival barely has room for anything like kindness.

I believe humans are just animals in most regards and the higher functioning of our brains can really only be engaged once we have a sense of guaranteed survival.

Spoiler: Maslow‘s hierarchy of needs

 

[lovely_darlingprettybaby]

The bumper-sticker way of teaching and labeling Darwin’s ideas as exclusively focused on the “survival of the fittest” is not only misleading; it completely misses his idea that humanity’s success hinges on its level of compassion or sympathy.

Since Darwin’s fieldwork and writings, researchers from various fields have supported his perspective. Biologist and theorist Edward O. Wilson, who is known for his studies of ants and bees that have yielded insights into human existence, has shown that our evolution from tribal into a global society increasingly favors compassionate and cooperative over callous and competitive approaches to human interaction.

More at:

Even Darwin thought 'survival of the fittest' was misinterpreted

Even Charles Darwin thought "survival of the fittest" was misinterpreted. Instead, consider "survival of the kindest."

www.nbcnews.com

It is survival of the fittest, people will not like to admit it but people who are mean and horrible and are driven by success and ambition will succeed.
If you are self centered, you will screw people over and get away with it and never be punished and be successful.
Good and kind hearted people who are genuine about it are few and always get used and abused.
If you feel like u do not belong in the world because you are kind and compassionate then something is drastically wrong in my book. The world needs kindhearted and caring people who are innately that way. But do not expect to get treated that way back.
If you can do difficult things you will be blessed but if you cannot it will be harder
And autistics often cannot

 

[lovely_darlingprettybaby]

It is true that bullies and the selfish will be picking on the more altruistic for the benefits involved.



<<Wilson calls our “selfish activity” in interpersonal relations “the Paleolithic curse” that “hampers” success at all levels where groups of humans interact. Although selfishness may have been an advantage during the Paleolithic Era, when Homo sapiens lived more independently of each other, Wilson contends that it is “innately dysfunctional” in our highly interconnected societies and world.

[...]

As E. O. Wilson writes in “The Meaning of Human Existence”: “Within groups selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals, but groups of altruists beat groups of selfish individuals.”

Selfish people and even bullies may win a couple of rounds or sets in the game of life, but they rarely win the match or game; it is the compassionate people who win.>>

All I know is that this world is rough and people have been fighting each other since the beginning. And the kindest do not win fights. When I was younger I didn't really understand how the world was and I was kind to people. And people walked all over me and took advantage of that kindness. So I'm a little sceptical to survival of the kindest. It's good to be kind but sometimes you have to be rough.

Yea and it is hard to be rough when u are desperate and lonely and sensitive.
It is a hard world but it is not easy have the one you love the most, betray u and take advantage of you

 

[Hypnalis]

In general, you can't know what a species is evolving towards.
You can only know where it's come from, and in retrospect, which traits were favored.

AFAIK the evidence shows there has been no significant human evolution on the way from living in small groups (which is what we're probably evolved for) towards living in cities (less than 15 000 years).

Accepting that is useful. It's what makes identifying evolved human behaviors and mapping them onto modern human behavior so interesting and important. Also, at least for the moment, quite unpopular

 

[Rodafina]

When I was a kid my neighbor had hens, a hen house. I would go there every day and sit there with the hens. I just liked to do that. But one hen seemed to be the unlucky one, the others chased her around and pecked at her. I don't know why, but hens do that. There was something different about her So I sat there with that hen protecting her from the others.

But I couldn't be there all the time and one day when I arrived there she was dead, the others had killed her. Life on this planet can be incredibly cruel and hard, for pretty much all species and those who stick out from the 'normal', better be good at running fast. That hen story still makes me feel terrible and it's 35 years ago. That poor thing, I wish I could forget it.

Heart just broke.

 

[1ForAll]

I agree. Don't believe the hype. Too many are peddling snake oil. There is a lot of subterfuge thrown out there. Call people on their storyline. If you are reading my post, AND you are female, call them on the storyline.

Your implication aspychata by this though is that women are more cooperative and compassionate. I could argue a case for both males and females as fitting that description, depending on how I defined the two terms. I just know I do not see men or woman in general as more cooperative and compassionate, nor as callous or competitive, than the other. I see through those stereotypes too. Let us not thus make this a male versus female thing.

 

[Mary Terry]

An interesting topic. In a way socoieties with cultures where they have pre-arranged marriages or strict rules about who's allowed to marry who take natural selection away from the process. Without natural selection we halt evolution and end up with stagnation.

There have also been many human breeding experiments over the centuries. European royal families bred themselves like race horses, breeding for specific traits.

I thought the royals married among themselves to keep the money in the family.

 

[Judge]

The bumper-sticker way of teaching and labeling Darwin’s ideas as exclusively focused on the “survival of the fittest” is not only misleading; it completely misses his idea that humanity’s success hinges on its level of compassion or sympathy.

Good point.

Something discussed at the university level in formally learning about totalitarian systems and authoritarian mass movements. In essence that Darwin was hijacked by "Social Darwinism" which really had nothing to do with what Darwin was getting at. Of course deliberately misleading the masses remains a core element of certain forms of extremism.

 

[Gerald Wilgus]

Do not forget recruitment of function, emergent properties, and features which are not subject to direct selection but come along for the ride. A big difference between Wallace and Darwin was the difference between direct selection for the human mind and it as an emergent property through selection upon a modular brain. Plus, do not forget the Red Queen Hypothesis.

That said, altruism in populations is seen to confer direct selective advantage (at least in small enough subsets where generational advantage can be measured.)

 

[All-Rounder]

I think kindness is extremely important and can be very strong, but it hardly seems like the best survival strategy. In terms of survival, at best, kindness can ingratiate you toward others who may help in assisting your survival.

Kindness seems to be one of those things that can occur after survival needs are met. Kind of like Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. When food, water, and safety are secured, our brains can start to focus on other things like morals and values. I see kindness falling more into these categories.

If we look at the animal kingdom, there are very few species who rely on kindness for survival. Although there may be some examples of supposed altruism in the animal kingdom, the predator/prey model of survival barely has room for anything like kindness.

I believe humans are just animals in most regards and the higher functioning of our brains can really only be engaged once we have a sense of guaranteed survival.

Spoiler: Maslow‘s hierarchy of needs

View attachment 114713

I suppose it depends, even while surviving we can take care of each other, queue to get our water like deer i stead of pushing each other in, or even save them.

 

[All-Rounder]

Do not forget recruitment of function, emergent properties, and features which are not subject to direct selection but come along for the ride. A big difference between Wallace and Darwin was the difference between direct selection for the human mind and it as an emergent property through selection upon a modular brain. Plus, do not forget the Red Queen Hypothesis.

That said, altruism in populations is seen to confer direct selective advantage (at least in small enough subsets where generational advantage can be measured.)

'Predator-prey relationship between rabbits and foxes following the principle of the Red Queen hypothesis. The rabbit evolves increasing speed to escape the attack of the fox, and the fox evolves increasing speed to reach the rabbit. This evolution is constant; were one of the two to stop evolving, it would go extinct.'

Awesome. It's reminiscent of how crime and crime defense evolve alongside.

"2011, researchers used the microscopic roundworm Caenorhabditis elegans as a host and the pathogenic bacterium Serratia marcescens to generate a host–parasite coevolutionary system in a controlled environment, allowing them to conduct more than 70 evolution experiments testing the Red Queen hypothesis. They genetically manipulated the mating system of C. elegans, causing populations to mate either sexually, by self-fertilization, or a mixture of both within the same population. Then they exposed those populations to the S. marcescens parasite. It was found that the self-fertilizing populations of C. elegans were rapidly driven extinct by the coevolving parasites, while sex allowed populations to keep pace with their parasites"

"The Black Queen hypothesis is a theory of reductive evolution that suggests natural selection can drive organisms to reduce their genome size. In other words, a gene that confers a vital biological function can become dispensable for an individual organism if its community members express that gene in a "leaky" fashion. Like the Red Queen hypothesis, the Black Queen hypothesis is a theory of co-evolution.

The Black Queen hypothesis (BQH) is reductive evolution theory which seeks to explain how natural selection (as opposed to genetic drift) can drive gene loss. In a microbial community, different members may have genes which produce certain chemicals or resources in a "leaky fashion" making them accessible to other members of that community. If this resource is available to certain members of a community in a way that allows them to sufficiently access that resource without generating it themselves, these other members in the community may lose the biological function (or the gene) involved in producing that chemical. Put another way, the black queen hypothesis is concerned with the conditions under which it is advantageous to lose certain biological functions. By accessing resources without the need to generate it themselves, these microbes conserve energy and streamline their genomes to enable faster replication. "

 

[Gerald Wilgus]

'Predator-prey relationship between rabbits and foxes following the principle of the Red Queen hypothesis. The rabbit evolves increasing speed to escape the attack of the fox, and the fox evolves increasing speed to reach the rabbit. This evolution is constant; were one of the two to stop evolving, it would go extinct.'

Awesome. It's reminiscent of how crime and crime defense evolve alongside.

"2011, researchers used the microscopic roundworm Caenorhabditis elegans as a host and the pathogenic bacterium Serratia marcescens to generate a host–parasite coevolutionary system in a controlled environment, allowing them to conduct more than 70 evolution experiments testing the Red Queen hypothesis. They genetically manipulated the mating system of C. elegans, causing populations to mate either sexually, by self-fertilization, or a mixture of both within the same population. Then they exposed those populations to the S. marcescens parasite. It was found that the self-fertilizing populations of C. elegans were rapidly driven extinct by the coevolving parasites, while sex allowed populations to keep pace with their parasites"

"The Black Queen hypothesis is a theory of reductive evolution that suggests natural selection can drive organisms to reduce their genome size. In other words, a gene that confers a vital biological function can become dispensable for an individual organism if its community members express that gene in a "leaky" fashion. Like the Red Queen hypothesis, the Black Queen hypothesis is a theory of co-evolution.

The Black Queen hypothesis (BQH) is reductive evolution theory which seeks to explain how natural selection (as opposed to genetic drift) can drive gene loss. In a microbial community, different members may have genes which produce certain chemicals or resources in a "leaky fashion" making them accessible to other members of that community. If this resource is available to certain members of a community in a way that allows them to sufficiently access that resource without generating it themselves, these other members in the community may lose the biological function (or the gene) involved in producing that chemical. Put another way, the black queen hypothesis is concerned with the conditions under which it is advantageous to lose certain biological functions. By accessing resources without the need to generate it themselves, these microbes conserve energy and streamline their genomes to enable faster replication. "

The Red Queen Hypothesis also can be applied interesingly to sexual selection. I have a trilobite, Walliserops trifurcatus the subject of a recent paper (pic below) that has been used to conclude that there was sexual competition among males like how rhinoceras beetles use their horns in competition. And this at 400 million years ago. In July I visited Washington DC and a Smithsonian curator to discuss possible candidates for the female and he agreed that such populations exhibit sexual dimorphism and a likely candidate is the short fork Walliserops, classified as another species. I hope to secure a specimen of that this November when I am in Morocco.

 

[Outdated]

I suppose it depends, even while surviving we can take care of each other, queue to get our water like deer i stead of pushing each other in, or even save them.

The first property I lived on at Dundee belonged to an old neighbour, he bought it as an investment and rarely visited it. There was a small shed that only had 3 walls, some chairs and a table, and some 44 gallon drums for storing water. That was it. No electricity, no modern conveniences.

I really enjoyed the solitude but it was a very hard life. After I’d been there for about a month I decided to go to the pub and have a few beers, a 12 Km walk from where I was staying. There I started talking to people and someone mentioned a computer problem, which I managed to sort in a few minutes for them.

Then an older man with serious health problems mentioned how much difficulty he was having digging a pipe trench so that he could have running water in his shed, to me it was just instinctive and natural to offer to help and I spent 2 days with a mattock digging a trench and I helped with the plumbing afterwards.

It was a very poor area, no one lived in what most of you would call a house, they lived in whatever they could manage to build for themselves. Locals started getting curious about me and taking notice of me and even by their standards how I was living was pretty poor. The fact that I was willing to pitch in and help others while asking for nothing for myself impressed them.

Someone started taking me in to the city with them to do a bit of shopping every few weeks and I was able to put some variety in my diet. Someone gave me a 1000 litre plastic pod for storing water in to make my life easier. Someone gave me some old solar panels that they were throwing out, they were still generating a little bit of power and I was able to run a small fridge, that greatly improved my quality of life.

Then someone gave me a dog and I trained her up so that I didn’t have to do my own hunting any more. After 18 months the owner of that property decided to start charging me rent, the locals were disgusted by that to the point of being offended and one of them added an extra room to his shed and said “Come and live at my place.”.

Simply having a genuinely friendly and helpful nature is one of the reasons I’m still alive.

 

[Aspychata]

Good point @1ForAll . Thanks for getting me back on track. I guess sometimes being female, means l may draw to myself more predatory type behaviors then if l was male. Maybe that statement works in context identified.
@lovely_darlingprettybaby post resonated with me. The most successful CEO's are the ones that can be completely ruthless. If l live with kindness, l find l don't do well. People want me to be cold and calculating, l don't like that either.

 

[All-Rounder]

The Red Queen Hypothesis also can be applied interesingly to sexual selection. I have a trilobite, Walliserops trifurcatus the subject of a recent paper (pic below) that has been used to conclude that there was sexual competition among males like how rhinoceras beetles use their horns in competition. And this at 400 million years ago. In July I visited Washington DC and a Smithsonian curator to discuss possible candidates for the female and he agreed that such populations exhibit sexual dimorphism and a likely candidate is the short fork Walliserops, classified as another species. I hope to secure a specimen of that this November when I am in Morocco.

View attachment 114745

They are supposed to be extinct. I guess you are studying the found unalive individuals.

They do look alike, so I suppose there are no found short fork males and no found long fork females.