User Tag List

First 123 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 26

  1. #11
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    The only possible criteria I see is "does it survive?"
    Tell me why you would not question 'how' does it survive? I'm talking in the grand scheme of long-term sustainability (not just for the 'bleeding hearted' towards the animals, but, us all, and our reliance on the envt).


    If those organisms cant keep up with the rate of change and instability introduced by humans, than they lose. This is not worse from a cosmic standpoint, nor is it better.
    I don't know about the cosmos (I'm leaving philosophy out of this, strictly science). Thus from an ecological standpoint, it is worse, because organisms and/or species are simply not surviving for their survival. An eco-system is a fine balance with many players. And, the state of one player, can and do, throw off the greater scheme. Domino effect. And, if the rate is faster than the adaptability of the environment, then, we're introducing 'chaos'/imbalance, faster than it can keep up....which doesn't only have commentary for the animals, but, for humans who are using/relying on the enviornment to give them what they want (the reason for the human activity in the first place).

  2. #12
    Intriguing.... Quinlan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Socionics
    Booo
    Posts
    3,005

    Default

    Consciousness and conscious decisions are completely natural. It's a survival advantage that so far, is working pretty well for humans.
    Act your age not your enneagram number.

    Quinlan's Creations

  3. #13
    rawr Costrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    LII
    Posts
    2,320

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Tell me why you would not question 'how' does it survive?
    Because it's irrelevant?

    I don't know about the cosmos (I'm leaving philosophy out of this, strictly science). Thus from an ecological standpoint, it is worse, because organisms and/or species are simply not surviving for their survival. An eco-system is a fine balance with many players. And, the state of one player, can and do, throw off the greater scheme. Domino effect. And, if the rate is faster than the adaptability of the environment, then, we're introducing 'chaos'/imbalance, faster than it can keep up....which doesn't only have commentary for the animals, but, for humans who are using/relying on the enviornment to give them what they want (the reason for the human activity in the first place).
    So an environment can be destroyed because of the factors that humans introduce. It's happened before, and it's always come back, though naturally in a different form.

    So basically what you're saying, is that it's bad for us, because we are destroying our resources. Naturally, even if humans die, life will go on. But also naturally, as a species we want to survive. So basically, assuming it isn't inevitable that we would eventually die out, what do we do to stop it?
    "All humour has a foundation of truth."
    - Costrin

  4. #14
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    Because it's irrelevant?



    So an environment can be destroyed because of the factors that humans introduce. It's happened before, and it's always come back, though naturally in a different form.

    So basically what you're saying, is that it's bad for us, because we are destroying our resources. Naturally, even if humans die, life will go on. But also naturally, as a species we want to survive. So basically, assuming it isn't inevitable that we would eventually die out, what do we do to stop it?
    I don't think you're totally getting my premise. Take your two bolded together and that's your understanding of what I'm getting at. Given...to a degree. Those were results. Results can be subjected to variety of perspectives, which would then depend on how we see 'better' and 'worse'. Yet, you're not getting the process that I'm commenting on. Rates. See, I'm not merely making a subjective commentary on 'let's save our environment because it'll help the animals and us'......hence, this is why it's 'optimal'.

    I'm saying that human activity are challenging the rates of evolution to such extremes that we're introducing 'chaos'/imbalance faster than it can steady itself. Optimal can be most efficient. In terms of environment, optimal would indicate efficiency reached through rates of "balancing". If we're challenging this balance faster than it can balance itself....it is less than optimal, hence, worse, given our premise of optimal.

    And, then I speak of the results/applications of such imbalance, which IA, can be up for subjective interpretation of what is 'good' and 'bad' for whom. But, I wasn't asking about 'how they survive' in terms of the state of the animals...but, how the process of survival is being carried out given a setting (like the environment). I don't agree that an environment gets destroyed and a new one starts is part of natural selection. Natural selection is only about species, organisms, you may talk of specific plants and such, but, an environment as a whole, you cannot. So, we must talk of natural selection given a setting. This is an assumption if we're talking of the theory of evolution as one of the key points of the theory of evolution is the pressures of the environment. So, talking of the environment as another player, like a plant, an animal, a species, or an organism is nonsensical in terms of the theory of evolution. The environment is not also a player of 'natural selection' only organisms are, who are BASED in the environment. The organisms influence the environment and vice versa. Destroying the environment and its merit is no commentary on natural selection, only to the degree of what encompasses the environment (the organisms that make up/live in it).

  5. #15
    rawr Costrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    LII
    Posts
    2,320

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    I'm saying that human activity are challenging the rates of evolution to such extremes that we're introducing 'chaos'/imbalance faster than it can steady itself. Optimal can be most efficient. In terms of environment, optimal would indicate efficiency reached through rates of "balancing". If we're challenging this balance faster than it can balance itself....it is less than optimal, hence, worse, given our premise of optimal.
    Define what you mean by optimal and especially efficient here.
    "All humour has a foundation of truth."
    - Costrin

  6. #16
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    Define what you mean by optimal and especially efficient here.
    I did. You even quoted it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Optimal can be most efficient. In terms of environment, optimal would indicate efficiency reached through rates of "balancing". If we're challenging this balance faster than it can balance itself....it is less than optimal, hence, worse, given our premise of optimal.
    Efficiency - rate of X/Y [whatever within the envt we ascribe X and Y to be] that realizes a state of balance within its given environment the fastest. Fast means time dependent.

    E.g. X = salmon size
    Y = predatory activity on salmons

    Y can be subbed with animals that hunt for salmon, Y can be subbed for local fisherman, Y can be subbed for mass fishing for industries, Y can ....
    Then, we compare how fast the balance is maximized given that envt, when we change the Ys. And the Why is answered.

  7. #17
    Intriguing.... Quinlan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Socionics
    Booo
    Posts
    3,005

    Default

    This makes me think of climate change, now people say there have been major climate shifts in the past and life has gone on but the shift we might be seeing or might see come from global warming could be much quicker. Changes in the enviornment speed up evolution, but if the change happens too quickly, evolution won't be able to match it and then you get extinction.
    Act your age not your enneagram number.

    Quinlan's Creations

  8. #18
    rawr Costrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    LII
    Posts
    2,320

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    I did. You even quoted it.


    Efficiency - rate of X/Y [whatever within the envt we ascribe X and Y to be] that realizes a state of balance within its given environment the fastest. Fast means time dependent.

    E.g. X = salmon size
    Y = predatory activity on salmons

    Y can be subbed with animals that hunt for salmon, Y can be subbed for local fisherman, Y can be subbed for mass fishing for industries, Y can ....
    Then, we compare how fast the balance is maximized given that envt, when we change the Ys. And the Why is answered.
    Ok.

    So basically. I'm not seeing your point.
    "All humour has a foundation of truth."
    - Costrin

  9. #19
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    Ok.

    So basically. I'm not seeing your point.
    Granted. I can see why my point gets convoluted, don't blame ya.

    I'll try again, correct me if I'm getting any of your points/issues wrong.

    You said that the only criteria one must measure is: survival (Y/N).

    I countered that survival must be dependent on the how.

    Such as:
    Efficiency - rate of X/Y [whatever within the envt we ascribe X and Y to be] that realizes a state of balance within its given environment the fastest. Fast means time dependent.

    E.g. X = salmon size
    Y = predatory activity on salmons

    Ya can be subbed with animals that hunt for salmon, Yb can be subbed for local fisherman, Y can be subbed for mass fishing for industries, Yc can ....
    Then, we compare how fast the balance is maximized given that envt, when we change the Ys. And the Why is answered.
    Now if we take, Yc, then X/Yc, I'm saying, as per the research on the salmon being driven towards a natural selection for smaller size, means that its balance with its environment is being upsetted (word?), and skewed toward meeting the need of Yc, rather than a balance within the system/environment. So, the reaction to selection pressure is for something that creates more imbalance than balance.
    If an environment changes too fast, the species will die out. If an environment is 'artificial' (if salmon is getting smaller in size, say we assume that the quota of individual salmon needing to be caught will go up), it's in a constant state of radical flux/unpredictability. So, these animals are adapting to something that's not 'real', and those that don't keep up, die. HOwever, those that do keep up, in the end, will still die because what they're keeping up with is not a 'real' environment, per se.

    Human activity (all) is not bad, it's the degree to which, like industrialized fishing, that can be merited the comment of 'bad'.

    Your point to this is: so what? why still the commentary of bad? everything changes. The salmon dying out is just one of the natural phenomena. Another will take its place.

    And, I'm saying that 'another will take its place' is redundant, because the 'place' we're speaking of is 'artificial'. I.e., that because of the sudden 'artificial' pressures, in mass amount, to the environment, by human activity, means that imbalance is getting added to more imbalance, and, because there's no stability (predictability) to the base/environment, whatever course natural selection for a species follows is less than optimal. It's really not naturally selecting for traits that insures 'survival of the fittest', only an illusion to it, as there's imbalance, so will collapse on itself. Hence, what we're really seeing is less than optimal in terms of what natural selection drives to do....survival of the fittest. We (being Yc - the fish industry) want the fittest to survive, but our activity is actually giving an illusion that the 'fittest' are surviving, in terms of what it means 'natural selection', because it's really the weaker that are surviving.

    * We're derailing natural selection by artificially creating 'scenarios' for species to adapt to(or not).

  10. #20
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Quinlan View Post
    This makes me think of climate change, now people say there have been major climate shifts in the past and life has gone on but the shift we might be seeing or might see come from global warming could be much quicker. Changes in the enviornment speed up evolution, but if the change happens too quickly, evolution won't be able to match it and then you get extinction.
    Precisely.

Similar Threads

  1. Has there ever been an INTP President?
    By ilikeitlikethat in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 07-02-2012, 08:59 AM
  2. [ENFP] To ENFPs, what has your experience been dating an ENTJ?
    By purpleloosestrife in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-09-2011, 09:04 PM
  3. Ecstasy and Natural Selection
    By Mole in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 08-16-2011, 02:56 AM
  4. Has MBTI/Typology been a big factor in your life?
    By Fluffywolf in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 04-14-2011, 09:26 AM
  5. Reuters: Has power grid been hacked? U.S. won't say
    By cogdecree in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-08-2009, 11:48 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO