Richard Baker wrote: > >> If "Biological Law" is the survival of the more fit, then we >> don't obey this Law. Sometimes, what happens is the survival of >> the _less_ fit. > > In particular situations that's always been the case: sometimes the > "fitter" get unlucky and sometimes the "less fit" get lucky. It's > all a matter of probabilities. > Yes, but in the long run, etc. > But more importantly, it's really better to talk about "more adapted" > and "less adapted". What's happening is that human society is part of > the environment against which genes are selected, and recently that > particular part of the environment has changed in ways which change what > it means to be well or poorly adapted. There's no absolute, > environment-independent set of characteristics that define "fitness", > and this is more obvious when using the language of adaptation. > So you seem to imply that the positive selective pressure that tends, nowadays, to favour sociopathic and ecocidical behaviours is just the selection of the "more adapted"? Which means that we are converging to a future with a totally different culture, one where everybody will use all means - including murder or destruction of the environment - to get a chance to reproduce?
Alberto Monteiro _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
