Survival of the fittest, compassion and culling the herd

[Swagger]

Survival of the fittest, compassion and culling the herd​

In nature, survival depends upon many things ---- faster, stronger, smarter being some obvious ones. Undesirable traits such as blindness, deafness, missing limbs, etc are a detriment to a herd and generally are quickly removed by natural selection. For example, a blind antelope will soon become dinner for a seeing lion but on the other hand, a blind lion will soon die of starvation because he can’t catch a healthy antelope.
The weakest of prey fall victim to the predator and the weakest of predator fail to fulfill their needs of survival. A woodpecker with a deformed beak cannot feed himself and thus, his inferior genes are removed from the woodpecker gene pool. A blind lion or blind antelope cannot survive and thus their inferior genes are also removed from the gene pool. The fastest and smartest lion still only captures the slowest and stupidest antelope.
There is no compassion in nature.
The weak and stupid are quickly removed from reproducing in the animal world and it makes their species stronger and more viable.
There is compassion in humans.
Humans make sure their weak and unintelligent are still housed and fed and allowed to reproduce. Unlike normal nature, the human species isn’t culling the herd. Things like autism, allergies, stupidity, blindness, deafness, etc that would never survive in nature are saved in the human species and perpetuated via procreation. A wolf that can’t carry his own weight is removed from the pack, but a human that can’t carry his own weight is supported by forced taxation of those that can carry their own weight. The longer humans engage in this type of activity, the weaker we will become as a species. One can connect the dots. Back in the 60’s, things like peanut allergies, ADD, and autism were rare. Today, those things are common because we (as a species) protected those that had such ailments and made sure that they could reproduce and continue the weakness in our gene pool.
I am sure I will be vilified for posting something like this, but I want my species to remain at the top of the evolutionary scale. Breeding more weak and unintelligent people is a detriment to our species.

Only after they/we have been conditioned to default subconsciously to compassion by the laws, consequences and varying senses of morality some of us have chosen to impose upon ourselves (myself included). Otherwise, we're greedy, selfish animals.

Take pagan Europe, for instance. Unless you were of noble blood, physical and/or mental impairment would render you undesired or unable to fulfil your role within the tribe, and you'd be cast out, just like a lame wolf cub.

And look at great swathes of rural Africa and Asia. Even with available medicine, the lame are often casually cast aside and left to die (often without mercy) by family and state. There's very little room for 'compassion' when mortal preservation enters into the equation, especially if you've no vested interest in the doomed.

 

[Sallow]

Survival of the fittest, compassion and culling the herd​

In nature, survival depends upon many things ---- faster, stronger, smarter being some obvious ones. Undesirable traits such as blindness, deafness, missing limbs, etc are a detriment to a herd and generally are quickly removed by natural selection. For example, a blind antelope will soon become dinner for a seeing lion but on the other hand, a blind lion will soon die of starvation because he can’t catch a healthy antelope.
The weakest of prey fall victim to the predator and the weakest of predator fail to fulfill their needs of survival. A woodpecker with a deformed beak cannot feed himself and thus, his inferior genes are removed from the woodpecker gene pool. A blind lion or blind antelope cannot survive and thus their inferior genes are also removed from the gene pool. The fastest and smartest lion still only captures the slowest and stupidest antelope.
There is no compassion in nature.
The weak and stupid are quickly removed from reproducing in the animal world and it makes their species stronger and more viable.
There is compassion in humans.
Humans make sure their weak and unintelligent are still housed and fed and allowed to reproduce. Unlike normal nature, the human species isn’t culling the herd. Things like autism, allergies, stupidity, blindness, deafness, etc that would never survive in nature are saved in the human species and perpetuated via procreation. A wolf that can’t carry his own weight is removed from the pack, but a human that can’t carry his own weight is supported by forced taxation of those that can carry their own weight. The longer humans engage in this type of activity, the weaker we will become as a species. One can connect the dots. Back in the 60’s, things like peanut allergies, ADD, and autism were rare. Today, those things are common because we (as a species) protected those that had such ailments and made sure that they could reproduce and continue the weakness in our gene pool.
I am sure I will be vilified for posting something like this, but I want my species to remain at the top of the evolutionary scale. Breeding more weak and unintelligent people is a detriment to our species.

Most of the people now on top..would have been culled long ago in a "might makes right" society.

And a great many of the people you attribute to being "weak" would be ruling the roost.

You folks should thank your lucky stars for civilization.

 

[alan1]

Survival of the fittest, compassion and culling the herd​

In nature, survival depends upon many things ---- faster, stronger, smarter being some obvious ones. Undesirable traits such as blindness, deafness, missing limbs, etc are a detriment to a herd and generally are quickly removed by natural selection. For example, a blind antelope will soon become dinner for a seeing lion but on the other hand, a blind lion will soon die of starvation because he can’t catch a healthy antelope.
The weakest of prey fall victim to the predator and the weakest of predator fail to fulfill their needs of survival. A woodpecker with a deformed beak cannot feed himself and thus, his inferior genes are removed from the woodpecker gene pool. A blind lion or blind antelope cannot survive and thus their inferior genes are also removed from the gene pool. The fastest and smartest lion still only captures the slowest and stupidest antelope.
There is no compassion in nature.
The weak and stupid are quickly removed from reproducing in the animal world and it makes their species stronger and more viable.
There is compassion in humans.
Humans make sure their weak and unintelligent are still housed and fed and allowed to reproduce. Unlike normal nature, the human species isn’t culling the herd. Things like autism, allergies, stupidity, blindness, deafness, etc that would never survive in nature are saved in the human species and perpetuated via procreation. A wolf that can’t carry his own weight is removed from the pack, but a human that can’t carry his own weight is supported by forced taxation of those that can carry their own weight. The longer humans engage in this type of activity, the weaker we will become as a species. One can connect the dots. Back in the 60’s, things like peanut allergies, ADD, and autism were rare. Today, those things are common because we (as a species) protected those that had such ailments and made sure that they could reproduce and continue the weakness in our gene pool.
I am sure I will be vilified for posting something like this, but I want my species to remain at the top of the evolutionary scale. Breeding more weak and unintelligent people is a detriment to our species.

Protecting the infirm and the weak is what makes us human. Tesla was a weakiling that if he were an ape would have died very young. However, he wasn't so was allowed to grow into adulthood and create our modern system of power....with his mind only.

You payed attention to the "physically weak" part of my post, but I also mentioned intelligence. Mentally strong can overcome physically weak, and often does so. That is precisely how Mr Tesla managed to survive in a world that didn't provide for his well being. His parents provided for him when he was young, parents do that. In adulthood he provided for himself. He didn't rely upon a "benevolent" government (AKA taxpayer) to provide for him.

 

[alan1]

Survival of the fittest, compassion and culling the herd​

In nature, survival depends upon many things ---- faster, stronger, smarter being some obvious ones. Undesirable traits such as blindness, deafness, missing limbs, etc are a detriment to a herd and generally are quickly removed by natural selection. For example, a blind antelope will soon become dinner for a seeing lion but on the other hand, a blind lion will soon die of starvation because he can’t catch a healthy antelope.
The weakest of prey fall victim to the predator and the weakest of predator fail to fulfill their needs of survival. A woodpecker with a deformed beak cannot feed himself and thus, his inferior genes are removed from the woodpecker gene pool. A blind lion or blind antelope cannot survive and thus their inferior genes are also removed from the gene pool. The fastest and smartest lion still only captures the slowest and stupidest antelope.
There is no compassion in nature.
The weak and stupid are quickly removed from reproducing in the animal world and it makes their species stronger and more viable.
There is compassion in humans.
Humans make sure their weak and unintelligent are still housed and fed and allowed to reproduce. Unlike normal nature, the human species isn’t culling the herd. Things like autism, allergies, stupidity, blindness, deafness, etc that would never survive in nature are saved in the human species and perpetuated via procreation. A wolf that can’t carry his own weight is removed from the pack, but a human that can’t carry his own weight is supported by forced taxation of those that can carry their own weight. The longer humans engage in this type of activity, the weaker we will become as a species. One can connect the dots. Back in the 60’s, things like peanut allergies, ADD, and autism were rare. Today, those things are common because we (as a species) protected those that had such ailments and made sure that they could reproduce and continue the weakness in our gene pool.
I am sure I will be vilified for posting something like this, but I want my species to remain at the top of the evolutionary scale. Breeding more weak and unintelligent people is a detriment to our species.

Most of the people now on top..would have been culled long ago in a "might makes right" society.

And a great many of the people you attribute to being "weak" would be ruling the roost.

You folks should thank your lucky stars for civilization.

Who used the term "might makes right" ?
Oh, that was you, not me.
I'd probably take you more seriously if you didn't try and put your BS statements into my posts.

 

[westwall]

Survival of the fittest, compassion and culling the herd​

In nature, survival depends upon many things ---- faster, stronger, smarter being some obvious ones. Undesirable traits such as blindness, deafness, missing limbs, etc are a detriment to a herd and generally are quickly removed by natural selection. For example, a blind antelope will soon become dinner for a seeing lion but on the other hand, a blind lion will soon die of starvation because he can’t catch a healthy antelope.
The weakest of prey fall victim to the predator and the weakest of predator fail to fulfill their needs of survival. A woodpecker with a deformed beak cannot feed himself and thus, his inferior genes are removed from the woodpecker gene pool. A blind lion or blind antelope cannot survive and thus their inferior genes are also removed from the gene pool. The fastest and smartest lion still only captures the slowest and stupidest antelope.
There is no compassion in nature.
The weak and stupid are quickly removed from reproducing in the animal world and it makes their species stronger and more viable.
There is compassion in humans.
Humans make sure their weak and unintelligent are still housed and fed and allowed to reproduce. Unlike normal nature, the human species isn’t culling the herd. Things like autism, allergies, stupidity, blindness, deafness, etc that would never survive in nature are saved in the human species and perpetuated via procreation. A wolf that can’t carry his own weight is removed from the pack, but a human that can’t carry his own weight is supported by forced taxation of those that can carry their own weight. The longer humans engage in this type of activity, the weaker we will become as a species. One can connect the dots. Back in the 60’s, things like peanut allergies, ADD, and autism were rare. Today, those things are common because we (as a species) protected those that had such ailments and made sure that they could reproduce and continue the weakness in our gene pool.
I am sure I will be vilified for posting something like this, but I want my species to remain at the top of the evolutionary scale. Breeding more weak and unintelligent people is a detriment to our species.

Protecting the infirm and the weak is what makes us human. Tesla was a weakiling that if he were an ape would have died very young. However, he wasn't so was allowed to grow into adulthood and create our modern system of power....with his mind only.

You payed attention to the "physically weak" part of my post, but I also mentioned intelligence. Mentally strong can overcome physically weak, and often does so. That is precisely how Mr Tesla managed to survive in a world that didn't provide for his well being. His parents provided for him when he was young, parents do that. In adulthood he provided for himself. He didn't rely upon a "benevolent" government (AKA taxpayer) to provide for him.

Tesla survived because his family supported him for the two decades it took to get him on his feet. According to the survival of the fittest model the intelligent never attain their mental abilities because they have been allowed to die in their infancy.

You are correct he never took a great deal of government money (though he did in fact take some), his problem was that of most geniuses and that was a terrible manager of money. He gave away the AC technology and the company he gave it to became quite wealthy. Tesla was for ever after chronically short of money.

 

[alan1]

The ailments were just examples.

I suppose that survival of the fittest could be called eugenics, but in nature, that happens.

Survival of the fittest does not govern nature. Charles Darwin did not ever state that it did. That phrase was coined by a plutocrat who hated people who were not rich & elite like him.

Plants Share Water With Their Neighbors - Sharing has been found to be a preferred alternative for some plants. They do not simply take in water through their roots and evaporate it via their leaves. In fact, ecologists have found that some plants draw deep groundwater up through their long roots during the day, and at night annually lose large amounts of the water through their shallow roots to surrounding soil, rather than saving the water to pass through their leaves the next day. This phenomenon is termed hydraulic lift.

Todd E. Dawson, formerly an associate professor at Cornell, discovered not only that hydraulic lift occurs in sugar maples (Acer saccharum) but that neighboring plants take advantage of the "free" water supply during drought periods. These plants are actually healthier than their counterparts found growing further away from the sugar maple trees. According to Dr. Dawson, "This discovery may toss the theory of competition on its ear, because we have always thought that growing next to something that uses the same resources was bad. Instead, we've found that herbaceous plants growing near a tree really benefit."

Plants not only just share water but also share work, energy, sugar & many other nutrients. The same goes for animals & humans. John Forbes Nash was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his discovery of this mutual benefit governing life. Cooperation between the un-fittest will overcome even the fittest among them.

I did not ever state that Charles Darwin said that.

There are many reasons that plants or animals might share a symbiotic relationship that would be beneficial to both life forms. If we were all vegan, pigs would likely cease to exist.

 

[KissMy]

The ailments were just examples.

I suppose that survival of the fittest could be called eugenics, but in nature, that happens.

Survival of the fittest does not govern nature. Charles Darwin did not ever state that it did. That phrase was coined by a plutocrat who hated people who were not rich & elite like him.

Plants Share Water With Their Neighbors - Sharing has been found to be a preferred alternative for some plants. They do not simply take in water through their roots and evaporate it via their leaves. In fact, ecologists have found that some plants draw deep groundwater up through their long roots during the day, and at night annually lose large amounts of the water through their shallow roots to surrounding soil, rather than saving the water to pass through their leaves the next day. This phenomenon is termed hydraulic lift.

Todd E. Dawson, formerly an associate professor at Cornell, discovered not only that hydraulic lift occurs in sugar maples (Acer saccharum) but that neighboring plants take advantage of the "free" water supply during drought periods. These plants are actually healthier than their counterparts found growing further away from the sugar maple trees. According to Dr. Dawson, "This discovery may toss the theory of competition on its ear, because we have always thought that growing next to something that uses the same resources was bad. Instead, we've found that herbaceous plants growing near a tree really benefit."

Plants not only just share water but also share work, energy, sugar & many other nutrients. The same goes for animals & humans. John Forbes Nash was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his discovery of this mutual benefit governing life. Cooperation between the un-fittest will overcome even the fittest among them.

I did not ever state that Charles Darwin said that.

There are many reasons that plants or animals might share a symbiotic relationship that would be beneficial to both life forms. If we were all vegan, pigs would likely cease to exist.

I did not say you said Darwin said "Survival of the Fittest". I said that is some crap a so called economist came up with not a biologist or naturalists.

Sharing in nature goes far beyond symbiotic dependency. A strawberry plant in the sun will overproduce sugar and send it out its roots so that its fellow strawberry plant in the shade can have it in order to also produce nice plump strawberries necessary to reproduce offspring.