Ammonite “By "survival of the fittest" Darwin did not mean that the toughest will survive,”

Indeed he did not

Darwin viewed the “fittest” as also being the most adaptable to their environment and adaptable in a changing environments

Nothing is forever, yet we have a lot of people obsessed with the idea that “climate change” has to be prevented at all costs… some fools are even trying to impose taxes to fund such folly

One clue to adaptability can be gleaned from comments by Margaret Thatcher who observed the superiority of “adaptable libertarian capitalism” (to the rigidity of a :”collectivist” political philosophy)

"Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' is not above sudden, disturbing, movements. Since its inception, capitalism has known slumps and recessions, bubble and froth; no one has yet dis-invented the business cycle, and probably no one will; and what Schumpeter famously called the 'gales of creative destruction' still roar mightily from time to time. To lament these things is ultimately to lament the bracing blast of freedom itself."

I think Darwin, would have appreciated Schumpter’s observation.

It is a claimed we are going through a period of “climate change”.

I am less convinced that is a ‘fact’, more likely an "excuse"

However, pretending a carbon tax or other government imposed austerity measures will effect anything is plain hubris on the part of government

the world is in constant flux… the “fittest” are those most able to see/anticipate future changes and to position themselves, possibly adapting, to survive whatever may happen

someone previously wrote on this thread “History is littered with "colossal wrecks".”

Indeed it is

History is an all comprehensive record. It naturally includes the “wrecks of the inadaptable” partly as warnings to the surviving “adapters”

And you are right about east versus west texas… different species survive and a natural bio-diversity exists.

One thing human-kind has to work to ensure is the maintenance of that diversity. One of the “Colossal Wrecks” is the Irish potato famine, the product of a lack of diversity in the types of potato being planted.

>> It is a claimed we are going through a period of “climate change”.

I am less convinced that is a ‘fact’, more likely an "excuse"

However, pretending a carbon tax or other government imposed austerity measures will effect anything is plain hubris on the part of government. <<

Ammonite, I doubt very much Margaret Thatcher was using climate change as an excuse or that her government was engaging in hubris.

Part of Margaret Thatcher’s address at the 2nd World Climate Conference, 1990:

“The danger of global warming is as yet unseen, but real enough for us to make changes and sacrifices, so that we do not live at the expense of future generations.

Our ability to come together to stop or limit damage to the world's environment will be perhaps the greatest test of how far we can act as a world community. No-one should under-estimate the imagination that will be required, nor the scientific effort, nor the unprecedented co-operation we shall have to show. We shall need statesmanship of a rare order.

For two centuries, since the Age of the Enlightenment, we assumed that whatever the advance of science, whatever the economic development, whatever the increase in human numbers, the world would go on much the same. That was progress. And that was what we wanted.

Now we know that this is no longer true.

The IPCC report is a remarkable achievement. It is almost as difficult to get a large number of distinguished scientists to agree, as it is to get agreement from a group of politicians. As a scientist who became a politician, I am perhaps particularly qualified to make that observation! I know both worlds.

Of course, much more research is needed. We don't yet know all the answers. Some major uncertainties and doubts remain. No-one can yet say with (absolute) certainty that it is human activities which have caused the apparent increase in global average temperatures. The IPCC report is very careful on this point.”

cont'd

(Margaret Thatcher cont’d)

“But the need for more research should not be an excuse for delaying much needed action now. There is already a clear case for precautionary action at an international level. The IPCC tells us that we can't repair the effects of past behaviour on our atmosphere as quickly and as easily as we might cleanse a stream or river. It will take, for example, until the second half of the next century, until the old age of my grandson, to repair the damage to the ozone layer above the Antarctic. And some of the gases we are adding to the global heat trap will endure in the Earth's atmosphere for just as long.

The IPCC tells us that, on present trends, the earth will warm up faster than at any time since the last ice age. Weather patterns could change so that what is now wet would become dry, and what is now dry would become wet. Rising seas could threaten the livelihood of that substantial part of the world's population which lives on or near coasts. The character and behaviour of plants would change, some for the better, some for worse. Some species of animals and plants would migrate to different zones or disappear for ever. Forests would die or move. And deserts would advance as green fields retreated.

And our uncertainties about climate change are not all in one direction. The IPCC report is very honest about the margins of error. Climate change may be less than predicted. But equally it may occur more quickly than the present computer models suggest. Should this happen it would be doubly disastrous were we to shirk the challenge now. I see the adoption of these policies as a sort of premium on insurance against fire, flood or other disaster. It may be cheaper or more cost-effective to take action now than to wait and find we have to pay much more later.”

To accomplish these tasks, we must not waste time and energy disputing the IPCC's report or debating the right machinery for making progress."

Bonmot

You are preaching to the converted. I think you may be referring to some other poster or I have written a post without realising what I said and under another's name.

GregaryB

You have completely misunderstood the theory behind Darwin's survival of the fittest.

Please try harder:

" 8. Are evolution and "survival of the fittest" the same thing?

Evolution and "survival of the fittest" are not the same thing. Evolution refers to the cumulative changes in a population or species through time. "Survival of the fittest" is a popular term that refers to the process of natural selection, a mechanism that drives evolutionary change. Natural selection works by giving individuals who are better adapted to a given set of environmental conditions an advantage over those that are not as well adapted. Survival of the fittest usually makes one think of the biggest, strongest, or smartest individuals being the winners, but in a biological sense, evolutionary fitness refers to the ability to survive and reproduce in a particular environment. Popular interpretations of "survival of the fittest" typically ignore the importance of both reproduction and cooperation. To survive but not pass on one's genes to the next generation is to be biologically unfit. And many organisms are the "fittest" because they cooperate with other organisms, rather than competing with them."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html

Therefore, a lion will not "suddenly develop" empathy for its prey. Anymore than homo sapiens' ancestors held any idea of compassion towards the animals they fed upon. With greater intellect comes greater awareness of the world around us, not all people are equal in this awareness, hence we have overpopulated, used up most of our resources and, unlike many 'lesser' species are fouling our own nests.

I often think that what we have in IQ we lose in an underdeveloped EQ.

Appologies for the confusion Ammonite.

Col Rouge was making the point to you about, well ... just read his reply.

All I'm saying is that perhaps Col wears rose coloured glasses.
A point not lost in your enlightening thread, thanks.

Bonmot

:D

I did go back and reread Col's response, I got distracted when I reached the words "Margaret Thatcher", tried again.... thanks for your posts.

Colder than a Yeti's testicles in the Ranges today. Time to curl up by the heater with a book.