The
learning that takes place during a new experience, becomes a baseline,
which is used as a ruler, for measuring future experiences.
Some experiences are pleasant, some are not.
Depending on the predominance of one's accumulated experiences, an assumption will be made during new experiences.
This tends to paint one's perception of an
unknown context in a good light, for those that have encountered a
predominance of pleasurable experiences.
This tends to paint one's perception of an
unknown context in a bad light, for those that have encountered a
predominance of non-pleasurable experiences.
Assumptions about the motivations of others are made.
Without the ability to grasp the complete
context, benevolent intent will be assumed, by those that have
encountered a predominance of pleasurable experiences.
Without the ability to grasp the complete
context, malevolent intent will be assumed, by those that have
encountered a predominance of non-pleasurable experiences.
What is considered as pleasurable, or
non-pleasurable, is initially dependent upon the first presented
context, used to explain the first question that arises in the ignorant,
regardless of whether or not that explanation is accurate. For example:
if one is born into slavery, and
is given the explanation that everyone is suffering the same
conditions, it will be accepted as normal, even if a larger view would
indicate that not everyone is suffering the same conditions. This would
result in that ignorant saying that its experience is pleasurable. This
indicates a willingness to go along with the suffering, because "more
wise people" are doing the same for a good reason, apparently. The
ignorant "apparently" has not been inspired to look deeper, as to verify
for itself, the conditions it finds itself in. For now..
All is changeable. All evolve. Ignorance evolves
into wisdom. Perceptions change. People, and all entities, learn from
their mistakes. Context accumulates.
The oscillations, of ignorance, between the
extremes of idea, eventually leads to a filling in of the subtle
gradients, that connect the extremes of that idea.
The Goldilocks position is arrived at through this experience, for everyone and thing.
Mankind, nor any other kind, are not meant to be
stuck on stupid. Life is not meant to be stagnant. Ignorance is not
meant to forever be ignorant.
Like the way an apprentice is to eventually
become the foreman, so does the wise move on to let the ignorant take
over when it is capable of doing so, that being when it has evolved from
its mistakes. It does not need a report card, a certificate of
completion, or any such crap. More like the bursting forth from seed..
~~~
The first experiences one has, become reference experiences, which future experiences are compared to.
Future experiences will be assumed to work out
the same way, even though the details of the present experience are not
exactly the same.
Ignorance has a hard time distinguishing the
details of an experience. Its awareness is a narrow focus of attention,
most likely due to the overwhelming sensations. This could be recognized
as a fearful condition. There is stress involved.
~~~
The feedback one is sensing during a particular
experience, can remind one of a past experience. This can inspire a
reaction, that is associated with the past experience, even though the
present experience is not the same as the past. It just appears similar.
~~~
Ignorance has a hard time wrapping its mind
around larger concepts. Jumps in contextual bandwidth (degrees of
perception - bird's eye view), for example: where water and food come
from, are outside the narrow focus of ignorance, and therefore, only
what is immediately in front of the superficial sensory input can be
grasped. All else is out of mental reach. Perceived scarcity of
resources, leads to fear of lack of those resources.
A thirsty man is desperate for a drink of water,
not to know how to drill a well. But it is best to teach a man how to
fish, than just giving him a single fish. Somewhere in the middle is
where the practical win-win situation works. To satiate the immediate
need, while asking if he would like to learn how to get a fish when he
needs it, and then teaching him, so he will not be dependent upon
another. That serves two purposes. One, is to not be subject to another.
Two, is to not burden anyone else, repeatedly.
~~~
The common perception of "pecking order" or
"survival of the fittest", tends to revolve around the idea of a
dominant entity overpowering lesser dominant entities. This usually
takes place in concern for access to perceived scarce resources.
pecking order = most violent
survival of the fittest = most violent
"Survival of the fittest" as an explanation, is an ignorance based judgement, of how things work.
It is one of the blind telling the other blind, what it thinks is the way things work.
It is an immature percept. It is what is able to
be grasped by the ignorant, due to its superficial analysis from
superficial observations.
The repeated use of that ignorant percept, as a basis for all present and future interactions, is to retard.
That continued use, does not help anyone evolve.
If you want to keep an entity ignorant, so that you can use and abuse it, as in: slavery, then keep on following that script.
~~~
It has been common, for the ignorance based
percept, to use the explanation/excuse of "survival of the fittest" or
"pecking order", as a tool to dominate others, for a variety of reasons, most of which revolve around superficial perceptions of scarcity of resources.
The dominance of one entity's desire over another entity's desire is at play.
This percept has a total disregard for the environmental condition that it is operating within.
When there is an abundance that surrounds two
entities competing for a "scarce" resource, there must be a blindness to
the reality of the existence of that abundance that surrounds the two
of them.
~~~
To say that "survival of the fittest" or "pecking order" provides for harmony in nature, is to be blind to reality.
Peace and harmony for who?
Is the lowest entity in the pecking order in a
state of harmony? Is the lowest entity in the pecking order in a
peaceful condition? Will peace be maintained? Will the lowest continue
to settle for unfulfilled desire? Will the lowest in the pecking order
never again attempt to strive for sustenance? How is that harmony or
peace in nature?
That is a total blindness to the reality of the
situation. Harmony or peace cannot be maintained from such a condition,
only discord comes from such a thing.
~~~
As an example: For a rancher, when horses
establish a pecking order, it appears to result in a condition of
harmony. It is for the rancher, but not for the lowest horse in the
pecking order. Neither is it for the dominant horse, which has to
continuously maintain that dominance. That is getting the herd to
self-police. That is not harmony or peace. That is the same as saying we
have to kill them over in their country, so that we can be safe in
ours. It is a lie. It is a total disregard for cause and effect. Not to
mention the potential abundance that is ever present, if only the
ignorant can see it as a possibility, and work toward changing its
behavior. In other words: one must choose to evolve. One must choose to
learn, for one's own benefit, as well as for the benefit of others. That
actually creates harmony. The better each individual is capable of
standing on its own, the more stable society becomes. Trying to
eliminate the enemy breeds more enemies. True peace and "security"
occurs when you have no enemies, due to eliminating the conflict, as
opposed to trying to eliminate the enemy.
~~~
Why "Survival of the Fittest" Is Wrong
http://io9.com/5988401/why-survival-of-the-fittest-is-wrong
You've probably heard it a million times in
descriptions of evolution and natural selection. Charles Darwin even
liked to say it. But the phrase "survival of the fittest" is wrong, and
understanding why can help us better understand what it means to be
human.
Survival's Origins
Darwin uses the phrase "survival of the
fittest" in chapter four of On the Origin of Species to describe the
process of natural selection. But he did not coin the phrase. It was
borrowed from English philosopher Herbert Spencer, who first talked
about survival of the fittest in his Principles of Sociology. "The term
'natural selection,'" wrote Darwin in The Origin, "is in some respects a
bad one, as it seems to imply conscious choice." Referring to the
process as "survival of the fittest," Darwin thought, helped clarify
things. But the famed naturalist's appropriated turn of phrase turned
out to be rather inappropriate, itself.
Princeton biological anthropologist Alan Mann
told io9 that in most cases, "survival of the fittest" has been replaced
by the term "reproduction of the fittest," or "differential selection."
This holds particularly true in discussions concerning mammals —
humans, especially. Mann says there are two main reasons for this.
One: for an organism to reproduce, it is
implied that it must first live long enough (i.e. survive) to do so. And
two: the phrase "survival of the fittest" paints a mental image of what
Mann characterizes as "the tooth and claw of bloody nature" — as though
every organism in a particular area is perpetually fighting for the
ability to survive. In this context, "fitness" can be misinterpreted as
an ideal evolutionary goal. "But Evolution acts to produce function, not
perfection" says Mann. Moreover, "fitness" should properly refer not so
much to characteristics like strength or speed, but rather an animal's
ability to produce viable offspring.
On Fish and Humans
Where a phrase like "survival of the fittest"
becomes relevant, says Mann, is in discussions about what is known in
ecology as "selection theory," or ideas about the trade-off between the
quantity and quality of an organism's offspring.
Fish, for example, can produce and fertilize
thousands of eggs during a mating session; but the number of fertilized
eggs that are eaten, killed, or die in some other way before reaching
sexual maturity is huge. This "make as many as you can" reproductive
strategy is called "r-selection." Large numbers of offspring are
produced, but the vast majority of them perish. And this strategy, says
Mann, does, in some ways, follow the concept of "survival" of the
fittest.
Why "Survival of the Fittest" Is Wrong
Say you have a newborn fish that is a prey
species to a larger, predacious fish. In most fish species, there is
little-to-no parental care, so that animal has predator-avoidance
behaviors built into its neurological system. When a young fish sees the
shadow of predator nearby, or feels the water current of a larger fish,
it begins to exhibit predator-avoidance behavior. For many fish, says
Mann, this means either swimming very fast, or swimming in a zig-zag
fashion. But of course, predacious fish have also evolved mechanisms to
catch prey. He continues:
So if the prey fish is going zig zag zig zag zig
zag, and the predator fish has evolved mechanisms to go zig zag zig zag
zig zag, that particular prey becomes lunch. If however there is a
biological variation, and instead of the prey fish join zig zag zig zag
zig zag, it goes zig zag zig zag zig zig, it lives another day. So, on
that level, survival of the fittest has some meaning.
Why "Survival of the Fittest" Is Wrong
But other animals, and mammals in particular,
employ a reproductive strategy dubbed "K-selection." They produce fewer
young, so their strategy is based on cultivating behaviors like
postnatal protection and nurturing. These learned behaviors ensure their
smaller number of offspring will reach reproductive maturity.
Human Behavior and Evolution
"Fitness" refers not to how long an organism
lives, but how successful it is at reproducing. And "survival of the
fittest" fails to encompass the subtleties of natural selection in
mammals, which Mann points out often involve learned behaviors.
"One of the things that's happened in human
evolution," he says, "is the time from birth to reproductive maturity
and adulthood has been prolonged." This, he continues, probably holds
true for most large-bodied mammals (think elephants, for example, or
great apes). "When you think about that kind of biological change, it's
really pretty difficult to understand, unless there is some adaptive
advantage in allowing the young to internalize more behaviors."
Why "Survival of the Fittest" Is Wrong
In other words, increasing the age of sexual
maturity makes little sense in the absence of some other evolutionary
adaptation that makes it possible for offspring to develop safely over a
longer period of time. This insight is crucial for understanding humans
(and, arguably, mammals in general) not just in a biological light, but
a cultural one, as well.
Consider, for example, that a typical pregnant
human usually gives birth to just one child, occasionally two, and very
rarely more than that. As a result, human parental investment in
offspring is huge. An infant is raised, often by more than one family
member, through a very long childhood development and dependency period.
This not only ensures that the offspring will reach reproductive
maturity, but that it has time to, as Mann puts it, "learn more
appropriate behaviors, become better socialized into their society, and
by this way become more successful and therefore capable of producing
more offspring of their own."
It's therefore likely that the behavioral
repertoires of humans, apes and other mammals have become remarkably
complex because of the adaptive advantage they've provided as the time
between birth and reproductive maturity has increased. On one hand, this
allows for evolutionary fitness to be maintained. At the same time,
however, it allows room for the possibility of sexually mature, adult
animals (who have very clearly "survived," to reproductive age) who do
not actually reproduce — once again highlighting the important
distinction between "survival" of the fittest and "reproduction" of the
fittest.
Among humans, not having children is often a
culturally motivated choice, rather than a biological limitation (though
both are often at play). People choose not to have children in order to
pursue a career, or to raise only a small number of children. Others
forego having children for so long that, when they finally decide to
conceive, they encounter complications during childbirth. Despite a
prolonged maturation period, these individuals are surviving to maturity
without a problem. Evolved social mechanisms have played a large part
in making that survival possible. But those same mechanisms can also
lead to humans not reproducing, in which case their biological fitness
would be considered to be very low.
Ultimately, "survival of the fittest" is necessary, but not always sufficient, for the survival of the species.
~~~
In other words: greater time between birth of
the offspring and sexual intercourse of that offspring, allows for more
learning to be handed down to the next offspring. More learning = better
choices = better chance of survival.
Dominant behavior towards an entity can only
piss off that entity, enough to inspire that entity to put down the
dominant one, to make life easier for one's self and offspring.
Again I ask myself, what is the benefit of
enslaving another? If you want to eat out its substance, then just get
on with it, and kill it, ..or die trying to.
Then there is the desire to have a pet. A forced friendship. Forced "family" fun? Yeah, that always works..
Are we there yet?
