3 ms·

Evolution rewards the most vicious and aggressive species that is best at adapting to and use its environment. Since evolution is presumably also the process be

by mixmax 17y ago

Evolution rewards the most vicious and aggressive species that is best at adapting to and use its environment. Since evolution is presumably also the process behind intelligent alien life I have a hard time buying the stable equilibrium of peace and natural harmony theory. Just look at ourselves - wars in iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Palestina, etc. And these are peaceful times. As a species we are extremely vicious and aggressive and there's no reason to believe that evolutionary successful aliens would be any different.

10ren 17y ago
Note that I was talking about closed ecosystems. How do you explain the specific example I gave of the dodo? There are many other examples from similarly closed systems, such as New Zealand birds, before man (since we opened them). I would argue that the world formerly comprised many isolated ecosystems, which have began to open over our recent history. Although the world has shrunk towards a global-village - becoming more open within - I would say most is still too isolated. It also probably takes a long time for even a fully open ecosystem to settle down, possibly on an evolutionary timescale of millions of years. But once a closed system happens to come to a stable state, it stays there (til disturbed.) OTOH, maybe constant warfare is another point of stable equilibria?
- mixmax 17y ago
  Evolution is never at an equilibrium - it's constantly changing and experimenting through sexual recombination and mutation. So the premise doesn't hold IMHO. The dodo is an example of a species that was caught off guard in this evolutionary arms race, and was viciously exterminated by another species, namely us. Certainly there are species without natural enemies (swans, blue whales, man etc.) but they are the exception not the rule.
  - 10ren 17y ago
    If evolution is constantly changing, how can a creature be caught off guard? The answer is that in a closed system, it is possible to reach a stable point that it is difficult to jump out of: in the search space of genotypes, there is a local maxima in the utility of the phenotype. One thing I was wrong about was that the stable equilibria doesn't exist indefinitely; eventually a mutation might arise that does jump out. I was also assuming that a closed ecosystem was also closed to change in general. The latter seems more common; that equilibria is upset by an outside event that alters the utility of the phenotype - such as an open system closing, or some non-biological change in the environment (eg climate), and not by a change in the genotypes within the closed system. It is possible that aliens are in one of these stable configurations at the time that we encounter them, which seems more likely in closed ecosystems. Closed ecosystems can be created by internal barriers being removed (which intelligent life, or at least we, seem to be doing). Of course, it's harder to eliminate change altogether (!), so that source of alteration in the utility function would remain. Yet, we certainly have motivation to eliminate environmental change that affects us adversely, so perhaps intelligent life is likely to be at equilibrium, in the long term. If you disagree, I request that you indicate with which part. ;-)
koanarc 17y ago
I can agree somewhat with your first paragraph, but "ourselves" is rather nebulous. I'm not in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, and if I were, I certainly wouldn't identify with the men who sent me there. There are 6.8 billion of us, which makes it kind of hard to lump us all together as "vicious and aggressive." Evolution is neither. It does not have any such personality traits, and there are plenty of examples of symbiotic behavior in nature. We just fill the gaps. If there's a niche to be filled, and an extraterrestrial species can fill it at our expense, then so be it.
- mixmax 17y ago
  Evolution is certainly aggressive, and rewards aggressive moves. It's all about being able to better use the resources at your disposal as a species to gain an advantage. There's no sense of right or wrong in this selection process - if you proliferate you live on, if you don't you become extinct. There are certainly examples of symbiotic behaviour, but only so long as both parties have an advantage of the relationship. There's no free lunch. This also goes for infighting among our own species - one tribe continually tries to gain an advantage over others. Just look at global politics to see that this isn't about being fair only about expanding your own territory and power. If you look at what historically happens when a less civilised tribe meets a more civilised (and better armed) tribe it's pretty obvious. The Mayans, aboriginals, eskimos and native American indians have all been exterminated or marginalized in the most vicious ways.
  - koanarc 17y ago
    "It's all about being able to better use the resources at your disposal as a species to gain an advantage." Of course. I'd prefer "efficient" to "aggressive", though. True, the literal definition of aggressive does fit, but seems to imply intent (or even malice) in common usage, neither of which are possible attributes of evolution. "Just look at global politics to see that this isn't about being fair only about expanding your own territory and power" This returns to my point. I'm not a politician, and using the behavior of politicians or generals to predict my behavior is specious. Yes, we are a competitive species -- I made comments to this effect further down the page. I don't think we fundamentally disagree. I only object to the characterization of the "wars in iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Palestina, etc" as somehow indicative of the fundamental nature of life in the universe. As I and others have commented, we don't have much to go on in that arena. edit:terminology/drunkenness.

by mixmax 17y ago

10ren 17y ago

Note that I was talking about closed ecosystems. How do you explain the specific example I gave of the dodo? There are many other examples from similarly closed systems, such as New Zealand birds, before man (since we opened them). I would argue that the world formerly comprised many isolated ecosystems, which have began to open over our recent history. Although the world has shrunk towards a global-village - becoming more open within - I would say most is still too isolated. It also probably takes a long time for even a fully open ecosystem to settle down, possibly on an evolutionary timescale of millions of years. But once a closed system happens to come to a stable state, it stays there (til disturbed.) OTOH, maybe constant warfare is another point of stable equilibria?

mixmax 17y ago
Evolution is never at an equilibrium - it's constantly changing and experimenting through sexual recombination and mutation. So the premise doesn't hold IMHO. The dodo is an example of a species that was caught off guard in this evolutionary arms race, and was viciously exterminated by another species, namely us. Certainly there are species without natural enemies (swans, blue whales, man etc.) but they are the exception not the rule.
- 10ren 17y ago
  If evolution is constantly changing, how can a creature be caught off guard? The answer is that in a closed system, it is possible to reach a stable point that it is difficult to jump out of: in the search space of genotypes, there is a local maxima in the utility of the phenotype. One thing I was wrong about was that the stable equilibria doesn't exist indefinitely; eventually a mutation might arise that does jump out. I was also assuming that a closed ecosystem was also closed to change in general. The latter seems more common; that equilibria is upset by an outside event that alters the utility of the phenotype - such as an open system closing, or some non-biological change in the environment (eg climate), and not by a change in the genotypes within the closed system. It is possible that aliens are in one of these stable configurations at the time that we encounter them, which seems more likely in closed ecosystems. Closed ecosystems can be created by internal barriers being removed (which intelligent life, or at least we, seem to be doing). Of course, it's harder to eliminate change altogether (!), so that source of alteration in the utility function would remain. Yet, we certainly have motivation to eliminate environmental change that affects us adversely, so perhaps intelligent life is likely to be at equilibrium, in the long term. If you disagree, I request that you indicate with which part. ;-)

koanarc 17y ago

I can agree somewhat with your first paragraph, but "ourselves" is rather nebulous. I'm not in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, and if I were, I certainly wouldn't identify with the men who sent me there. There are 6.8 billion of us, which makes it kind of hard to lump us all together as "vicious and aggressive." Evolution is neither. It does not have any such personality traits, and there are plenty of examples of symbiotic behavior in nature. We just fill the gaps. If there's a niche to be filled, and an extraterrestrial species can fill it at our expense, then so be it.

mixmax 17y ago
Evolution is certainly aggressive, and rewards aggressive moves. It's all about being able to better use the resources at your disposal as a species to gain an advantage. There's no sense of right or wrong in this selection process - if you proliferate you live on, if you don't you become extinct. There are certainly examples of symbiotic behaviour, but only so long as both parties have an advantage of the relationship. There's no free lunch. This also goes for infighting among our own species - one tribe continually tries to gain an advantage over others. Just look at global politics to see that this isn't about being fair only about expanding your own territory and power. If you look at what historically happens when a less civilised tribe meets a more civilised (and better armed) tribe it's pretty obvious. The Mayans, aboriginals, eskimos and native American indians have all been exterminated or marginalized in the most vicious ways.
- koanarc 17y ago
  "It's all about being able to better use the resources at your disposal as a species to gain an advantage." Of course. I'd prefer "efficient" to "aggressive", though. True, the literal definition of aggressive does fit, but seems to imply intent (or even malice) in common usage, neither of which are possible attributes of evolution. "Just look at global politics to see that this isn't about being fair only about expanding your own territory and power" This returns to my point. I'm not a politician, and using the behavior of politicians or generals to predict my behavior is specious. Yes, we are a competitive species -- I made comments to this effect further down the page. I don't think we fundamentally disagree. I only object to the characterization of the "wars in iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Palestina, etc" as somehow indicative of the fundamental nature of life in the universe. As I and others have commented, we don't have much to go on in that arena. edit:terminology/drunkenness.