4 ms·

This makes sense. There are two scenarios that could explain this. One, the fact that a particular trait is present in a current generation only tells us that

This makes sense. There are two scenarios that could explain this. One, the fact that a particular trait is present in a current generation only tells us that it is superior relative to just one iteration prior, and not necessarily any more. There is no rhyme or reason to evolution. In fact, it is almost an evolutionary disadvantage to incorporate traits that were once fit, but no longer are, as it likely costs more energy, diminishing efforts against current threats. A non-biological example of this would be US foreign policy. We are very well positioned to battle the Soviet Union in a Cold War turned hot. That threat is no longer with us, but we're left with strategies and equipment that are useful in that sort of situation. Today, our problems in the Middle East are not helped by the fact that we have thousands of costly nukes and tanks (not suited for urban warfare and occupation in Iraq and Afhanistan!). I'm no military buff, but I think that this illustrates the point. Another scenario could be that the relationship between clingy males vs. females is much like that of a predator vs. prey[1]. Very clingy males result, successfully, in clingy progeny, resulting in more dying females, resulting in fewer clingy progeny, resulting in more females, resulting in clinginess being more successful, and so on... [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotka%E2%80%93Volterra_equation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotka%E2%80%93Volterra_equation

gaius 15y ago
That's not quite true. The reason Gulf War 1, post-Cold War, was so lopsided was that the Iraqis had Soviet equipment and training, and the desert is open terrain just like the Steppe, and NATO had spent 40 years preparing to go head-head-to-head with the Red Army using maneuver warfare. There are other nations in the world that saw that and know that NATO will dominate them in any conflict even now 20 years later. Also remember that the Russians haven't gotten rid of their nukes yet...
- doyoulikeworms 15y ago
  I was under the impression that the US "easily" dominated Iraq's institutional armed forces, toppling their government and "winning" (Mission Accomplished). What we're doing very poorly, though, is occupying and policing the region, now that we've taken care of the previous government. In the case of war with the Soviet Union, I'm guessing that there was heavy emphasis on dealing with nuclear war or full-scale land combat in Europe, with the primary objective of beheading and toppling the Soviet control structure. By contrast, in Iraq, our goal is (apparently) to occupy and subdue the entire region, which is a different, difficult problem.
  - gaius 15y ago
    This is why I was very careful to say Gulf War 1! But the problem with Gulf War 2 was another Cold War assumption, that was nothing to do with equipment or tactics or indeed anything directly military: that the people of Iraq would welcome their liberators, in the way that the people of the former Soviet-occupied have embraced the West after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
    - doyoulikeworms 15y ago
      Ah, whoops. My mistake. So much for a simple example to illustrate my point :)
- Retric 15y ago
  A little more detailed explanation. In Gulf War 1 we demonstrated what happens when you crush air defenses, hard targets, and communication networks and then simply roll though huge areas quickly. It was basically a vary well executed blitzkrieg with both technological and tactical superiority. At the time we where expecting tens of thousands of US casualties but it turns out mostly the Iraq soldiers simply surrendered vs fighting losing battles. We also had much better medical treatments now than in prior wars with people often surviving extremely traumatic injury which relates back to treating car accident victims among other things. (The stabilize side of stabilize and extract work vary well.) PS: This is an unclassified summery I got while working on software that's designed to estimate casualties in both human lives and materials during conflict. It was developed because most of their existing models vastly overestimated US casualties in GW1 and this better estimated what happens when you take out air defenses and communication networks quickly.
Shenglong 15y ago
I wonder how many different iterations is in this set, taking out environmental variation. If it's true that males, but from the future and the past, are harmful to a female's health, then your assessment of iteration prior makes sense - but... If there's no distinct improvement from iteration to iteration, that means there could possibly be (and should be) iterations of males that are less harmful to the females than the current time frame males. In other words, some set of iterations before or after, should mimic conditions like one iteration prior to that of the female - correct?

gaius 15y ago

That's not quite true. The reason Gulf War 1, post-Cold War, was so lopsided was that the Iraqis had Soviet equipment and training, and the desert is open terrain just like the Steppe, and NATO had spent 40 years preparing to go head-head-to-head with the Red Army using maneuver warfare. There are other nations in the world that saw that and know that NATO will dominate them in any conflict even now 20 years later. Also remember that the Russians haven't gotten rid of their nukes yet...

doyoulikeworms 15y ago
I was under the impression that the US "easily" dominated Iraq's institutional armed forces, toppling their government and "winning" (Mission Accomplished). What we're doing very poorly, though, is occupying and policing the region, now that we've taken care of the previous government. In the case of war with the Soviet Union, I'm guessing that there was heavy emphasis on dealing with nuclear war or full-scale land combat in Europe, with the primary objective of beheading and toppling the Soviet control structure. By contrast, in Iraq, our goal is (apparently) to occupy and subdue the entire region, which is a different, difficult problem.
- gaius 15y ago
  This is why I was very careful to say Gulf War 1! But the problem with Gulf War 2 was another Cold War assumption, that was nothing to do with equipment or tactics or indeed anything directly military: that the people of Iraq would welcome their liberators, in the way that the people of the former Soviet-occupied have embraced the West after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
  - doyoulikeworms 15y ago
    Ah, whoops. My mistake. So much for a simple example to illustrate my point :)
Retric 15y ago
A little more detailed explanation. In Gulf War 1 we demonstrated what happens when you crush air defenses, hard targets, and communication networks and then simply roll though huge areas quickly. It was basically a vary well executed blitzkrieg with both technological and tactical superiority. At the time we where expecting tens of thousands of US casualties but it turns out mostly the Iraq soldiers simply surrendered vs fighting losing battles. We also had much better medical treatments now than in prior wars with people often surviving extremely traumatic injury which relates back to treating car accident victims among other things. (The stabilize side of stabilize and extract work vary well.) PS: This is an unclassified summery I got while working on software that's designed to estimate casualties in both human lives and materials during conflict. It was developed because most of their existing models vastly overestimated US casualties in GW1 and this better estimated what happens when you take out air defenses and communication networks quickly.

Shenglong 15y ago

I wonder how many different iterations is in this set, taking out environmental variation. If it's true that males, but from the future and the past, are harmful to a female's health, then your assessment of iteration prior makes sense - but... If there's no distinct improvement from iteration to iteration, that means there could possibly be (and should be) iterations of males that are less harmful to the females than the current time frame males. In other words, some set of iterations before or after, should mimic conditions like one iteration prior to that of the female - correct?