2 ms·
Disagreed. This really is natural selection and not artificial selection. The poachers aren't selectively breeding for elephants without tusks. Quite the oppos
by dissent 5y ago
Disagreed. This really is natural selection and not artificial selection.
The poachers aren't selectively breeding for elephants without tusks. Quite the opposite. You are correct that it's a tautology - the elephants remaining are the ones without tusks - but that's exactly how natural selection works.
- bambax 5y ago> The poachers aren't selectively breeding for elephants without tusks Yes they are, that is exactly what they are doing. There is nothing natural about it. It wouldn't happen if not for the poachers.
- bakje 5y agoBut the poachers would rather breed for elephants with tusks, that's the whole point of their poaching after all. I feel like I don't really know enough about the specifics of natural selection or evolution to have a strong opinion on this. The poaching is definitely not natural, so it feels like this is not natural selection. On the other hand, no one is deliberately breeding for this in any way, it's purely a side effect of these circumstances, which does feel more natural. You could just view the poachers as an environmental hazard to tusked elephants, in which case this would be a perfect example of natural selection.
- bambax 5y ago> You could just view the poachers as an environmental hazard to tusked elephants, in which case this would be a perfect example of natural selection. Yes okay you can say this... But if you are saying that poachers/humans are part of nature, then nothing in the world is "unnatural" anymore. I think this line of reasoning, while valid, is less precise and less interesting.