5 ms·
Thats also wrong, its the good enough for a environment. And environments are many and ever changing. A fish sweating glycol into his body, is deadly sick on th
by PicassoCTs 4y ago
Thats also wrong, its the good enough for a environment. And environments are many and ever changing. A fish sweating glycol into his body, is deadly sick on this planet (well maybe except the poles), but well adapted aka fit on alot of other planets.
Finally, environments swing, for example by increasing and decreasing mouse populations, which may even within a species allow for epigenetic adaptions (good times reproduce, bad times sit on a pole and do energy efficient nothing), which then explains initial diversity and "neuro divergence" in animal popultions. Usual trigger is economic stresses.
Now lets all pray to the great sinus curve of the environment in the sky.
- hgsgm 4y ago"good enough for the environment" is exactly what "fit" means. "fitness" means "how well it fits [into the environment]". It's perfectly anti-ablelist right from the start -- a tenet of anti-ableism is that "disability" is a problem in the environment, not in the individual. "fitness = strength" is a corruption of the original meaning.