|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 20 2013 @ 07:30 AM EST |
Following Darwinian principles of fitness and survival, those not
ruthless, smart, or egomaniac enough are eliminated along the way. A process
amplified over time.
If that were true nature would have
eliminated all non-ruthless people eons ago, and we wouldn't be having this
discussion. The ability to cooperate gives evolutionary advantages too, and
human kind is a social species that does cooperate as well as compete.
As
traits vary between individuals in a healthy population at the extremes there
are people who are extremely cooperative and people who are extremely
competitive. The latter may see the first as weak, and they may fail to
recognise that they represent something that is just as important as their own
competitiveness for a society or any form of organization to function. The
competitors may be likely to float to the top in hierarchies[*], but having only
them won't work, that would result in a solitary species where everyone survives
on their own.
Darwinian principles will maintain a balance.
[*]
Actually, a minority floats to the top, and most sink to the bottom, according
to a documentary about it I once saw on tv. That seemed to be a recurring
pattern in many social species. The cooperative ones can suffer competitive ones
above them in the pecking order, and they tend to form a social buffer between
the competitive ones who succeed in reaching powerful positions and those who
don't, who tend to end up as underdogs. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 20 2013 @ 12:43 PM EST |
Following Darwinian principles of fitness and survival, those not
ruthless, smart, or egomaniac enough are eliminated along the way. A process
amplified over time.
Those leading today's major corporations, are the
fittest, so to speak and the results speak for
themselves.
Note that natural selection preserves traits
that are successful in an environmental context. Societies are unique in that a
great many environmental variables are set by the society itself.
Tax-policy is
a big part of the environment that selects for specific behaviours, as is
criminal law.
Examples: America's incredibly low taxes on the super-wealthy
encourage the hoarding of vast wealth, rather than its productive use. Now that
we have explicitly eliminated all criminal liability for corporate crime, expect
to see more extreme behaviour selected for in future.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 20 2013 @ 01:14 PM EST |
It has taken a coupla million years of evolution for greed and
competition to get humans where they are now. It may take
another coupla million years for that trait to be replaced by
altruism, if altruism is indeed a factor essential for survival.
Of course we could speed the process by letting Monsanto
adjust those genes for you. No? I didn't think so...
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jsoulejr on Thursday, February 21 2013 @ 10:13 AM EST |
... of the corporation and stock holders. Lots of platinum parachutes out
there. Oh, I forgot to mention tax payers.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
