A big one is reducing polution, then maybe some sort of large scale control mechanism of child birth rates. To think china had to enforce that, with good cause, but the rate of population is a major issue considering the resources that are available.

Put simply, A plot of ground only produces x amount of crops; many living organisms rely on a very small temperature range to survive.

I agree with Truthworrthy that it seems (at least on this planet (and probably in this universe altogether)) that there can be no progress without conflict.

To make a very simplified analogy or example...: You learn more from your mistakes than your conquests.

And then just look at natural selection. It's through struggle and difficulty and fighting to survive that you find the more successful species are the one's surviving the most and prospering (of course).

EvF

(January 3, 2010 at 12:18 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: I agree with Truthworrthy that it seems (at least on this planet (and probably in this universe altogether)) that there can be no progress without conflict.

To make a very simplified analogy or example...: You learn more from your mistakes than your conquests.

And then just look at natural selection. It's through struggle and difficulty and fighting to survive that you find the more successful species are the one's surviving the most and prospering (of course).

EvF

To say the entire Universe is a very large statement, and in my opinion, far from the truth.

Your example given is also very interesting. So, you don't consider a conquest to be a conflict. It seems as if you have given two examples of conflicts in the one example. Please elaborate if this is incorrect,.

I imagine EvF comes from the Darwinian perspective that conflict situations teach more than successful situations because the dangers associated with failure can mean death in nature and then there's the hardwired endorphine rush that cements the memory of the defeat into the long term memory "assisting" us to avoid that situation-result.

(January 3, 2010 at 10:08 pm)ib.me.ub Wrote: Your example given is also very interesting. So, you don't consider a conquest to be a conflict. It seems as if you have given two examples of conflicts in the one example. Please elaborate if this is incorrect,.

No I do believe conquests are also conflicts... just less conflicting for the person conquering

I think that in all probability conflict would apply to the whole universe(s) if you think of natural selection as an analogy. Natural selection works by pure logic. What survives survives, what is left is left. It applies to not just genetics and living things but culture/memetics too.

I am certainly not making an absolutist statement. I never do or at least never intend to or mean one. As you can see from my religious views, I'm agnostic about everything. I'm not saying that conflict/natural selection etc definitely would apply all over the universe(s). I'm just saying that I think in all probability it would. That is all.

(January 4, 2010 at 12:22 am)TruthWorthy Wrote: I imagine EvF comes from the Darwinian perspective that conflict situations teach more than successful situations because the dangers associated with failure can mean death in nature and then there's the hardwired endorphine rush that cements the memory of the defeat into the long term memory "assisting" us to avoid that situation-result.

Well said, that's certainly one way of putting it.

Also by the conflcit of natural selection we don't just avoid what is bad but we also go for what helps us prosper (reproduce) in the long run of course.

EvF