RE: Is our planet is doomed?
January 4, 2010 at 8:29 am
(This post was last modified: January 4, 2010 at 8:31 am by Edwardo Piet.)
(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