It could be perspective or examples chosen. Not sure I think caution versus risk has a great influence on odds of misfortune, however. Chance comes into play in some pretty weird ways.
On Jul 16, 12:57 am, Arron <[email protected]> wrote: > In relation to what Rig's said about 'luck/fortune' - I believe that > these to things to not come into play at all. Survial to me is more a > question of knowledge or lack of it - Lets say we are a small group in > a jungle starving, one of the group members sees a berry bush and eats > the berries and prompty dies, the rest if us (hopefully) would from > the knowledge gained not eat the these berries. This keeps happening > with various other bushes, however the surviours are learning what not > to eat - Until finally someones eats from a bush that does not kill > and the others who remain with him now know of at least one thing they > can eat. > > I know that there a few holes in my little story there, however it is > what came to mind to explain myself - mmm where was I - ah luck and > fortune play no role for the members of the straving group - Just > knowledge (those who waited until a safe bush was found) and lack of > knowledge (those who ate and died). Mind you my idea of luck and > fortune may differ from yours - I guess like evething else it is a > matter of personal perspective. > > On Jul 16, 3:45 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Survival is also a question of luck/Fortune. Geography/food supply/ > > well-regulated society versus a wasteland/drought&famine/ongoing > > warfare. Add genetic strengths, education, personal health- mental and > > physical, the ability to adapt to change, etc. There is no reason > > behind this selection, actually. If you consider current history we > > might be elsewhere facing far greater tests, problems and possible > > extinction. > > > On Jul 14, 12:35 pm, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > As I understand one basic premise of the theory of evolution, > > > survival of the fittest prefers individuals that live longer, breed > > > faster and leave more progeny. Yet two traits we possess – sleep and > > > intelligence – seem to contradict this preference. > > > Sleep works against survival for, while sleeping, an individual > > > can > > > hardly defend against attack and consumption. So evolution would seem > > > to have selected those individuals needing less and less sleep, until > > > sleep would no longer be needed. Yet today, maybe one billion years > > > after speciation began, we still need our 8 hours of sleep. > > > Intelligence also seems to disprove the all-encompassing scope of > > > evolution. Those individuals better able to recall experience and > > > predict the future would have an advantage in food-gathering, mate > > > selection and progeny protection. Yet we hardly seem smarter today > > > than humans living thousands of years ago. > > > Are these traits exceptions to evolution? Are there other > > > exceptions? > > > I expect so. But no one discusses them. Why not?- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
