Certain contact sports bode long term injuries but so does a popular pastime like running on a hard surface which shocks the joints. This is a zillion dollar medical gift to surgeons- the replacement of parts.
On Jul 20, 7:24�pm, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > Understood. �The Cheetah example is interesting; I've always perceived > from the way they move when not hunting that they seem to be > uncomfortable. �Now I know why. �As for chronic back pain; I tend to > believe it's caused by injury or/and lack of physical exercise for > most people. �I know it's not like that for everyone but I think it's > probably the biggest reason. �I had problems after I was rear-ended > for years until I finally found a doc that stopped prescribing pain > killers and told me to get off my ass and do some core training. > (Pilates) �Apparently, weak abdomen muscles contribute to back pain. > Who knew? �As for pain associated with disease such as cancer you may > have something there, I don't know. > > dj > > > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 1:35 PM, GarrieMushet<[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Situational pain is an evolutionary benefit, but chronic phsyiological > > pain as the result of our particular course of evolution is not. > > > We have nothing to learn from having chronic back pain other than that > > we should perhaps have evolved more gradually to be animals which walk > > on its hind legs - and that's not a lesson for us. > > > A comparison to things like back pain is within the species of the > > Cheetah. Cheetah's have had to evolve rather quickly to account for > > the increasing speed of their prey. Their physiology, however, is > > having a hard time compensating for these changes, and as such, the > > modern cheetah has very chronic inherent problems with its limbs. This > > is largely the reason why the modern cheetah is near extinction. That > > kind of pain and suffering simply isn't beneficial to the species. > > Situational pain and suffering is, I grant you. But that's not what > > we're discussion when we talk about the things I was talking about. > > > On Jul 20, 4:27�pm, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> "Natural selection has no inclination to remove the > > >> > characteristics which cause us great pain and discomfort. Natural > >> > selection doesn't care if we live or die. " and while careful to not > >> > be interpreted as asserting the opposite again I claim: Facts not in > >> > evidence. You just don't know. > > >> I missed this quote in the original so I might be taking it out of > >> context but our vulnerabilities to pain and discomfort are absolutely > >> a survival benefit. �We learn what not to do and how to be more > >> careful by learning what causes us pain. �Some people with rare > >> conditions don't experience pain and have to be very, very careful to > >> avoid injury. �Lepers come to mind. �Various neurological disorders > >> that might cause insensitivity to pain are very dangerous. > > >> djOn Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 3:36 AM, Justintruth<[email protected]> > >> wrote: > > >> > It seems like a ridiculous argument to me. With regard to "After all, > >> > sleeping for 8 hours a day only makes us vulnerably for 1 > >> > third of our lives.." > > >> > First, it seems that by sleeping we stop moving around. To a nocturnal > >> > predator we might be MORE vulnerable at night if we stayed awake and > >> > thrashed around alerting them to our presence. But even with that, the > >> > fact that we build fires and post guards and are "afraid of the > >> > dark".... I am just not sure if we are more vulnerable at night. It > >> > would be interesting to check experimentally whether species that > >> > sleep are more vulnerable at night or whether their daytime activity > >> > is the necessary risk they take to get food and they actually die in > >> > greater numbers when awake. The little I remember of my childhood says > >> > that I was "...tucked *safely* away in my bed". Also it would be > >> > interesting to compare caloric consumption in sleep and out of it. > >> > Both are "facts not in evidence" to me. > > >> > In any case it seems that tuning to nighttime or daytime environments > >> > is very fundamental in evolution. See:" Is Evolution an Algorithmic > >> > Process?" onwww.researchchannel.org. There is a distinct survival > >> > BENEFIT in being either nocturnal or a daytime species. Given that > >> > fact, it seems that sleeping is a good choice and as it is akin to > >> > hiding, it is probable it provides a survival advantage. > > >> > But then we know it does don't we? By the circular logic of evolution: > >> > If it has a survival benefit it survives implies that if it survived > >> > it must have a survival benefit! ;) > > >> > As for this: "Natural selection has no inclination to remove the > >> > characteristics which cause us great pain and discomfort. Natural > >> > selection doesn't care if we live or die. " and while careful to not > >> > be interpreted as asserting the opposite again I claim: Facts not in > >> > evidence. You just don't know. > > >> > On Jul 19, 12:52�pm, GarrieMushet <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Jim, > > >> >> In evolutionary terms, the most important goal is to hand down your > >> >> genes. The prerequisites to this goal are reproduction and survival. > >> >> Therefore, there is NOTHING more important than survival in > >> >> evolutionary terms. > > >> >> So no, I wouldn't say that sleep serves a purpose more important than > >> >> survival. I would say that sleep serves the purpose of survival, in > >> >> fact. > > >> >> You are entirely right that sleep makes the sleeper vulnerable to prey > >> >> that is not asleep. But natural selection does not know this. > > >> >> Many people see evolution and natural selection as independent > >> >> conscious agents who constantly and actively refine the organism to > >> >> make it better and better at surviving. This just isn't the case. > >> >> Natural selection and evolution aren't 'aware' of anything. They do > >> >> not know that sleeps makes up vulnerable. I daresay that if evolution > >> >> and natural selection were conscious creative agents, then sleep would > >> >> have been abolished long ago. > > >> >> It hasn't though. Why? This is your question, I believe. Why haven't > >> >> we evolved to not require sleep, when in fact, it is a danger to the > >> >> organism to be a sleep. > > >> >> Well first of all, let me say that sleep is not the only phenomenon of > >> >> living creatures which would seem to be a disadvantage to individual > >> >> survival. Let me introduce to you a few of them within our own > >> >> species: > > >> >> 1) The human brain. > > >> >> Around 2 to 2.5 million years ago, our ancestors had brains with a > >> >> volume of only 400 cubic centimetres. Around that period, it bloomed > >> >> to about 650 cubic centimetres. Around 500,000 years ago, it jumped to > >> >> 1,200 cubic centimetres. And then around 150,000 to 200,000 years ago, > >> >> when the first 'homo sapiens' walked the plains of africa, it jumped > >> >> to its current volume of around 1,400 cubic centimetres. > > >> >> But the problems that came from the increase in the volume of the > >> >> brain were quite substantial. For starts, millions upon millions of > >> >> women have died in the last 200,000 years because their pelvises have > >> >> been unable to pass the head of a baby needed to house this massive > >> >> organ. Quite a lot of the time, the baby perished too. > > >> >> Not only that, but the brain takes up one fifth of the entire human > >> >> energy reserve. So 200,000 years ago, our ancestors found themselves > >> >> having to hunt and eat a lot more food than they had to when their > >> >> brains were only 400 cubic centimetres. > > >> >> Our heads are now so heavy that the risk of a human suffering from a > >> >> broken neck is massive compared to that of our chimpanzee cousins. > > >> >> 2) Walking on 2 legs. > > >> >> Humans still haven't adapted to walking to 2 legs as fully as they > >> >> could be. Walking on two legs is a relatively recent practice among > >> >> the species, and as such, we haven't quite had the chance to > >> >> assimilate to it. The statistics for the number of humans with chronic > >> >> back problems are enough to convey this, and almost every single human > >> >> will have personal experience of it at one point in their lives. Going > >> >> back 200,000 years, the notion of back trouble was even more daunting > >> >> than it is today. For us it means annoyance when rising from our > >> >> chairs, but for our ancestors it was the difference between escaping > >> >> predators and being gored to death. It was the difference between > >> >> catching the extra prey necessary to provide the energy that our > >> >> brains required and lying on the african plains, dying from > >> >> starvation. It was the difference between between being sexually > >> >> attractive and sexually selected, and being cast aside to die without > >> >> ever passing on their genetic codes. > > >> >> So why oh why has natural selection not ridded us of these burdens? > > >> >> Well, because Natural Selection really doesn't care. Natural selection > >> >> is indifferent to what makes us vulnerable. Natural selection has no > >> >> inclination to remove the characteristics which cause us great pain > >> >> and discomfort. Natural selection doesn't care if we live or die. > >> >> Because natural selection isn't capable of caring, or thinking, or > >> >> realising what characteristics are beneficial, and which are > >> >> burdensome. > > >> >> The reason we continue to sleep, walk on 2 legs, and have massive > >> >> brains is the NET effect they have on us, as a species, is a > >> >> beneficial one. So although, if you look at sleep from one angle, it > >> >> seems to be a great disadvantage, if you look at it from another > >> >> angle, you see that the benefits we gain from it far outweigh the > >> >> disadvantages. > > >> >> Afterall, sleeping for 8 hours a day only makes us vulnerably for 1 > >> >> third of our lives, but it keeps us fresh and awake and able to escape > >> >> predators and catch prey for 2 thirds of our lives. If we never slept, > >> >> the nature of our physiology would make us vulnerable for 100% of > > ... > > read more �- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
