>Jim wrote: > > Although I'm not quite sure what it means that things don't > work any better > than they have to. Why shouldn't things work perfectly?
Because of limited resources. An organism isn't going to grow as large as it could and its family isn't going to be as big as it could be because there's not enough food to go around. Mental resources are limited, so we don't always go for optimal solutions. Instead, we satisfice. Most times it works, sometimes it doesn't. > I guess I always thought that the evolution argument equated to "things are > getting better," but perhaps that's not accurate or overly simplistic. If by "better" you mean better suited to their environment, I'd submit that the answer is yes. The current crop of beasties on the planet are the ones best suited to live in the current environment. If you mean "better" in relation to some concept of morality, *I'd* still say the answer is yes (I think that, in general, we are a more ethical, moral people than our forebears), but I'd have more trouble defending that answer because it depends on my sense of what's moral. I know people who feel that the world is falling apart, that it's peopled with immoral, oversexed, violent, Godless people. They'd insist that things aren't better. just my .02 Larry ************************************************************ Larry Z. Daily Assistant Professor of Psychology Director, Honors Program Department of Psychology White Hall, Room 213 Shepherd College Shepherdstown, West Virginia 25443 Psychology phone: (304) 876-5297 Honors phone: (304) 876-5244 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://webpages.shepherd.edu/LDAILY/index.html --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
