Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Survival of the Fittest

Expand Messages
  • dick.richardson@rocketmail.com
    Survival of the Fittest That term rolls off the tongue nicely doesn t it, and therefore problem solved and question answered. What does `Survival mean and
    Message 1 of 2 , Sep 26, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Survival of the Fittest



      That term rolls off the tongue nicely doesn't it, and therefore
      problem solved and question answered. What does `Survival' mean
      and what does `fittest' mean? What kind of survival and fit for
      what? As a modern human being living in the modern world I would not
      be fit to survive alone. Moreover, if alone here then I would not want
      to survive, and if I were the only human being here then humanity would
      go out when I went out. I would not even know which plants were safe to
      eat and which ones not, and no doubt it would not be very long before I
      ate the wrong one, and then bingo, or rather me-go amigo.



      Let us suppose that there were two people left here, one man and one
      woman, let us say they were twenty five, very fit and very intelligent
      and spoke the same language. Would humanity survive? They might tick
      along for a while, but folks have accidents, and stuff happens. I would
      guess that humanity would not survive here. Other things taken into
      account this is still really a numbers game. If there were a million
      people then the odds of survival would be better than if there were two
      or ten. Survival, for the large part, is a collectivist thing. People
      working together for that end.



      Human society today is divided into the wealthy and the not wealthy. If
      the two mobs competed then who wins? Obviously the wealthy would, for
      they would have the weapons. It would have nothing to do with which mob
      were nice people and which were not. Imagine a mob of three foot high
      weaklings and who were all nasty characters against a race of six foot
      tall, strong, fit, nice, human beings, but the little critters has the
      weapons and the power. Who wins? Obvious isn't it. The survival of
      the fittest? Well, thus nasty little critters would be the survivors
      here. Who in their right mind would want to be here with them? Is being
      here the only and ultimate criteria? If so then rocks win every time.
      Rocks survive reasonably well, and they don't have to do anything.
      Do you ever get the feeling that so many folks look at things in such a
      parochial and blinkered way that it is laughable?



      Can you imagine the top scientists of his day ten thousand years ago
      standing on a rock dictating to the others that he was the big I am
      because his cutting stone was the sharpest in the locality. Supposing
      that the driving force of change and unfolding was BEAUTY. What then?
      Suppose it was greed. What then? Suppose it was effectiveness and
      innovation. What then?



      As we see it at the moment, from today; we observer a rapidly growing
      population along with a radically shrinking source of power. This does
      not make a promising equation outlook for a future good life here for
      the many. Obviously the greedy will hive off the best and the others
      will go to the wall – if they are allowed to do so; for the greedy
      have the most green-shield stamps, and they no doubt have godo on their
      side too as they see it :- ) I have no idea at all as to what survival
      on this world is down to, but it is plainly not any one thing. But on
      the bottom line there are things here which are alive and there are
      things here which are not alive. I wonder as to how many other rocks
      out there on which this applies. However, we know that life exits here,
      for I am that thing, or a bit of it anyway. So we KNOW (not believe)
      that in the vast scheme of the all there is this phenomenon called LIFE.
      It seems to be a pretty good survivor to me, and it pops up all over
      the place. Good for it.



      But, if what I see of modern day humanity and modern day civilisation
      is the best that LIFE can do, then I would say scrap it, and leave it
      to the rocks and vegetation. But I would not actually do that, for I
      KNOW that they can do better than this. It is not a case that I have
      faith in humanity but rather the case that I KNOW what exists at the
      root of LIFE. It ain't going to go out. But it might on this world,
      and the way things are here of their own making and desires then I
      would not shed any tears for that. The unfolding of the cosmological
      base principles will go on – somewhere. As a human being in this
      society then I judge myself not to be good enough and I judge the
      society not to be good enough. Maybe THAT is the driving principle for
      change.



      Can the cosmos have a desire? I have no idea. But I know that I do, and
      I am a part of it, and the desire is for better than this. And onward
      it goes. It would be interesting if they ever looked at the bigger
      picture wouldn't it. I guess the mystics do that; not politicians
      and bankers. If I want people to vote for me for the next five years
      then I must give the mob what it wants. They know what they want right
      enough. I wonder if they know what they need. For starters they need
      waking up. I would even question if they really know what they do want,
      let alone what they need. So many of them do seem to want instant
      gratification of everything, and they want others to do it for them.
      Not the sort of people that I would take on an evolutionary journey
      with me. Given the choice of course. Perhaps that is a good reason for
      a lifetime here being so short. It dumps the bloody lot of them and
      moves on. The moving finger having writ moves on. They say that one
      cannot go back to change a jot if it. That is true. But you can go
      forward and change it. If the will and courage is there to do it. You
      and I will not be here in two hundred years time, but I hope those who
      are will be better at it than we were. Something tells me that they
      will be. Or somewhere any way.



      Dick Richardson







      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • dick.richardson@rocketmail.com
      Survival of the Fittest That term rolls off the tongue nicely doesn t it, and therefore problem solved and question answered. What does `Survival mean and
      Message 2 of 2 , Sep 26, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Survival of the Fittest

        That term rolls off the tongue nicely doesn't it, and therefore problem
        solved and question answered. What does `Survival' mean and what does
        `fittest' mean? What kind of survival and fit for what? As a modern
        human being living in the modern world I would not be fit to survive
        alone. Moreover, if alone here then I would not want to survive, and if
        I were the only human being here then humanity would go out when I went
        out. I would not even know which plants were safe to eat and which ones
        not, and no doubt it would not be very long before I ate the wrong one,
        and then bingo, or rather me-go amigo.

        Let us suppose that there were two people left here, one man and one
        woman, let us say they were twenty five, very fit and very intelligent
        and spoke the same language. Would humanity survive? They might tick
        along for a while, but folks have accidents, and stuff happens. I would
        guess that humanity would not survive here. Other things taken into
        account this is still really a numbers game. If there were a million
        people then the odds of survival would be better than if there were two
        or ten. Survival, for the large part, is a collectivist thing. People
        working together for that end.

        Human society today is divided into the wealthy and the not wealthy. If
        the two mobs competed then who wins? Obviously the wealthy would, for
        they would have the weapons. It would have nothing to do with which mob
        were nice people and which were not. Imagine a mob of three foot high
        weaklings and who were all nasty characters against a race of six foot
        tall, strong, fit, nice, human beings, but the little critters has the
        weapons and the power. Who wins? Obvious isn't it. The survival of the
        fittest? Well, thus nasty little critters would be the survivors here.
        Who in their right mind would want to be here with them? Is being here
        the only and ultimate criteria? If so then rocks win every time. Rocks
        survive reasonably well, and they don't have to do anything. Do you ever
        get the feeling that so many folks look at things in such a parochial
        and blinkered way that it is laughable?

        Can you imagine the top scientists of his day ten thousand years ago
        standing on a rock dictating to the others that he was the big I am
        because his cutting stone was the sharpest in the locality. Supposing
        that the driving force of change and unfolding was BEAUTY. What then?
        Suppose it was greed. What then? Suppose it was effectiveness and
        innovation. What then?

        As we see it at the moment, from today; we observer a rapidly growing
        population along with a radically shrinking source of power. This does
        not make a promising equation outlook for a future good life here for
        the many. Obviously the greedy will hive off the best and the others
        will go to the wall – if they are allowed to do so; for the greedy
        have the most green-shield stamps, and they no doubt have godo on their
        side too as they see it :- ) I have no idea at all as to what survival
        on this world is down to, but it is plainly not any one thing. But on
        the bottom line there are things here which are alive and there are
        things here which are not alive. I wonder as to how many other rocks out
        there on which this applies. However, we know that life exits here, for
        I am that thing, or a bit of it anyway. So we KNOW (not believe) that
        in the vast scheme of the all there is this phenomenon called LIFE. It
        seems to be a pretty good survivor to me, and it pops up all over the
        place. Good for it.

        But, if what I see of modern day humanity and modern day civilisation is
        the best that LIFE can do, then I would say scrap it, and leave it to
        the rocks and vegetation. But I would not actually do that, for I KNOW
        that they can do better than this. It is not a case that I have faith in
        humanity but rather the case that I KNOW what exists at the root of
        LIFE. It ain't going to go out. But it might on this world, and the way
        things are here of their own making and desires then I would not shed
        any tears for that. The unfolding of the cosmological base principles
        will go on – somewhere. As a human being in this society then I
        judge myself not to be good enough and I judge the society not to be
        good enough. Maybe THAT is the driving principle for change.

        Can the cosmos have a desire? I have no idea. But I know that I do, and
        I am a part of it, and the desire is for better than this. And onward it
        goes. It would be interesting if they ever looked at the bigger picture
        wouldn't it. I guess the mystics do that; not politicians and bankers.
        If I want people to vote for me for the next five years then I must give
        the mob what it wants. They know what they want right enough. I wonder
        if they know what they need. For starters they need waking up. I would
        even question if they really know what they do want, let alone what they
        need. So many of them do seem to want instant gratification of
        everything, and they want others to do it for them. Not the sort of
        people that I would take on an evolutionary journey with me. Given the
        choice of course. Perhaps that is a good reason for a lifetime here
        being so short. It dumps the bloody lot of them and moves on. The moving
        finger having writ moves on. They say that one cannot go back to change
        a jot if it. That is true. But you can go forward and change it. If the
        will and courage is there to do it. You and I will not be here in two
        hundred years time, but I hope those who are will be better at it than
        we were. Something tells me that they will be. Or somewhere any way.

        Dick Richardson





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.