Is it possible to avoid a massive die off?

[clv101]

your basically fighting against evolution I'd bet on evolution

It's not about backing the winner, it's about backing what's right!

[Little John]

your basically fighting against evolution I'd bet on evolution

Hang on a minute. I've read your posts and, generally speaking, your conception of evolution is hopelessly simplistic. That is to say, a conception which considers that only that which is most brutal and most ruthless will be selected for. On this, you are, as a matter of empirical facts on the ground, wrong in terms of the behavioural strategies of many species and, in particular, social species This is not to say that there is not a capacity for horrendous violence to non-in-group humans. But, within a given group, great acts of self-sacrifice can be regularly observed.

[jonny2mad]

Self sacrifice normally is directed to in groups which traditionally would be your tribe, this makes it more likely your own or near genes would survive.

Self sacrifice for a totally alien tribe at the expense of your own tribe and genes or near genes would be silly from a evolutionary point of view.

[RenewableCandy]

your basically fighting against evolution I'd bet on evolution

Hang on a minute. I've read your posts and, generally speaking, your conception of evolution is hopelessly simplistic. That is to say, a conception which considers that only that which is most brutal and most ruthless will be selected for. On this, you are, as a matter of empirical facts on the ground, wrong in terms of the behavioural strategies of many species and, in particular, social species This is not to say that there is not a capacity for horrendous violence to non-in-group humans. But, within a given group, great acts of self-sacrifice can be regularly observed.

Quite. It's been investigated pretty thoroughly in, for example, Mothers and Others.

[biffvernon]

And anyway, intelligence allows us to think outside our genes; to do stuff beyond evolution, almost all of which happened before we got very intelligent.

[jonny2mad]

your basically fighting against evolution I'd bet on evolution

Hang on a minute. I've read your posts and, generally speaking, your conception of evolution is hopelessly simplistic. That is to say, a conception which considers that only that which is most brutal and most ruthless will be selected for. On this, you are, as a matter of empirical facts on the ground, wrong in terms of the behavioural strategies of many species and, in particular, social species This is not to say that there is not a capacity for horrendous violence to non-in-group humans. But, within a given group, great acts of self-sacrifice can be regularly observed.

If your in a world where there is year in less energy and less to go round than you need to support the number of people you have, I think brutal and ruthless is likely to be selected for.

if your a sharing person and you dont have enough to share well that wont work out will it,.You have 10 pies each person needs 1 pie a day you have 20 people, so you the mr sharing give each person one half a pie because thats "fair" and they need 1 pie so you all starve .

Mr ruthless gives a pie to 10 people and lets the others starve or kills them well 10 people survive even if 5 people get two pies which is more "unfair" at least 5 people survive

[jonny2mad]

And anyway, intelligence allows us to think outside our genes; to do stuff beyond evolution, almost all of which happened before we got very intelligent.

well if your "intelligence" allows you to put your genes at a disadvantage you will be taken out of the genepool, yup you as a individual can make it less likely your kin carry on wont effect evolution much

[JavaScriptDonkey]

Evolution is more about death than life. Those that die before they breed fail. Those that pass their genes on win.

Changes in the environment affect the survival odds of different strands of life, coaxing some on to dominance and pushing others to oblivion.

Humans are mostly exempt from the pressures of environmental evolution because we control our environment more than it controls us. Our gene pool is now massively diverse and intermixed so groups with strong inherited traits are less likely to emerge.

It is those traits that give a species a chance to survive a sudden onset environmental change - some live, some die.

What J2M is talking about is just normal ape behaviour.

We are, we were and we shall be red in tooth and claw.

[biffvernon]

We are, we were and we shall be red in tooth and claw.

Speak for yourself, but I brush my teeth and keep my fingernails trimmed.

[extractorfan]

if your a sharing person and you dont have enough to share well that wont work out will it,.You have 10 pies each person needs 1 pie a day you have 20 people, so you the mr sharing give each person one half a pie because thats "fair" and they need 1 pie so you all starve .

Hmm, just supposing that you had these 10 pies and 20 people in your community and you did share out half a pie to everyone, then a few days later a gang of people turn up trying to take your pies, but there's only 10 of them because they killed off 10 because they wanted to be well fed.

20 people against 10, especially if they're in defensive positions and of thoughtful disposition, can easily win.

Then they get the extra 10 pies from the dead greedy people and are all well fed again.

Of course the one with sharing nature may well not have consciously decided on this as a tactic.

[Little John]

your basically fighting against evolution I'd bet on evolution

Hang on a minute. I've read your posts and, generally speaking, your conception of evolution is hopelessly simplistic. That is to say, a conception which considers that only that which is most brutal and most ruthless will be selected for. On this, you are, as a matter of empirical facts on the ground, wrong in terms of the behavioural strategies of many species and, in particular, social species This is not to say that there is not a capacity for horrendous violence to non-in-group humans. But, within a given group, great acts of self-sacrifice can be regularly observed.

If your in a world where there is year in less energy and less to go round than you need to support the number of people you have, I think brutal and ruthless is likely to be selected for.

if your a sharing person and you dont have enough to share well that wont work out will it,.You have 10 pies each person needs 1 pie a day you have 20 people, so you the mr sharing give each person one half a pie because thats "fair" and they need 1 pie so you all starve .

Mr ruthless gives a pie to 10 people and lets the others starve or kills them well 10 people survive even if 5 people get two pies which is more "unfair" at least 5 people survive

I strongly recommend you read "The Selfish Gene" and "The Extended Phenotype" by Richard Dawkins to better grasp the subtle complexities of Darwinism that are currently eluding you.

[mr brightside]

I thought about starting a thread about this subject some time ago, but decided not to bother. I was going to pose the question, "Are we clever enough to survive an extinction event?" The ingredients seem to be collecting nicely on the chopping board- dependance on fossil fuels, conspicuous consumption right accross the board, climate destabilisation.

[odaeio]

Short answer? no - the vast majority are so conditioned they could not conceive the change required if they tried. Would be like a virus suddenly deciding not to kill the host. The host doesn't survive. Our way would be to infect another planet (host), before total extinction, fortunately we haven't got there yet. My opinion anyway

[mr brightside]

I often wonder how any 'die-off' will be distributed throughout the globe. A bloke in my pilates class works on long term flood predictions of some sort and he reckons it's going to get wetter on the whole, which means we aren't going to be able to grow crops like we used to do. Unfortunately, when i look around me, all i can see is pushchairs and very young very large families.

[extractorfan]

It depends what sort of die off. It is possible to avoid anarchy and mass bloodshed in a last man standing approach, it's questionable to say the least whether we will avoid this.

It is impossible to avoid population reduction though, the problem is in how this is managed.