To What Extent Do You Agree With This?

[The Sum of Awe]

"In evolution, the weakest die, the aggressive survive. Say good bye to all of your peace preaching philosophies, environmentalist politics, and caring beings, for they are the weak ones who are corrupted easily by the greedy and uncaring."

 

[The Sum of Awe]

For me I agree, though I'm very environmentalist, it is pretty much true.

It is one of the major reasons why I dislike the selfless.

 

[Madhuri]

I only slightly agree with your statement. Even when we state that the strongest survive, we have to understand that 'strong' can refer to intelligence or political power.
And the most aggressive can also fail when up against a more cunning and intelligent opponent.
Also, sometimes luck is involved.

 

[Breathe]

I only slightly agree with your statement. Even when we state that the strongest survive, we have to understand that 'strong' can refer to intelligence or political power.
And the most aggressive can also fail when up against a more cunning and intelligent opponent.
Also, sometimes luck is involved.

This.

Plus, unwarranted aggression only puts the person in danger as well. Co-operation is and was quite important for survival - you can see this in traditional hunting: almost nobody does it alone and they use their wits.

Sure, you can take what you want from the weak - but there's always the chance that one of those weak people will run you through with a dagger in the back after you've robbed them. Working together, even the weak become strong.

 

[Father Heathen]

"In evolution, the weakest die, the aggressive survive. Say good bye to all of your peace preaching philosophies, environmentalist politics, and caring beings, for they are the weak ones who are corrupted easily by the greedy and uncaring."

Sounds wholly ignorant of how biological evolution actually works. Also, in the modern world violence tends to create a cycle that, once sucked in, greatly reduces ones chances of survival. Also, humans are innately social animals and empathy and cooperation has greatly aided our species survival. Working together for mutual benefit is how civilization was created.

 

[Penumbra]

"In evolution, the weakest die, the aggressive survive. Say good bye to all of your peace preaching philosophies, environmentalist politics, and caring beings, for they are the weak ones who are corrupted easily by the greedy and uncaring."

Disagree, because in the real world, strength is broader than that.

A pack of wolves can be more successful at surviving than a lone wolf, due to cooperation. Humans are often the same way. The specific strength of social animals is their ability to work together to do things that are difficult or impossible for them to do individually.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

"In evolution, the weakest die, the aggressive survive. Say good bye to all of your peace preaching philosophies, environmentalist politics, and caring beings, for they are the weak ones who are corrupted easily by the greedy and uncaring."

I disagree completely. Aggression is not the determining factor for success. Adaption is. Aggression can hinder survival dramatically.

 

[Draka]

Disagree. If you look at the fact that those who participate in aggressive behavior tend to put themselves at more physical risk of dying, while those who try to abstain from violence have a better chance of living to pass on their genes, the idea doesn't hold as much water as you might think.

Take a look at young people. There are those who become quite aggressive and may get into fights, assaults, even gangs. This lessens their chance of survival. They may be killed in the streets or wind up in prison where they may meet the same fate. Whereas, the young person who decides to avoid aggression and those situations at all cost have the greater ability to become educated and live productive lives and mate and reproduce, passing on their genes.

Aggression does not equate with survival, nor does non-aggression equate with being "weak". If anything, non-aggression equates more to being more intelligent as those who choose not to be aggressive are choosing not to put themselves at risk, which is the smart choice.

 

[freethinker44]

Whoever wrote this quote has a poor understanding of evolution. The weakest gene dies, so to speak, not the weakest animal. If the the genes that push someone to be more aggressive and selfish are the least likely to survive in a society, then the strongest, and most aggressive would be genetically the weakest. This happens a lot in animals who are very social where group survival is more important than individual survival. An animal or person who exhibits the behaviour you are talking about would be expelled from the group and in the wild, that is akin to receiving a death sentence. Now, if you are talking about snakes or something like that then sure, I agree 100%. But in human society, people who are unwilling to help others are creating the most burden for society.

 

[Mathematician]

"In evolution, the weakest die, the aggressive survive. Say good bye to all of your peace preaching philosophies, environmentalist politics, and caring beings, for they are the weak ones who are corrupted easily by the greedy and uncaring."

That quote is completely inaccurate, and a good justification for why secondary-level biology must provide all children with a comprehensive framework for evolution.

Pact animals survive and thrive because of cooperation.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Disagree. If you look at the fact that those who participate in aggressive behavior tend to put themselves at more physical risk of dying, while those who try to abstain from violence have a better chance of living to pass on their genes, the idea doesn't hold as much water as you might think.

As much as aggression doesn't survive, the ones who abstain violence also do not.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Maybe aggression was a wrong word, I meant those willing to not turn the other cheek in times of need.

 

[Draka]

As much as aggression doesn't survive, the ones who abstain violence also do not.

How so?

Maybe aggression was a wrong word, I meant those willing to not turn the other cheek in times of need.

Define "times of need" and what actions you feel need taken. Are you eluding to defense via violence or what exactly?

 

[not nom]

"In evolution, the weakest die, the aggressive survive. Say good bye to all of your peace preaching philosophies, environmentalist politics, and caring beings, for they are the weak ones who are corrupted easily by the greedy and uncaring."

this may have been true in or before the stone age ^^

 

[not nom]

besides, survival isn't just about individuals.

if you had two earths, and one would be free-for-all, and the other populated with bleeding hearts etc., the first one would die sooner. (hmm I think that's the one we're on). that on the dying earth the alpha brutes can get a bit of cheap loot, wouldn't really equate fitness, would it.

it's all a matter of perspective - and those who don't think past their nose usually don't have it ^^

 

[The Sum of Awe]

How so?

If a species existed in our world that abstained from violent, they would be on the bottom of the food chain for they would be easiest to get.

The predator comes, all you do is run, not attack. You have the advantage of killing your predator but you just don't do it and die instead.


Define "times of need" and what actions you feel need taken. Are you eluding to defense via violence or what exactly?[/QUOTE]

You need violence when others bring violence upon you, or when you need something but another refuses to give it to you.

 

[Drax]

"In evolution, the weakest die, the aggressive survive. Say good bye to all of your peace preaching philosophies, environmentalist politics, and caring beings, for they are the weak ones who are corrupted easily by the greedy and uncaring."

Not just the aggressive but the clever. Otherwise, I agree.

 

[Draka]

If a species existed in our world that abstained from violent, they would be on the bottom of the food chain for they would be easiest to get.

The predator comes, all you do is run, not attack. You have the advantage of killing your predator but you just don't do it and die instead.

You need violence when others bring violence upon you, or when you need something but another refuses to give it to you.

Entirely not true. If that were so, there would be no antelope or deer or rabbits and so on. Does a rabbit stand and fight a wolf or a fox? No. It is quick and agile and small and easy to make a quick getaway and hide. If your premise were true, predators would overrun the world and there would be no small, herbivore, docile animals on the planet. Have you ever seen a deer or rabbit in your life? I imagine you have. That right there proves your entire premise as flat out wrong.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Entirely not true. If that were so, there would be no antelope or deer or rabbits and so on. Does a rabbit stand and fight a wolf or a fox? No. It is quick and agile and small and easy to make a quick getaway and hide. If your premise were true, predators would overrun the world and there would be no small, herbivore, docile animals on the planet. Have you ever seen a deer or rabbit in your life? I imagine you have. That right there proves your entire premise as flat out wrong.

Predators do overrun the world, us.

Rabbits, deer, antelope aren't the toughest, though I assure you they do attack when needed.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

If they are able to attack and are the most powerful - they rule the world.

If they are able to attack but are not as powerful - they survive but still are ruled over.

If they are not able to attack, no matter if they are powerful or not - they go extinct.


This is meant to be funny but whatever - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5paKczJn4IU&feature=feedf