To What Extent Do You Agree With This?

[Breathe]

Rabbits, <<snip>> aren't the toughest, though I assure you they do attack when needed.

Oh now this is the only thing that comes to mind:

Spoiler: comical gore

[youtube]pmu5sRIizdw[/youtube]
Monty Python-Killer Rabbit - YouTube

 

[Draka]

You really are so very very wrong about this. Look, an antelope doesn't stand much of a chance toe to toe with a lioness now does it? Yet antelope are far greater in number than lions now aren't they? They don't fight the lions, they...run away. They move in herds and out run their hunters. The lioness is looking to pick off a smaller/slower one. The faster ones tend to get away. They survive by their speed and agility, not their ability to attack. Matter of fact...think about this now...which of those two species is actually the one with the low numbers and which is thriving?

Why don't you try looking up the numbers of the most predatory animals versus the most docile ones and see which have higher and lower numbers? Then come back here and try to say that in order to survive one must attack. If you do...I'll know you haven't bothered to learn anything.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

There are far more Weak life forms in the word than predators.
The most passive is also the most plentyful... Vegetation.
Microbes and insects are both small and vulnerable but are the most populous in the animal kingdom.
The outright aggressive predator are the fewest in number.
The most successful species have one or more ploys for success.
High and rapid birth rate.
More than one way to reproduce.
cooperation or hive nature
Take advantage of extreme or special conditions. ( poisonous environment, the air, deep water. desert conditions low temperature)
Defence mechanisms
Massive or diminutive Size
Intelligence.

 

[jarofthoughts]

"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 do not agree with this at all.
First off, it is a misrepresentation of Evolution as aggression is not always rewarded, and secondly, the most successful societies on the planet, if we're talking about politics, are the ones who do in fact care for the weak.

 

[Nooj]

"In evolution, the weakest die, the aggressive survive.

Others have already criticised this statement. I'll just restate it in other words.

The adequate pass on their genes. The non-adequate do not. This is evolution. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with aggressiveness or strength. It doesn't even have to do with survival or death. If you live for a couple of days and manage to reproduce in that time, you are evolutionarily successful. If you live for decades but do not reproduce, you are a failure in terms of evolution.

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 don't know know what relevance this has with the first part of your post.

 

[McBell]

"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."

Sitting there in the OP completely out of context...
I disagree with it completely on a species level.
On an individual or inner species level, however, I can agree with it.

 

[Thief]

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.

yeah....and I was telling someone at work...

Germany lost the war because the v-2 rocket failed to develop, as the invasion of Normandy approached.

Politically powerful?... intelligent?... aggressive?....yeah...

Thank God for luck!

 

[Reverend Rick]

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.

Oh, I agree. A pack of wolves are much more successful. They don't allow sheep to run with them however.

The difference with man is, we are not allowed to fail. If we can't provide for ourselves, someone else will provide for us.

This enables the weak to survive. Pretty soon the weak outnumber the strong and the caliber of man deteriorates.

This is cruel stuff, but life is suppose to be cruel for the strong to survive.

Not thinning the herd will be the destruction of the herd eventually as they stumble under their own weight.

 

[Reverend Rick]

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.

The reason this holds true is because an aggressive young man ends up being faced with an even more agressive law enforcement agency.

The passive young man is protected by the ultimate aggressor.

The weak do not survive unless it is artificially maintained by even stronger more agressive force.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Pact animals survive and thrive because of cooperation.

And combined strength. A pack of weak animals would not survive.

 

[Panda]

"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."

Evolution also shows that the group is often more successful than the individual.

 

[Reverend Rick]

You really are so very very wrong about this. Look, an antelope doesn't stand much of a chance toe to toe with a lioness now does it? Yet antelope are far greater in number than lions now aren't they? They don't fight the lions, they...run away. They move in herds and out run their hunters. The lioness is looking to pick off a smaller/slower one. The faster ones tend to get away. They survive by their speed and agility, not their ability to attack. Matter of fact...think about this now...which of those two species is actually the one with the low numbers and which is thriving?

The one who is thriving is the one who loses their weakest members on a regular basis.

 

[jarofthoughts]

The one who is thriving is the one who loses their weakest members on a regular basis.

Define 'weakest' in the context of human society.

 

[heretic]

"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."

is mhatma ghandi an example of weakness!

 

[Iti oj]

"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."

Its not about the selfishness of the individual nor of his aggression, but of the gene. Genes for altruism and peace can be a better set of traits for genes and increase their chance of spreading in the pool.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Define 'weakest' in the context of human society.

When we transfer the principle to the human society, it becomes awkward very quickly.

At first one would think of a handicapped person, but after thinking things through, many of these folks have the highest of survival techniques. Many of these people are driven and have conquered all odds against them.

I would say the weakest among us are the folks who have been given the most and done the least with their advantages.

Some folks never give up while others never even try.

 

[waitasec]

"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."

being aggressive doesn't necessarily mean being fit...

 

[Gjallarhorn]

being aggressive doesn't necessarily mean being fit...

As evidenced by the swarms of angry obese drunks in the world. :run:

 

[Draka]

The reason this holds true is because an aggressive young man ends up being faced with an even more agressive law enforcement agency.

The passive young man is protected by the ultimate aggressor.

The weak do not survive unless it is artificially maintained by even stronger more agressive force.

That is not necessarily true either. The aggressive young man may be faced with another aggressive young man and they may kill each other. The passive young man may do everything in his power to completely avoid such situation which put him anywhere near certain bad situations and aggressive people. Police need not be involved at all, but a person's own common sense and foresight.

You also seem to be equating passive with weak here. Another misconception in this thread. Passive does not mean weak. Just because those who wish not to resort to violence try to avoid it, does not mean they are weak. Only that they have their own preferred means of survival and existence. Perhaps they are faster, more intelligent, more shrewd, more agile and that works much better for them. Those ARE their strengths. Not weaknesses. Sometimes a individual's or a species' strengths are their ability to not have to fight.

 

[McBell]

And combined strength. A pack of weak animals would not survive.

Please give an example of a "weak" animal.