Hi there,
So I have this relatively easy concept to grasp, and its difficult to know exactly how to expand on it. Natural amplification: the facing of death by a parent, in advance of his children seeing the death come to pass, such that they are better adapted (in their life) - because of a recognition of an actual threat, before it actually eventuates (in death, for them). Over time, and with consistency, natural amplification means that, the promise of greater adaptation - regardless of nuance, pertaining to kind (which does not change) - always goes, to the faithful (at something, for some reason).
There is therefore, no threat, of less, lesser, lesser and lesser (and lesser) survival. It is non-existent. You simply do not lose survivability, because of fitness (only - which has been the subtext of every single attempt, to use that concept, in my experience, to date). It is far, far, far more reasonable, to expect, that natural amplification accounts for about 90% of the definition of the species, living on planet Earth, that we see around us (whether or not they die, whether or not they have resources). If it were any more complicated than what I have described, it would not make sense - but it plainly does make sense, the way I said it (does).
The reason I say "I don't know how to expand on it" is that, it is clearly a strong assertion - of forcefully facing death -, rather than drawing death out, so that it can plainly be seen, as the Devil (the predator, the roaring lion). This is more cunning, and far wiser again, actually - without negating more than a little of the adaptive strength of the young, because the anticipated death is not determinably predictable (even, so - this too is a greater strength, with time - regardless of survivability, in principle - if there are simply friends, of the young, who remain impartial, how ever little or much the parents draw the enemy or enemies out _____) _____ _____ _____.
So I guess, the thing is that there is obviously a battle waged for greater than survival, that is obviously nothing to do with any kind of survival what-so-ever (which, if you think about it, is probably yet another reason that kinds simply do not change - though a weak reason, not a strong one (I actually think, it is structurally impossible, for it to be otherwise, but I am not technically a scientist _____ _____) _____ _____ _____ _____. This, developed properly as a living creed, is more than evolvable (provided you do not attempt, to change, remind people of changing or respond inconsistently to the possibility of having changed a little, the kind _____ _____ _____) _____ _____ ( ).
The world will probably say they already knew this (at least, for a while).
So I have this relatively easy concept to grasp, and its difficult to know exactly how to expand on it. Natural amplification: the facing of death by a parent, in advance of his children seeing the death come to pass, such that they are better adapted (in their life) - because of a recognition of an actual threat, before it actually eventuates (in death, for them). Over time, and with consistency, natural amplification means that, the promise of greater adaptation - regardless of nuance, pertaining to kind (which does not change) - always goes, to the faithful (at something, for some reason).
There is therefore, no threat, of less, lesser, lesser and lesser (and lesser) survival. It is non-existent. You simply do not lose survivability, because of fitness (only - which has been the subtext of every single attempt, to use that concept, in my experience, to date). It is far, far, far more reasonable, to expect, that natural amplification accounts for about 90% of the definition of the species, living on planet Earth, that we see around us (whether or not they die, whether or not they have resources). If it were any more complicated than what I have described, it would not make sense - but it plainly does make sense, the way I said it (does).
The reason I say "I don't know how to expand on it" is that, it is clearly a strong assertion - of forcefully facing death -, rather than drawing death out, so that it can plainly be seen, as the Devil (the predator, the roaring lion). This is more cunning, and far wiser again, actually - without negating more than a little of the adaptive strength of the young, because the anticipated death is not determinably predictable (even, so - this too is a greater strength, with time - regardless of survivability, in principle - if there are simply friends, of the young, who remain impartial, how ever little or much the parents draw the enemy or enemies out _____) _____ _____ _____.
So I guess, the thing is that there is obviously a battle waged for greater than survival, that is obviously nothing to do with any kind of survival what-so-ever (which, if you think about it, is probably yet another reason that kinds simply do not change - though a weak reason, not a strong one (I actually think, it is structurally impossible, for it to be otherwise, but I am not technically a scientist _____ _____) _____ _____ _____ _____. This, developed properly as a living creed, is more than evolvable (provided you do not attempt, to change, remind people of changing or respond inconsistently to the possibility of having changed a little, the kind _____ _____ _____) _____ _____ ( ).
The world will probably say they already knew this (at least, for a while).
