Hi there,
So I worked out that because of the difference between temptation and ageing (regardless of predators), and the necessity of evolving a choice between strong and weak altruism, means that there is a selection pressure either tangential or parallel to the death/adaptation axis but not coincident to or with it without impact, or regress.
This is great but what do you do about it, what do you do about the fact that things have to evolve a choice? On the one hand you could try to refute Evolution, but people don't really believe it because its true, they believe it because its convenient and if they didn't have it things would be far worse, so the only alternative is to "go with it", while remembering that the fear of losing it drives many.
The thing is, I don't really understand how to communicate the theology of "going with it" to people who can't accept that their adherence to survival of the fittest jams the door open to nonsense - I mean on an energistic level it is like meaningless negative chaotic energy or something, there is no way to make anything of it, only continually pay it forward, in the hope that more altruistic choices are made overall. I don't think that's entirely sensible.
Maybe people need to accept that they are not being sensible?
Thanks.
So I worked out that because of the difference between temptation and ageing (regardless of predators), and the necessity of evolving a choice between strong and weak altruism, means that there is a selection pressure either tangential or parallel to the death/adaptation axis but not coincident to or with it without impact, or regress.
This is great but what do you do about it, what do you do about the fact that things have to evolve a choice? On the one hand you could try to refute Evolution, but people don't really believe it because its true, they believe it because its convenient and if they didn't have it things would be far worse, so the only alternative is to "go with it", while remembering that the fear of losing it drives many.
The thing is, I don't really understand how to communicate the theology of "going with it" to people who can't accept that their adherence to survival of the fittest jams the door open to nonsense - I mean on an energistic level it is like meaningless negative chaotic energy or something, there is no way to make anything of it, only continually pay it forward, in the hope that more altruistic choices are made overall. I don't think that's entirely sensible.
Maybe people need to accept that they are not being sensible?
Thanks.
Last edited:
