Especially with the rise of “ghost postings” so quantity over quality is greater than ever these days
4 points
This interests me as I recently started reading Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution, by Piotr Kropotkin, and the beginning of the book is all about how “survival of the fittest” does not necessarily mean constant competition. But that species that evolve to cooperate (either intra- or inter-species) tend to do just as well, if not better. I love hearing that the biology actually backs that up.
3 points
2 points
Evolution is one of the most misunderstood and misrepresented processes in nature.
Here’s some bullet points:
- Humans haven’t evolved “higher” or “more” than earthworms, or roaches, or wheat, or yeast. (All these organisms have evolved for the same amount of time, with a similar number of mutations, but in different environments.)
- Intelligence isn’t the end goal, or indeed a goal at all, of evolution. (Evolution is a process which has no direction, and no goal.)
- Humans aren’t the most successful organism on earth by literally any biological metric. (And “evolutionary success” is a meaningless metric that is only used by humans.)
- “Survival of the fittest” has nothing to do with strength. (It doesn’t mean fitness as in fitness center, but fitness as in “can I fit in this ecological niche?”)
- Pretty much every organism we’ve studied lives in a symbiotic relationship with others. (Humans, from a purely biological standpoint, live in a symbiotic relationship with their gut microbiome, wheat, rice, corn, …, livestock, horses, cats, dogs, honey bees… A symbiosis from a purely biological standpoint means: both species have a better chance to reproduce and spread due to their relationship)
