jasa pembuatan repository kampus

Evolutionary Process End Game – Grow Big and Many in

Evolutionary Process End Game – Grow Big and Many in Number?

If you talk to an evolutionary biologist or read any of the popular books on the topic it seems that most tend to agree that the size of a individual member of the species whether it be a plant, insect, or animal is a sign of strength and best of breed. I’ve personally never really believed this for a number of reasons. You see, larger members of a species eat more, have more muscle, use up more calories, and have bigger brains to control it all so they require more food. In a harsh environment, that’s not always so great.

Thus, the sometimes the smaller members of the species have a better go of it as they require less food, calories, and have an easier time riding out the drought cycles, seasons, or what have you. If food is abundant then all the members of the species tend to get bigger, especially in those species at the top of the food chain, with few predators, and complex enough biosystems to handle all the little challenges of disease, viruses, etc.

In a species such as humans one could say that the more efficient, thinner, and more adapted might actually be the better model. In the future or in space colonies this will be more important, therefore, we might even genetically modify humans for their new environments, to save space, and consume less. That makes sense considering finite or limited resources on less than adequate or even hostile environments on other planets.

Some would content that the evolutionary process and end game is to be at the top of the food chain for a species, and to have a stomach that can eat all kinds of things, as to not run out of food. Or, with regards to humans, the ability to grow, produce, and harvest abundant food supplies. In this same consideration, a species that is to survive long term needs to grow in numbers and to spread out, thus, avoid cataclysmic challenges that could wipe it out.

Perhaps, this is what Steven Hawkins and others had considered warning human populations to branch out to the stars and not put all our eggs in one basket, meaning only human populations on Earth, just in case we end up the way of the Dinosaurs, see that point too? Unfortunately, by growing large and big, the population stops significantly evolving as it reaches equilibrium. The species will survive along with the weak, strong and all members as there is synergy, safety, and protection in numbers.

Perhaps why herd animals do not seem too bright, and those that hunt them in small packs are quite cunning, wise, and able to plan their assault, so they can eat. A large population of a species most likely will begin to devolve unless it turns inward towards competitive violence, or the purposeful hoarding of resources for fiefdoms. Consider Orangutan troops, or a Male Elk protecting his harem. You see the Male Elk has no need to collect all the females for himself, there is plenty to go around.

However, if he’s smart, cunning, strategy, and strong enough he is able to do this, and thus, pass on his genes, while the other males don’t or even if they sneak in once in a while, not as much. Now then, it does appear that the end game for Earth species evolution is to grow larger in numbers, and have the members of the species grow larger in size. Of course, once a great equilibrium is reached and that species has climbed to dominate the food chain, and afforded all the synergy of numbers, it’s more likely than not that it will devolve over time.

Okay so, is this what’s happening with humans? Human brains are getting smaller, and it seems that humans are getting stupider by my observations. With that said; maybe we ought to be thinking here and preventing this. That is to say find ways to stop our societies from dummying down by fostering competition, rather than overplay the concept of equality and political correctness above and beyond the reality of the evolutionary process.

It really appears to me that free markets do better than allowing government to pick the winners and losers in the economy, and when it comes to species, it seems better to allow evolution to do what it does best rather than pretending that humans with their inferior ability to reason try to fix what’s not really broken, or at least it wasn’t until they started meddling with it. All humans are not created equally, some are better at some things, and others are better at other things, we should celebrate the differences and allow competition to drive us forward to prevent devolution. Please consider all this.