Nature has zero fucks to give. Interstingly, I have long held that the defense of liberty should be akin to a force of nature, devoid of morality, mercy, etc.
Technically, evolution destroys species that become too set in their ways, and rewards the most adaptable species.
Dire wolves had enough bite force to bite a giant mega bison's leg off, but when their giant prey died off, they starved to death and the smaller wolves survived.
EDIT: I think we're both right in a way. I would say within the species, the strongest survives. But species vs species, probably the most adaptable wins in the long run.
you could even say in the modern era deception and the ability to deceive & manipulate is the 'new strong'
there is an established correlation between IQ (animals, human), the capacity to deceive others and survivability
humans are experts at deception because of their innate greed, that greed is a redundant survival instinct that is now a curse upon modern civilization - it is the greatest challenge humanity will ever overcome if ever
as it should be. "Rule of might" used to be how humanity operated, and still partially does today. What is war but a physical display of force, with the strongest being the winner.
Now there are people saying all war is wrong. maybe. but only for the civilized few with honor. Most of the world is not honorable and they have and continue to attempt to take by conquering.
Behaving civilized among those who are not is suicide. A slow one, which we are currently experiencing.
Nature is mega-based.
Nature has zero fucks to give. Interstingly, I have long held that the defense of liberty should be akin to a force of nature, devoid of morality, mercy, etc.
Nature punishes the weak and rewards the strong.
Technically, evolution destroys species that become too set in their ways, and rewards the most adaptable species.
Dire wolves had enough bite force to bite a giant mega bison's leg off, but when their giant prey died off, they starved to death and the smaller wolves survived.
EDIT: I think we're both right in a way. I would say within the species, the strongest survives. But species vs species, probably the most adaptable wins in the long run.
Much the same as a sabertooth tiger.
The capability to adapt when necessary, That is how species survive.
Evolution is bullshit.
Explain a device that can detect a specific part of the electromagnetic spectrum.
How does nature know about something to make a device to see it if it can't detect it in the first place?
Rhetorical question, it can't?
Nature is not a thinking entity.
"Strong" is a moving target. What is "strong" one day is weak the next. "Strong" is ever-changing, as must be anything that wishes to be "strong".
Based.
"If strength meant everything, Tiger would not fear Scorpion."
you could even say in the modern era deception and the ability to deceive & manipulate is the 'new strong'
there is an established correlation between IQ (animals, human), the capacity to deceive others and survivability
humans are experts at deception because of their innate greed, that greed is a redundant survival instinct that is now a curse upon modern civilization - it is the greatest challenge humanity will ever overcome if ever
that's the law of the jungle
as it should be. "Rule of might" used to be how humanity operated, and still partially does today. What is war but a physical display of force, with the strongest being the winner.
Now there are people saying all war is wrong. maybe. but only for the civilized few with honor. Most of the world is not honorable and they have and continue to attempt to take by conquering.
Behaving civilized among those who are not is suicide. A slow one, which we are currently experiencing.
Well, the just war concept should suit us all
Nature is white supremacist!
The next dictate out of the White House. Nature should try to be less nature. It's not fair to so many losers.
This really speaks of the high intelligence of these amazing creatures
thats how math works