|
Forums:
Climbing Information:
General:
Re: [mojomonkey] Leave your damn kids at home:
Edit Log
|
|
robbovius
Aug 7, 2009, 3:06 PM
Views: 3261
Registered: Nov 20, 2002
Posts: 8406
|
mojomonkey wrote: You are really reaching. I was giving an example to illustrate the flaw in your statement: In reply to: you breed, you succeed, you don't, you fail. well, conversely, in order to see my point you're not reaching far enough.
In reply to: So fine, we can jump species. Take a bee hive. Other than queens, the females are sterile workers. They gather food and maintain the hive. They are essential to sustaining the life of that hive and can't possibly breed. So they are failures. actually that's a really good analogy, and I have to agree, though yes individually they fail, but in the efforts of the collective organism - the hive - to survive, they succeed. This analogy follows to the human scale, verifying yoru assertion regarding Dean Kamen, and that list upthread. still, though these non-breeders can be shown or argued to have a positive effect in terms of species survival, without that essential core of breeders their efforts are lost. This doesn't refute my crank not-a-theory, but offers a corollary?
In reply to: There is a more global view you are missing. no, I disagree. of the two of us, my view is Life - all species, all entities, - viewed as a single collective organism - the "cell" analogy, a few posts ago - is more congruent with a "global" - as in all-encompassing analogy.
In reply to: Yes, any form of life needs, as a group, to reproduce to sustain itself. Not every single one of its members needs to breed. this falls back to eh human scale, and disregards the global, Life-as-one-organism view, see? editted to fix cheesetit
(This post was edited by robbovius on Aug 7, 2009, 3:16 PM)
|
|
Edit Log:
|
Post edited by robbovius
() on Aug 7, 2009, 3:09 PM
|
Post edited by robbovius
() on Aug 7, 2009, 3:14 PM
|
Post edited by robbovius
() on Aug 7, 2009, 3:16 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|