Olympinonsense

[scottycelt]

A typical mis-understanding of what Darwin expressing in the theory of evolution. Nothing to do with competition, & certainly not with others of the same species. Evolution is adaptation to cope with the environment.

Yes, maybe, but some adapt better than others ... and males competing for females in order to breed is the normal state in the animal kingdom.

What is that if not competition and the survival of the fittest ?

[John Wright]

A typical mis-understanding of what Darwin expressing in the theory of evolution. Nothing to do with competition, & certainly not with others of the same species. Evolution is adaptation to cope with the environment.

Flosshilde, you need to read some twentieth century books on evolution and survival, and watch some David Attenborough films too. Darwin's theory, yes, relates to 'natural selection' but the environment can favour the fittest under some circumstances. The weakest of a species may not survive environmental disasters (e.g. travelling distances to safety) and if food is scarce and the species have to fight each other to survive, then 'survival of the fittest' will apply.

[Lateralthinking1]

Yes, maybe, but some adapt better than others ... and males competing for females in order to breed is the normal state in the animal kingdom.

What is that if not competition and the survival of the fittest ?

Yes, it is to some extent if the combination of genes passed on is regarded as essentially the same as self. There is quite a leap of imagination there to be made but many convince themselves. Environment, as has been said, is key. In conservative societies, a conservative ethic is a skill; in liberal societies, the skill is in being liberal. Different people are strong in different places.

Theoretically, the former can move away from liberal societies if they are insufficiently adaptable or at least find niches, and vice versa. Hence, for example, the American conservative right. If you took away both the wacky religion and the diabolical bigotry from that grouping, it could easily be argued that it would have more to offer than competition based liberalism in that it essentially emphasises stability, at least non-economically. At present, neither philosophy in practice looks anything but weak to me.

Clearly, competitive sport as a group within society and economic competition as a group within society already have significant places and there is no reason why that shouldn't be so. However, I don't much care for those to be the major components of the social organisational framework and am not convinced that they need to be.

And while I take John Wright's latest point, there is a question about why humans as the supposedly strongest creatures are sowing the seeds of their own destruction, irrespective of there being stronger and weaker humans across the globe. Few in the animal kingdom consume as much as possible for the sake of it. Perhaps it is a signal of future disaster even more than it is causal.

[Pabmusic]

A typical mis-understanding of what Darwin expressing in the theory of evolution. Nothing to do with competition, & certainly not with others of the same species. Evolution is adaptation to cope with the environment.

Yes; "Survival of the fittest" meaning "survival of those who fit into their environment best"/"those most fitting". Not "the strongest".

(You two have summed it up so perfectly that I can't add anything useful.

...the environment can favour the fittest under some circumstances. The weakest of a species may not survive environmental disasters (e.g. travelling distances to safety) and if food is scarce and the species have to fight each other to survive, then 'survival of the fittest' will apply.

Not exactly, because you've turned it all round. 'The environment' doesn't favour the fittest; it's the fittest that favour the environment. Those beings that are best suited to the conditions will have a better chance of living long enough to reproduce. This doesn't mean that none of the non-fittest survive, rather that over a long time (maybe millions of years) the 'fittest' become the usual type. This is actually pure Darwinism, although Richard Dawkins puts it in a modern context in The Selfish Gene.

Yes, maybe, but some adapt better than others ... and males competing for females in order to breed is the normal state in the animal kingdom.

What is that if not competition and the survival of the fittest ?

The problem with using such an analogy is that it gives the impression that there is conscious competition, which is very far from the truth. And in any case, what you suggest (competition for females) is more like sexual selection than natural selection.

Sexual selection was the second string to Darwin's bow - the fact that one sex tends to select partners for traits that then become more common in the gene pool. This explains - say - the peacock's tail (something that would presumably disappear with natural selection, since it's an obvious hinderance when the peacock is attacked by a predator, though it's very good for attracting a mate - or so Im told ). If it helps you pass on your genes just once or twice before you're eaten, it's an overall plus. It may explain our general hairlessness (though there are also 'natural selection' explanations - it may be a combination).

Perhaps sexual selection has played a role in sporting prowess, although we often make the mistake of forgetting the time-spans involved (which are still thousands of years with sexual selection, even if they're not the much longer ones with natural selection), so it's not really 'sporting' prowess - more likely it's qualities that are useful nowadays in sports, such as physical strength if you have to fight other males to win a partner. Unless, of course, we unearth evidence of the Pliocene Olympics! Now that would be something...

[Sydney Grew]

. . . we often make the mistake of forgetting the time-spans involved (which are still thousands of years with sexual selection, even if they're not the much longer ones with natural selection) . . .

I don't think dog-breeders or rose-cultivators would admit that! Thirty or forty years and one has a lasting difference does one not?

[Pabmusic]

I don't think dog-breeders or rose-cultivators would admit that! Thirty or forty years and one has a lasting difference does one not?

Yes, of course you're right. But dog-breeders and the like are selecting by controlled, human intervention - artificial selection. The breeder selects the puppies with longest ears, or the roses with darkest colouring, in each generation and then breeds only from those (it can be quite ruthless) so that a wolf eventually becomes a chihuahua. That's not how natural selection works, of course, but neither is it how sexual selection works. Pea-hens don't exactly make conscious decisions to favour males with long tails, but they do, because of a genetic instruction to do so (the reason the genetic instruction arose in the fist place will be that a mutant gene caused a feature that, for whatever reason, became useful to the species in finding a mate - perhaps long tails suggest that their owners are healthy). If they mate successfully with males with long tails, the offspring will receive both the gene for long tails (from the father) and the gene for seeking long tails (from the mother). Thus, the preponderance of those genes will grow within the gene pool. However, that doesn't prevent other males breeding, though they may be disadvantaged over all, compared to long-tails, and so it takes very much longer for long-tail genes to dominate the gene pool - but they do inexorably in the end, and long tails become the norm.

Natural selection does this very slowly indeed, since there is no intervention to aid selection - the creatures 'selected' are those that live long enough to pass on their genes successfully, and so those genes have a better chance of survival because their predecessors were the ones that did survive. Homo erectus, a recent direct ancestor (Java Man, Peking Man) who lived around 1.5 million years ago, is considered to have been a different species (that is, we would not be able to mate successfully with them if they were around now), but there's not all that much difference. Smaller brain and thicker brow ridges are the obvious ones. And that's in 1.5m years. (There have been some 'quick' evolutions - the eye, perhaps slightly surprisingly, has evolved separately some 20 times or more, suggesting that it's not so difficult, nor such a long process - maybe 100,000 years or less for the human eye. Our brains have grown large quite quickly, too.)

Fascinating stuff!

[scottycelt]

The problem with using such an analogy is that it gives the impression that there is conscious competition, which is very far from the truth. And in any case, what you suggest (competition for females) is more like sexual selection than natural selection. .

I can't quite see your distinction ... Isn't sexual selection simply a part of natural selection? We can't help to whom we are naturally sexually attracted though humans (generally) have the ability to control these feelings.

Whether male animals are conscious of competing for females I haven't the foggiest but it is quite clear that they do, and even sometimes literally 'lock horns' in the pursuit of such matters!

Anyway, today the outrageously successful London Olympics end and we shall now return to wall-to-wall media misery ...

[Pabmusic]

I can't quite see your distinction ...

It's actually Darwin's distinction. Natural selection is the process by which genes that have what it takes to survive in a particular climate, ineluctably will survive. Sexual selection is a process, superimposed upon natural selection, that causes creatures to be selected by quasi-artificial means for features that may not directly help towards survival within a climate, but that do aid the likelihood of successful reproduction. It is usually the selection of males by females, and it very often conflicts with natural selection. I said earlier that the peacock's tail must be a real hindrance; flying must be much more difficult because of it, and it is likely that a peacock who is attacked will have a reduced chance of escape because of his tail - it must also cause the male to use up more energy just existing, since it is ungainly to cart around. Natural selection would, over time, favour males with smaller tails, who could move more swiftly. But this ignores the conflicting pressure of sexual selection, whereby females are more likely to choose males with splendid tails. From a natural selection perspective, those males are disadvantaged, but they have a real advantage in that they have a better chance of fathering chicks. The two pressures are incompatible, so we have a compromise between the two - in other words, peacocks with more splendid tails may not live as long as they otherwise might, but they have a slight advantage over others in finding a mate and reproducing before they die. I've talked about peacocks, but the same principle applies to many other things - bright colours, beautiful calls, the ability to build a nice home, etc.

[I think you might be right about wall-to-wall media misery. ]

[MrGongGong]

from the Indie

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/joan-smith/joan-smith-not-liking-the-olympics-doesnt-make-me-bad-8034648.html

[teamsaint]

the mantra of competition is endlessly used by those who want us all "competing " against each other...for scarce resources, fewer jobs with lower salaries etc.
Competition won't solve the apparent world water or food problems.
Competition is NOT the cause of economic success. Skewed "competitive" market cause things like the success of Coca Cola, the nonsense that is the railway ticketing system, ever higher and more complex electricity Tariffs.
And its actually self evident. Team GB and (Northern Ireland's)medal haul is down to cooperation between governing bodies and the sources of funding over 20 years , rather than competition. Most businesses , in my long experience, spend most of their time stuggling to improve their performance by improving internal cooperation rather than worrying about the competition.
The mantra of competition, outside quite narrow parameters, is a big, and very dangerous lie.

[MrGongGong]

The mantra of competition, outside quite narrow parameters, is a big, and very dangerous lie.

Absolutely

I'm just off to a couple of days rehearsals for an event next weekend
I'm directing it and wrote some of the music
if the other musicians "compete" in the rehearsals or even the performance then we will be well and truly stuffed

In this post deluded climate of sporting "excellence" we need to be very careful that things aren't put in place that create a climate of "competition" where it is entirely inappropriate.
Competition is sometimes appropriate (and can be great fun) BUT running is not the only way of catching the bus ................

When I visit schools the ones that I would be happy sending my own children to are the ones where in the staff room there is good coffee/tea , no "that's mr Johnstones chair/mug and a fridge that doesn't contain 15 cartons of milk with names written on them

[Flosshilde]

Flosshilde, you need to read some twentieth century books on evolution and survival, and watch some David Attenborough films too. Darwin's theory, yes, relates to 'natural selection' but the environment can favour the fittest under some circumstances. The weakest of a species may not survive environmental disasters (e.g. travelling distances to safety) and if food is scarce and the species have to fight each other to survive, then 'survival of the fittest' will apply.

But that's not the same thing as competition among individuals of the same species, which is what people mean when they say that competition is 'natural' & therefore being competitive in sports (or financial trading or whatever the subject of discussion might be) is 'natural'.

[Flosshilde]

I don't think dog-breeders or rose-cultivators would admit that! Thirty or forty years and one has a lasting difference does one not?

Perhaps 'we' should selectively breed from the successful athletes & create super-athletes for the Olympics of the future? Guaranteeing that we would 'win' the 'competeition' for the most medals?

Although I'm reminded of Shaw's response to Sarah Bernhardt's suggestion that they should have children - "Mr. Shaw, you and I should make love, for with my looks and your brains we would have wonderful children".
Shaw's response was "But what if the child were born with my looks and your brain?"

[MrGongGong]

The whole "it's natural" thing is rather suspect when it's extrapolated to include some of the things that people do in the name of "sport"
I guess running IS
but diving off high things head first certainly isn't

[Lateralthinking1]

The whole "it's natural" thing is rather suspect when it's extrapolated to include some of the things that people do in the name of "sport"
I guess running IS
but diving off high things head first certainly isn't

I agree and feel that scientific arguments are too simplistic in respect of 21st Century sport.

It has long been the case that athletes from Kenya, Ethiopia etc have excelled in middle and long distance running. There was a time not many decades ago when we were asked to envisage their average daily lives. They were depicted by David Coleman as one almost permanent middle distance run through rural terrain to be educated, find work, get food. Not a vehicle in sight and barely a building other than a tent or a mud hut. That was the reason for their successes, apparently, in the 1970s and 1980s!!

Now the message is that everything has changed and it is Britain which rules the roost. The reason is that we have produced a wonderful athlete called Mohammed Farah. I am as happy as anyone else to descibe Farah as British. After all, his father was born in England and he has lived in West London since John Major was PM. Nevertheless, he was born in Mogadishu, Somalia and lived there to the age of eight. His parents are Somalian and he has Somalian genes. In essence, then, this change is no change.

What has Somalia gained from his terrific achievement? Precisely nothing. Has Britain become stronger globally in the last three decades? Has its Empire expanded? No, the opposite. Should the ability of Farah to travel to supermarkets by car in West London or indeed Somalia have improved his running abilities or made them less "natural"? Probably the second option. Is it the British training facilities that have made all the difference here? Well, the Kenyans and the Ethiopians did just fine without them.

So quite how do we to read this particular success, if we are not to select the scientific, environmental or jingoistic arguments on the grounds that they happen to suit us best? I don't see how "it is just Darwin" is applicable to such a complex scenario.