Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

mtanfpu t1_jecudib wrote

Without scarcity, the progress of natural selection and thus evolution becomes obsolete. Can't imagine a future that is not governed by such a natural law.

Edit: my apologies, not a law, but currently still a theory, albeit a very convincing one from today's perspective.

−1

NebXan t1_jedbpe6 wrote

That's not really how it works though. Natural selection necessarily occurs whenever reproduction happens, it's just the evolutionary pressures and the traits that we end up selecting for that change.

1

mtanfpu t1_jee3bff wrote

Nature 'selects' via scarcity of resources. The 'fittest' survives due its comparative competitive advantage over its peers for a specific set of resources. It necessarily entails that said set of resources isn't enough to satisfy everyone.

Take away scarcity, nature selects everyone.

0

NebXan t1_jeetnda wrote

Resource scarcity is just one evolutionary pressure that can direct natural selection.

Consider bacteria, for example. Even if you place them in an environment with an inexhaustible supply of nutrients, if you add small amounts of antibacterial chemicals, you will end up breeding bacteria that are resistant to those antibacterials.

1

mtanfpu t1_jeewb1y wrote

That's.. survival of the fittest ain't it? Here, scarcity lies not with their nutrient supply, but ways to deter their chemical killers?

Edit: I guess I am taking on a broader look at the term 'resource'.

1

Evipicc t1_jee6v3a wrote

You're conflating a natural law with something that is inherently not natural and in fact a system like this imposes a lack of a need for selection.

1

mtanfpu t1_jeed7zf wrote

My apologies, I don't quite understand your statement. What is 'inherently not natural'? And what is 'a system like this'?

1