Rich countries are the Predators and Poor countries are the Prey, Do you agree?

[Belindi]

GEMorton requested links to empathy studies:

Belindi wrote: ↑Yesterday, 6:13 am

However if GEM will remind me what I claimed that he requires evidence for I will oblige.

GEM replied:

It was the following claim: "Empathy can be taught both intellectually and affectively."

//mcc.gse.harvard.edu/resources-for-families/5-tips-cultivating-empathy


https://www.wikihow.com/Teach-Empathy-to-Adults

[Greatest I am]

Take the shark away from the reefs and the reef dies.

Man praying on man is how man gets fitter.

No, man preying on man is how men get sharper teeth (to continue your shark analogy).

That is a great benefit is it not?

Fitter is fitter.

Only if 'fitness' means having sharper teeth, and nothing else. The ability to stalk prey, unseen, for example, might also be seen to contribute to 'fitness'. There are many other attributes that might also benefit us, I think. Your perspective seems to ignore this...?

Why not ignore a useless wish list of abilities to make us, the top predator, even more efficient?

Regards
DL

[Ecurb]

That is a great benefit is it not?

Fitter is fitter.

Only if 'fitness' means having sharper teeth, and nothing else. The ability to stalk prey, unseen, for example, might also be seen to contribute to 'fitness'. There are many other attributes that might also benefit us, I think. Your perspective seems to ignore this...?

Why not ignore a useless wish list of abilities to make us, the top predator, even more efficient?

Regards
DL
[/quote]

Yes, fitter is fitter. But did you read my last post? In Darwinian terms, the people with the sharpest teeth are not the fittest. It's a common misconception to think that power and strength equal fitness. The prey nations are the ones whose citizens are leaving the most descendants. The "sharp teeth" appear to be negatively correlated to "fintess".

[Greatest I am]

That is a great benefit is it not?

Fitter is fitter.

Only if 'fitness' means having sharper teeth, and nothing else. The ability to stalk prey, unseen, for example, might also be seen to contribute to 'fitness'. There are many other attributes that might also benefit us, I think. Your perspective seems to ignore this...?

Why not ignore a useless wish list of abilities to make us, the top predator, even more efficient?

Regards
DL

Yes, fitter is fitter. But did you read my last post? In Darwinian terms, the people with the sharpest teeth are not the fittest. It's a common misconception to think that power and strength equal fitness. The prey nations are the ones whose citizens are leaving the most descendants. The "sharp teeth" appear to be negatively correlated to "fintess".
[/quote]

I am aware that all life will have it's own views on what is fit.

As to prey and reproduction, only if they are successful.

Think Germany and how their initial successes ended in less reproduction.

Regards
DL

[Belindi]

That is a great benefit is it not?

Fitter is fitter.

Only if 'fitness' means having sharper teeth, and nothing else. The ability to stalk prey, unseen, for example, might also be seen to contribute to 'fitness'. There are many other attributes that might also benefit us, I think. Your perspective seems to ignore this...?

Why not ignore a useless wish list of abilities to make us, the top predator, even more efficient?

Regards
DL

Yes, fitter is fitter. But did you read my last post? In Darwinian terms, the people with the sharpest teeth are not the fittest. It's a common misconception to think that power and strength equal fitness. The prey nations are the ones whose citizens are leaving the most descendants. The "sharp teeth" appear to be negatively correlated to "fintess".

I am aware that all life will have it's own views on what is fit.

As to prey and reproduction, only if they are successful.

Think Germany and how their initial successes ended in less reproduction.

Regards
DL
[/quote]

But in the case of human beings natural selection is overruled by ideologies. Prey nations by definition are ruled by losing ideologies .

[Ecurb]

But in the case of human beings natural selection is overruled by ideologies. Prey nations by definition are ruled by losing ideologies .

'Overruled"? I have no idea what you mean. Obviously, ideologies spread in different ways than genes. But how does that "overrule" anything?

Also, how is it "by definition" that prey nations are "ruled by losing ideologies"? It is only "by definition" if we think of prey as "losers" and predators as "winners". Really? Are wildebeasts losers and lions winners? That's a bizarre way to think of the web of life. Besides, we don't know what ideologies will win out in the end. "Predator" (i.e. rich) nations have become less and less religious. Are we really sure that religion will "lose out"?

Natural selection is not "overruled" by anything. It is true that culture has a huge impact on both descendant-leaving-success and human well being. Culture influences natural selection -- so do lots of other things: the environment, competition from other species or within our own species, etc. But neither ideology or anything else "overrules" natural selection. Natural selection is what it is.

Of course their are reasons rich nations have reached ZPG: improved birth control; abortion rights; an economy that encourages working mothers; an ideology that recognizes the costs of exponential population growth; etc..

Still, ideologies, like genes, are largely transmitted from parents to children. I'll bet 99% of the world's Muslims had Muslim parents. If the Moslem population doubles in the next 50 years, and the Western secular and Christian population maintains ZPG -- will the Muslim ideology "lose out"?

Lions and wildebeasts are predators and prey. That does not make lions "winners" and wildebeasts "losers" in either a Darwinian sense, or in any other sense I can think of.

[Greatest I am]

But in the case of human beings natural selection is overruled by ideologies. Prey nations by definition are ruled by losing ideologies .

??

Our ideology, a thinking systems, and how we express it, is how we push our evolution.

How do you figure that prey nations have loosing ideologies?

It is a winning one if it uses the predation it suffers to grow it's numbers, just as a shark will benefit the reefs by making the reef produce to the max.

Regards
DL

[Belindi]

But in the case of human beings natural selection is overruled by ideologies. Prey nations by definition are ruled by losing ideologies .

'Overruled"? I have no idea what you mean. Obviously, ideologies spread in different ways than genes. But how does that "overrule" anything?

Also, how is it "by definition" that prey nations are "ruled by losing ideologies"? It is only "by definition" if we think of prey as "losers" and predators as "winners". Really? Are wildebeasts losers and lions winners? That's a bizarre way to think of the web of life. Besides, we don't know what ideologies will win out in the end. "Predator" (i.e. rich) nations have become less and less religious. Are we really sure that religion will "lose out"?

Natural selection is not "overruled" by anything. It is true that culture has a huge impact on both descendant-leaving-success and human well being. Culture influences natural selection -- so do lots of other things: the environment, competition from other species or within our own species, etc. But neither ideology or anything else "overrules" natural selection. Natural selection is what it is.

Of course their are reasons rich nations have reached ZPG: improved birth control; abortion rights; an economy that encourages working mothers; an ideology that recognizes the costs of exponential population growth; etc..

Still, ideologies, like genes, are largely transmitted from parents to children. I'll bet 99% of the world's Muslims had Muslim parents. If the Moslem population doubles in the next 50 years, and the Western secular and Christian population maintains ZPG -- will the Muslim ideology "lose out"?

Lions and wildebeasts are predators and prey. That does not make lions "winners" and wildebeasts "losers" in either a Darwinian sense, or in any other sense I can think of.

Evolution means change over time. Adaptation by natural selection is how biological evolution works. Human beings change, hardly at all by slow process of natural selection, we change by cultural changes such as tools, farming technologies, engineering technologies, and political ideas.

[Ecurb]

Evolution means change over time. Adaptation by natural selection is how biological evolution works. Human beings change, hardly at all by slow process of natural selection, we change by cultural changes such as tools, farming technologies, engineering technologies, and political ideas.

That's true. It's also true that culture influences biological evolution -- the fossil record suggests that the frontal lobes associated with language evolved along with the development of language. But it hardly justifies your claim that "prey nations by definition are ruled by losing ideologies" .
I'm not even sure what a "losing ideology" is, how it "rules prey nations" and why these ideologies are "losing" by definition. Obviously, prey nations lack certain technological advantages of the supposedly predatory nations -- but technology is not an "ideology".

[Sy Borg]

I would think that prey would have various basic qualities:

1) something that predators want
2) inability to always ward off the predator
3) bad luck.

Ecurb, in context, Belinda's idea of "losing ideologies" looks to me to relate to #2, where progress may perhaps more emphasise inner development (spirituality) than external development (technology).

Sometimes ideologies stagnate, and end up lost in endlessly regurgitated historical conflicts that are never resolved. Without a circuit breaker, the aftermath of armed conflict involves losses, and the subsequent wish of the aggrieved to avenge those losses. Such societies become ever more vulnerable.

If we are to look at the global political jungle as an ecosystem, when considering predatory/prey relationships, it may help to consider the national equivalents of parasitism and kleptoparasitism, scavenging, autotrophs (who form the basis of the food chain), not to mention symbiotic and commensal relationships.

For instance, when a predatory nation consumes a "prey nation", who are the scavengers coming for the scraps? It's ultimately about vested interests and relationships.

[Belindi]

Evolution means change over time. Adaptation by natural selection is how biological evolution works. Human beings change, hardly at all by slow process of natural selection, we change by cultural changes such as tools, farming technologies, engineering technologies, and political ideas.

That's true. It's also true that culture influences biological evolution -- the fossil record suggests that the frontal lobes associated with language evolved along with the development of language. But it hardly justifies your claim that "prey nations by definition are ruled by losing ideologies" .
I'm not even sure what a "losing ideology" is, how it "rules prey nations" and why these ideologies are "losing" by definition. Obviously, prey nations lack certain technological advantages of the supposedly predatory nations -- but technology is not an "ideology".

I agree. I'd like to change "ideologies" to "cultures". Cultures include technologies. Would that fit do you think?
In view of Sy Borg's message, above, cultures also include ideologies. Sometimes, as in the case of Syria, or France before the Revolution, a nation is torn between opposing cultures and one of these preys upon its own nation. England at that time just evaded revolution by the skin of its teeth.

Sy Borg's point about multinational predators is true of recent times when all nations are viewed as prey. Education systems should dispel ignorance of how multinationals can and do control nations and individuals.

[Ecurb]

Ideologies sometimes "win" against predatory countrties Look at the Taliban. The've won wars against the two biggest super powers in the world. Russia and the U.S. had the technological superiority; the Taliban had the faith and the toughness.

I'm not sure how this fits into the current discussion, but I thought I'd mention it. It's tragic, of course. The same fanatacism that won the wars also prevents Afghanistan from advancing in terms of economic success and personal freedom.

[Sy Borg]

Ideologies sometimes "win" against predatory countrties Look at the Taliban. The've won wars against the two biggest super powers in the world. Russia and the U.S. had the technological superiority; the Taliban had the faith and the toughness.

The Taliban is akin to a small, tough predator that ruthlessly preys on whatever it can dominate but does not much spread out, like a honey badger. Even apex predators can hesitate in the face of honey badger ferocity. It should be said that Afghanis are not thriving, so it's clear that the Taliban, being focused only on the welfare of the ruling posse, will prove to be a less effective ideology than those that aim to improve the welfare of people rather than just dominate them.

In the end, predators eat other predators that eat other predators. A significant part of the biosphere consists of predators, so predation is a necessary, or at least inevitable, evil of existence.

[Good_Egg]

The Taliban is akin to a small, tough predator that ruthlessly preys on whatever it can dominate but does not much spread out, like a honey badger. Even apex predators can hesitate in the face of honey badger ferocity. It should be said that Afghanis are not thriving, so it's clear that the Taliban, being focused only on the welfare of the ruling posse, will prove to be a less effective ideology than those that aim to improve the welfare of people rather than just dominate them.

Seems to me that the fallacy we need to avoid here is identifying the success of the group with the success of the individuals that comprise the group.

Suppose you ask people "if you could be any sort of animal, what sort of animal would you be ?" I'd bet that most of the animals people choose would be apex predators. Eagles and lions fit our notions of an attractive life for an individual.

But few biologists think that only apex predators are successful species. A successful species is one that survives a long time. Through factors such as adaptability to changing circumstances and the ability to fill a particular ecological niche better than potential rivals.

Species survival may involve high birth rates and high death rates, which may not be all that comfortable for the individuals involved.

What do we mean by success for nations and cultures? Is Poland a successful nation ? Do you answer that by GDP - a measure of whether Polish individuals live a materially comfortable life ? Or by whether Poland has been on the giving or receiving end of armed force by other nations ?

Does the analogy hold, or break down at this point ?

[Belindi]

The Taliban is akin to a small, tough predator that ruthlessly preys on whatever it can dominate but does not much spread out, like a honey badger. Even apex predators can hesitate in the face of honey badger ferocity. It should be said that Afghanis are not thriving, so it's clear that the Taliban, being focused only on the welfare of the ruling posse, will prove to be a less effective ideology than those that aim to improve the welfare of people rather than just dominate them.

Seems to me that the fallacy we need to avoid here is identifying the success of the group with the success of the individuals that comprise the group.

Suppose you ask people "if you could be any sort of animal, what sort of animal would you be ?" I'd bet that most of the animals people choose would be apex predators. Eagles and lions fit our notions of an attractive life for an individual.

But few biologists think that only apex predators are successful species. A successful species is one that survives a long time. Through factors such as adaptability to changing circumstances and the ability to fill a particular ecological niche better than potential rivals.

Species survival may involve high birth rates and high death rates, which may not be all that comfortable for the individuals involved.

What do we mean by success for nations and cultures? Is Poland a successful nation ? Do you answer that by GDP - a measure of whether Polish individuals live a materially comfortable life ? Or by whether Poland has been on the giving or receiving end of armed force by other nations ?

Does the analogy hold, or break down at this point ?

Poland is successful according to how you define success. The Polish soldiers I met during the War suffered personally , psychologically, and materially, and also as a nation due to Poland's being a buffer between Germany and Russia. On the other hand, the Poles felt strong affection and loyalty to Poland as their home.