Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6259598" data-attributes="member: 177">Exactly.  For that reason, nature rarely completely eliminates anything.  For example, in genes we have dominant and recessive - the recessives are pushed to the back, and just kind of ride along only being expressed occasionally, so that if the need does arise, they are selected for and the species goes on, and we are more flexible to the changes that come in 100, 1000, or 10,000 years.  The same logic follows for ideas (memes) - we rarely completely eliminate an idea, we just push it into the background.  Our mating patterns are a blend of genetic and memetic drives.  We should expect there to be some patterns in the population that aren't the current dominant ones.  In terms of long--term strength, we want that diversity to ride along with us.  Winnowing it down to "one true way" is a weakness if the social or physical environment changes. Who the competition is with is irrelevant.That is a question for the ages, not for the current moment.  We, here and now, don't get to (or need to) answer that question.  Nature will sort it out for us - the truth will ultimately be found by empirical results, without our having to pass judgments.  Plus, as you have noted, the answer is context-dependent. What is best here and now may not be the best in 100, or 1000 years.  So, why not recognize that fact that there is no single correct answer?</blockquote>