• Due to excessive bot signups along with nefarious actors we are limiting forum registration. Keep checking back for the register link to appear. Please do not send emails or have someone post to the forum asking for a signup link. Until the current climate changes we do not see a change of this policy. To join the forum you must have a compelling reason. Letting us know what skills/knowledge you will bring to the community along with the intent of your stay here will help in getting you approved.

Early Life On Earth Developed For Optimal Reproduction, Not Competition

haidut

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,063
Location
USA / Europe
One of the mainstream tenets of neo-Dariwinism is the never-ending competition of all life forms for resources and procreation. This tenet is so pervasive, it affects virtually all aspects of social, business and scientific activity in modern societies.
However, the study below shows that early complex life on Earth did not focus their energies on competition but on developing structures to ensure dispersing of offspring on as large area as possible. Life at that time was abundant with resources, and under abundant conditions competition tends to disappear, as Peat has also said several times. So, fierce competition is not an unavoidable fact of life but rather a sign/symptom of resource scarcity. Often, in human societies such scarcity is created artificially in order to justify higher profits or turn people on each other. It appears, early life on Earth got big not due to competition but due to abundance. I don't see a reason why that would not also be true today.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-018-0591-6
New research suggests that early complex life evolved to effectively disperse offspring, not to compete for resources

"...Earlier research hypothesised that increased size was driven by the competition for nutrients at different water depths. However, the current work shows that the Ediacaran oceans were more like an all-you-can-eat buffet. “The oceans at the time were very rich in nutrients, so there wasn’t much competition for resources, and predators did not yet exist,” said Mitchell, who is a Henslow Research Fellow at Murray Edwards College. “So there must have been another reason why life forms got so big during this period.”"

"...Since Ediacaran organisms were not mobile and were preserved where they lived, it’s possible to analyse whole populations from the fossil record. Using spatial analysis techniques, Mitchell and Kenchington found that there was no correlation between height and competition for food. Different types of organisms did not occupy different parts of the water column to avoid competing for resources – a process known as tiering. If they were competing for food, then we would expect to find that the organisms with stems were highly tiered,” said Kenchington. “But we found the opposite: the organisms without stems were actually more tiered than those with stems, so the stems probably served another function.” According to the researchers, one likely function of stems would be to enable the greater dispersion of offspring, which rangeomorphs produced by expelling small propagules. The tallest organisms were surrounded by the largest clusters of offspring, suggesting that the benefit of height was not more food, but a greater chance of colonising an area. “While taller organisms would have been in faster-flowing water, the lack of tiering within these communities shows that their height didn’t give them any distinct advantages in terms of nutrient uptake,” said Mitchell. “Instead, reproduction appears to have been the main reason that life on Earth got big when it did.”
 

lvysaur

Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2014
Messages
2,121
It appears, early life on Earth got big not due to competition but due to abundance. I don't see a reason why that would not also be true today.

Really?
 

MatheusPN

Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
547
Location
Brazil
I always think in the difference between Bonobos and Chimpanzees and what resulted in their differences
 

Regina

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2016
Messages
4,982
Location
Chicago
One of the mainstream tenets of neo-Dariwinism is the never-ending competition of all life forms for resources and procreation. This tenet is so pervasive, it affects virtually all aspects of social, business and scientific activity in modern societies.
However, the study below shows that early complex life on Earth did not focus their energies on competition but on developing structures to ensure dispersing of offspring on as large area as possible. Life at that time was abundant with resources, and under abundant conditions competition tends to disappear, as Peat has also said several times. So, fierce competition is not an unavoidable fact of life but rather a sign/symptom of resource scarcity. Often, in human societies such scarcity is created artificially in order to justify higher profits or turn people on each other. It appears, early life on Earth got big not due to competition but due to abundance. I don't see a reason why that would not also be true today.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-018-0591-6
New research suggests that early complex life evolved to effectively disperse offspring, not to compete for resources

"...Earlier research hypothesised that increased size was driven by the competition for nutrients at different water depths. However, the current work shows that the Ediacaran oceans were more like an all-you-can-eat buffet. “The oceans at the time were very rich in nutrients, so there wasn’t much competition for resources, and predators did not yet exist,” said Mitchell, who is a Henslow Research Fellow at Murray Edwards College. “So there must have been another reason why life forms got so big during this period.”"

"...Since Ediacaran organisms were not mobile and were preserved where they lived, it’s possible to analyse whole populations from the fossil record. Using spatial analysis techniques, Mitchell and Kenchington found that there was no correlation between height and competition for food. Different types of organisms did not occupy different parts of the water column to avoid competing for resources – a process known as tiering. If they were competing for food, then we would expect to find that the organisms with stems were highly tiered,” said Kenchington. “But we found the opposite: the organisms without stems were actually more tiered than those with stems, so the stems probably served another function.” According to the researchers, one likely function of stems would be to enable the greater dispersion of offspring, which rangeomorphs produced by expelling small propagules. The tallest organisms were surrounded by the largest clusters of offspring, suggesting that the benefit of height was not more food, but a greater chance of colonising an area. “While taller organisms would have been in faster-flowing water, the lack of tiering within these communities shows that their height didn’t give them any distinct advantages in terms of nutrient uptake,” said Mitchell. “Instead, reproduction appears to have been the main reason that life on Earth got big when it did.”
Yes. And I think of Ray's response to pre-natal and childhood stress was that that determined if one would be a primate or an alligator.
I am always amazed in circumstances where there is clear ridiculous amount of abundance, that people still behave in a zero-sum manner.
 
Joined
Dec 25, 2014
Messages
1,045
Yes. And I think of Ray's response to pre-natal and childhood stress was that that determined if one would be a primate or an alligator.
I am always amazed in circumstances where there is clear ridiculous amount of abundance, that people still behave in a zero-sum manner.

They're not competing over resources they're competing over invisible ego points or status
 

Collden

Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2012
Messages
630
I think this ties into why western society is becoming increasingly feminized. Scarcity and competition promote masculine traits across the population, whereas abundance and comfort promote feminine traits. It also relates to the natural cycles of cultures outlined by John Glubb . The pioneering and civilisation-building phase characterised by a strong dopaminergic drive (exploration, competition, invention, initiative and risk-taking) to transform conditions of scarcity into abundance, which is then followed by a phase of abundance and increasing comfort and indulgence, moral relaxation and frank decadence. As the moral values that built the prosperity are abandoned the society is again destabilised and the resulting scarcity drives the re-establishment of masculine/dopaminergic drives to restore and rebuild order.

I cant find the source now, but I read once that there are even hermaphroditic organisms that can literally switch from female to male physiology in response to environmental stress and scarcity.

Yes. And I think of Ray's response to pre-natal and childhood stress was that that determined if one would be a primate or an alligator.
I am always amazed in circumstances where there is clear ridiculous amount of abundance, that people still behave in a zero-sum manner.
Thats interesting, that is to say whether one will develop an alligator/shark personality or not? Do you know where one could find the full discussion this response came from? It definitely agrees with my experience that people who experienced childhood trauma tend to develop more competitive/hardy/dopaminergic personalities. They are often successful professionally but have problems in developing satisfying intimate relationships.
 
B

Braveheart

Guest
Haidut....I always enjoy these kind of posts...thank you...plus the posts on childhood stress, addiction, loneliness etc and how these affect heath....these posts are important in helping one cure oneself
 
Last edited by a moderator:
B

Braveheart

Guest
I think this ties into why western society is becoming increasingly feminized. Scarcity and competition promote masculine traits across the population, whereas abundance and comfort promote feminine traits. It also relates to the natural cycles of cultures outlined by John Glubb . The pioneering and civilisation-building phase characterised by a strong dopaminergic drive (exploration, competition, invention, initiative and risk-taking) to transform conditions of scarcity into abundance, which is then followed by a phase of abundance and increasing comfort and indulgence, moral relaxation and frank decadence. As the moral values that built the prosperity are abandoned the society is again destabilised and the resulting scarcity drives the re-establishment of masculine/dopaminergic drives to restore and rebuild order.

I cant find the source now, but I read once that there are even hermaphroditic organisms that can literally switch from female to male physiology in response to environmental stress and scarcity.


Thats interesting, that is to say whether one will develop an alligator/shark personality or not? Do you know where one could find the full discussion this response came from? It definitely agrees with my experience that people who experienced childhood trauma tend to develop more competitive/hardy/dopaminergic personalities. They are often successful professionally but have problems in developing satisfying intimate relationships.
Your comment on childhood trauma is right on.
 

Regina

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2016
Messages
4,982
Location
Chicago
I think this ties into why western society is becoming increasingly feminized. Scarcity and competition promote masculine traits across the population, whereas abundance and comfort promote feminine traits. It also relates to the natural cycles of cultures outlined by John Glubb . The pioneering and civilisation-building phase characterised by a strong dopaminergic drive (exploration, competition, invention, initiative and risk-taking) to transform conditions of scarcity into abundance, which is then followed by a phase of abundance and increasing comfort and indulgence, moral relaxation and frank decadence. As the moral values that built the prosperity are abandoned the society is again destabilised and the resulting scarcity drives the re-establishment of masculine/dopaminergic drives to restore and rebuild order.

I cant find the source now, but I read once that there are even hermaphroditic organisms that can literally switch from female to male physiology in response to environmental stress and scarcity.


Thats interesting, that is to say whether one will develop an alligator/shark personality or not? Do you know where one could find the full discussion this response came from? It definitely agrees with my experience that people who experienced childhood trauma tend to develop more competitive/hardy/dopaminergic personalities. They are often successful professionally but have problems in developing satisfying intimate relationships.
I heard it on one of the Ray Peat clips on youtube. At the moment, I don't know which one. But it does help shine the light on certain people's confounding behaviour. But I don't think it is really "dopaminergic." I find these people are often very fixated and rigid and not in touch with the pulse right before them.
 

Similar threads

Top