Reading on the electric internet this morning that real scientists working on evolution theory don’t talk about “survival of the fittest” these days, because it can be misleading, and even if interpreted correctly, it is just a tautology.

I agree it can be misleading, but if it is interpreted as:
“Those members of a species whose characteristics allow them to survive and breed in the greatest number, will survive and breed in the greatest number”
it is undeniably true simply because it is a tautology, but it also makes clear why evolution inevitably will work the way that we observe it does.

What do you lot think?

Should we talk of “survival of the fittest”?
Are tautologies good or bad (or something in between)?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Reading on the electric internet this morning that real scientists working on evolution theory don’t talk about “survival of the fittest” these days, because it can be misleading, and even if interpreted correctly, it is just a tautology.

I agree it can be misleading, but if it is interpreted as:
“Those members of a species whose characteristics allow them to survive and breed in the greatest number, will survive and breed in the greatest number”
it is undeniably true simply because it is a tautology, but it also makes clear why evolution inevitably will work the way that we observe it does.

What do you lot think?

Should we talk of “survival of the fittest”?
Are tautologies good or bad (or something in between)?

I don’t think ‘survival of the fittest’ is tautology, it’s simply a true statement.
Over.

Peak Warming Man said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Reading on the electric internet this morning that real scientists working on evolution theory don’t talk about “survival of the fittest” these days, because it can be misleading, and even if interpreted correctly, it is just a tautology.

I agree it can be misleading, but if it is interpreted as:
“Those members of a species whose characteristics allow them to survive and breed in the greatest number, will survive and breed in the greatest number”
it is undeniably true simply because it is a tautology, but it also makes clear why evolution inevitably will work the way that we observe it does.

What do you lot think?

Should we talk of “survival of the fittest”?
Are tautologies good or bad (or something in between)?

I don’t think ‘survival of the fittest’ is tautology, it’s simply a true statement.
Over.

Yeah.. a bit simplistic but.. yeah..

Peak Warming Man said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Reading on the electric internet this morning that real scientists working on evolution theory don’t talk about “survival of the fittest” these days, because it can be misleading, and even if interpreted correctly, it is just a tautology.

I agree it can be misleading, but if it is interpreted as:
“Those members of a species whose characteristics allow them to survive and breed in the greatest number, will survive and breed in the greatest number”
it is undeniably true simply because it is a tautology, but it also makes clear why evolution inevitably will work the way that we observe it does.

What do you lot think?

Should we talk of “survival of the fittest”?
Are tautologies good or bad (or something in between)?

I don’t think ‘survival of the fittest’ is tautology, it’s simply a true statement.
Over.

But if you define “fittest” as “those most likely to survive” it is both true and a tautology, and if you define it some other way it is either still a tautology, or no longer true, or possibly still true but not obviously so without further evidence.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Reading on the electric internet this morning that real scientists working on evolution theory don’t talk about “survival of the fittest” these days, because it can be misleading, and even if interpreted correctly, it is just a tautology.

I agree it can be misleading, but if it is interpreted as:
“Those members of a species whose characteristics allow them to survive and breed in the greatest number, will survive and breed in the greatest number”
it is undeniably true simply because it is a tautology, but it also makes clear why evolution inevitably will work the way that we observe it does.

What do you lot think?

Should we talk of “survival of the fittest”?
Are tautologies good or bad (or something in between)?

Well, in a way, it’s almost the opposite – the non-survival of the least fit, until breeding age.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Reading on the electric internet this morning that real scientists working on evolution theory don’t talk about “survival of the fittest” these days, because it can be misleading, and even if interpreted correctly, it is just a tautology.

I agree it can be misleading, but if it is interpreted as:
“Those members of a species whose characteristics allow them to survive and breed in the greatest number, will survive and breed in the greatest number”
it is undeniably true simply because it is a tautology, but it also makes clear why evolution inevitably will work the way that we observe it does.

What do you lot think?

Should we talk of “survival of the fittest”?
Are tautologies good or bad (or something in between)?

I mean it’s not something I say because it sounds old fashioned.

But tautologies are usually not helpful. The key news is: that there exists a mechanism by which traits are inherited, and this over the long term tends to reinforce the traits of the individuals who survived to reproduce successfully in the particular circumstances of that group.
No tautology necessary.

Michael V said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Reading on the electric internet this morning that real scientists working on evolution theory don’t talk about “survival of the fittest” these days, because it can be misleading, and even if interpreted correctly, it is just a tautology.

I agree it can be misleading, but if it is interpreted as:
“Those members of a species whose characteristics allow them to survive and breed in the greatest number, will survive and breed in the greatest number”
it is undeniably true simply because it is a tautology, but it also makes clear why evolution inevitably will work the way that we observe it does.

What do you lot think?

Should we talk of “survival of the fittest”?
Are tautologies good or bad (or something in between)?

Well, in a way, it’s almost the opposite – the non-survival of the least fit, until breeding age.

That’s another way of saying the same thing, isn’t it?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Michael V said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Reading on the electric internet this morning that real scientists working on evolution theory don’t talk about “survival of the fittest” these days, because it can be misleading, and even if interpreted correctly, it is just a tautology.

I agree it can be misleading, but if it is interpreted as:
“Those members of a species whose characteristics allow them to survive and breed in the greatest number, will survive and breed in the greatest number”
it is undeniably true simply because it is a tautology, but it also makes clear why evolution inevitably will work the way that we observe it does.

What do you lot think?

Should we talk of “survival of the fittest”?
Are tautologies good or bad (or something in between)?

Well, in a way, it’s almost the opposite – the non-survival of the least fit, until breeding age.

That’s another way of saying the same thing, isn’t it?

Not at all.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Reading on the electric internet this morning that real scientists working on evolution theory don’t talk about “survival of the fittest” these days, because it can be misleading, and even if interpreted correctly, it is just a tautology.

I agree it can be misleading, but if it is interpreted as:
“Those members of a species whose characteristics allow them to survive and breed in the greatest number, will survive and breed in the greatest number”
it is undeniably true simply because it is a tautology, but it also makes clear why evolution inevitably will work the way that we observe it does.

What do you lot think?

Should we talk of “survival of the fittest”?
Are tautologies good or bad (or something in between)?

I mean it’s not something I say because it sounds old fashioned.

But tautologies are usually not helpful. The key news is: that there exists a mechanism by which traits are inherited, and this over the long term tends to reinforce the traits of the individuals who survived to reproduce successfully in the particular circumstances of that group.
No tautology necessary.

I disagree.

If some mechanism can be described in a tautological way then that description must be necessarily true.

I mean your key news says the same thing as my tautological statement.

So how is the tautology not helpful?

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Reading on the electric internet this morning that real scientists working on evolution theory don’t talk about “survival of the fittest” these days, because it can be misleading, and even if interpreted correctly, it is just a tautology.

I agree it can be misleading, but if it is interpreted as:
“Those members of a species whose characteristics allow them to survive and breed in the greatest number, will survive and breed in the greatest number”
it is undeniably true simply because it is a tautology, but it also makes clear why evolution inevitably will work the way that we observe it does.

What do you lot think?

Should we talk of “survival of the fittest”?
Are tautologies good or bad (or something in between)?

I mean it’s not something I say because it sounds old fashioned.

But tautologies are usually not helpful. The key news is: that there exists a mechanism by which traits are inherited, and this over the long term tends to reinforce the traits of the individuals who survived to reproduce successfully in the particular circumstances of that group.
No tautology necessary.

But many more words to say the same thing.

Michael V said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Michael V said:

Well, in a way, it’s almost the opposite – the non-survival of the least fit, until breeding age.

That’s another way of saying the same thing, isn’t it?

Not at all.

How so?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Reading on the electric internet this morning that real scientists working on evolution theory don’t talk about “survival of the fittest” these days, because it can be misleading, and even if interpreted correctly, it is just a tautology.

I agree it can be misleading, but if it is interpreted as:
“Those members of a species whose characteristics allow them to survive and breed in the greatest number, will survive and breed in the greatest number”
it is undeniably true simply because it is a tautology, but it also makes clear why evolution inevitably will work the way that we observe it does.

What do you lot think?

Should we talk of “survival of the fittest”?
Are tautologies good or bad (or something in between)?

The public’s definition of “fit” probably differs to the definition of evolutionary scientists.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Reading on the electric internet this morning that real scientists working on evolution theory don’t talk about “survival of the fittest” these days, because it can be misleading, and even if interpreted correctly, it is just a tautology.

I agree it can be misleading, but if it is interpreted as:
“Those members of a species whose characteristics allow them to survive and breed in the greatest number, will survive and breed in the greatest number”
it is undeniably true simply because it is a tautology, but it also makes clear why evolution inevitably will work the way that we observe it does.

What do you lot think?

Should we talk of “survival of the fittest”?
Are tautologies good or bad (or something in between)?

I mean it’s not something I say because it sounds old fashioned.

But tautologies are usually not helpful. The key news is: that there exists a mechanism by which traits are inherited, and this over the long term tends to reinforce the traits of the individuals who survived to reproduce successfully in the particular circumstances of that group.
No tautology necessary.

But can you say that in 4 words?

actually, reminders are useful

Ian said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Reading on the electric internet this morning that real scientists working on evolution theory don’t talk about “survival of the fittest” these days, because it can be misleading, and even if interpreted correctly, it is just a tautology.

I agree it can be misleading, but if it is interpreted as:
“Those members of a species whose characteristics allow them to survive and breed in the greatest number, will survive and breed in the greatest number”
it is undeniably true simply because it is a tautology, but it also makes clear why evolution inevitably will work the way that we observe it does.

What do you lot think?

Should we talk of “survival of the fittest”?
Are tautologies good or bad (or something in between)?

I mean it’s not something I say because it sounds old fashioned.

But tautologies are usually not helpful. The key news is: that there exists a mechanism by which traits are inherited, and this over the long term tends to reinforce the traits of the individuals who survived to reproduce successfully in the particular circumstances of that group.
No tautology necessary.

But can you say that in 4 words?

we can say it in 2 does that count

SCIENCE said:

Ian said:

dv said:

I mean it’s not something I say because it sounds old fashioned.

But tautologies are usually not helpful. The key news is: that there exists a mechanism by which traits are inherited, and this over the long term tends to reinforce the traits of the individuals who survived to reproduce successfully in the particular circumstances of that group.
No tautology necessary.

But can you say that in 4 words?

we can say it in 2 does that count

Which 2?

Ian said:

SCIENCE said:

Ian said:

But can you say that in 4 words?

we can say it in 2 does that count

Which 2?

survivors survive

SCIENCE said:

Ian said:

SCIENCE said:

we can say it in 2 does that count

Which 2?

survivors survive

H mmm

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Reading on the electric internet this morning that real scientists working on evolution theory don’t talk about “survival of the fittest” these days, because it can be misleading, and even if interpreted correctly, it is just a tautology.

I agree it can be misleading, but if it is interpreted as:
“Those members of a species whose characteristics allow them to survive and breed in the greatest number, will survive and breed in the greatest number”
it is undeniably true simply because it is a tautology, but it also makes clear why evolution inevitably will work the way that we observe it does.

What do you lot think?

Should we talk of “survival of the fittest”?
Are tautologies good or bad (or something in between)?

I mean it’s not something I say because it sounds old fashioned.

But tautologies are usually not helpful. The key news is: that there exists a mechanism by which traits are inherited, and this over the long term tends to reinforce the traits of the individuals who survived to reproduce successfully in the particular circumstances of that group.
No tautology necessary.

I disagree.

If some mechanism can be described in a tautological way then that description must be necessarily true.

I mean your key news says the same thing as my tautological statement.

So how is the tautology not helpful?

It’s not the same, though, because I’ve mentioned the most important information: that traits can be inherited. That’s the real piece of news. Without that there’s no evolution. With it, evolution is inevitable, and the implications obvious.

Ian said:

SCIENCE said:

Ian said:

Which 2?

survivors survive

H mmm

They’d hardly be survivors if they didn’t?

lot of is accidents, happened-upon successes of replicators, what is a success though of time, scales and whatever is arguable

are the billions of humans a success if they wiped out half the life one earth eventuating in ecological collapse

roughbarked said:

Ian said:

SCIENCE said:

survivors survive

H mmm

They’d hardly be survivors if they didn’t?

It’s a redundancy.

Greater rate of survival of the better adapted ??

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

I mean it’s not something I say because it sounds old fashioned.

But tautologies are usually not helpful. The key news is: that there exists a mechanism by which traits are inherited, and this over the long term tends to reinforce the traits of the individuals who survived to reproduce successfully in the particular circumstances of that group.
No tautology necessary.

I disagree.

If some mechanism can be described in a tautological way then that description must be necessarily true.

I mean your key news says the same thing as my tautological statement.

So how is the tautology not helpful?

It’s not the same, though, because I’ve mentioned the most important information: that traits can be inherited. That’s the real piece of news. Without that there’s no evolution. With it, evolution is inevitable, and the implications obvious.

right but that’s the point, what seems obvious is only obvious through recognition that tautology is truth

party_pants said:

Greater rate of survival of the better adapted ??

so what we’re saying is that “Survival of the fittest” isn’t a tautology at all, but rather it’s a definition of “fittest”, much like how there’s a high school misconception that “Ohm’s Law” is V = IR when actually it’s the definition of resistance R = V/I and the actual Ohm’s Law is a definition of Ohmic resistors id est I ∝ V for a wide range of conditions

previous to humans conceptualizing biological evolution there existed unconceptualized evolution, today there is a lot of partially conceptualized evolution

since humans conceptualized evolution consider the decline in diversity of species, corresponding with a proliferation of own

SCIENCE said:

party_pants said:

Greater rate of survival of the better adapted ??

so what we’re saying is that “Survival of the fittest” isn’t a tautology at all, but rather it’s a definition of “fittest”, much like how there’s a high school misconception that “Ohm’s Law” is V = IR when actually it’s the definition of resistance R = V/I and the actual Ohm’s Law is a definition of Ohmic resistors id est I ∝ V for a wide range of conditions

no

party_pants said:

SCIENCE said:

party_pants said:

Greater rate of survival of the better adapted ??

so what we’re saying is that “Survival of the fittest” isn’t a tautology at all, but rather it’s a definition of “fittest”, much like how there’s a high school misconception that “Ohm’s Law” is V = IR when actually it’s the definition of resistance R = V/I and the actual Ohm’s Law is a definition of Ohmic resistors id est I ∝ V for a wide range of conditions

no

pops in

Why no?

We might also consider Newton’s first tautology: M = F/a

pops out again

The Rev Dodgson said:

Michael V said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

That’s another way of saying the same thing, isn’t it?

Not at all.

How so?

Fitness is a continuum from fittest to least fit. Moderately fit individuals often survive to breed and pass on their moderately fit genes.

SCIENCE said:

party_pants said:

Greater rate of survival of the better adapted ??

so what we’re saying is that “Survival of the fittest” isn’t a tautology at all, but rather it’s a definition of “fittest”, much like how there’s a high school misconception that “Ohm’s Law” is V = IR when actually it’s the definition of resistance R = V/I and the actual Ohm’s Law is a definition of Ohmic resistors id est I ∝ V for a wide range of conditions

No.

But you’ve reminded me of a high school student I was tutoring some 25 years ago, who was not from an English speaking background.

I said something like, “An operation is commutative if the result doesn’t change when you change the order of the operands.”

She paused for a bit and said, “What means commutative?”

SCIENCE said:

party_pants said:

Greater rate of survival of the better adapted ??

so what we’re saying is that “Survival of the fittest” isn’t a tautology at all, but rather it’s a definition of “fittest”, much like how there’s a high school misconception that “Ohm’s Law” is V = IR when actually it’s the definition of resistance R = V/I and the actual Ohm’s Law is a definition of Ohmic resistors id est I ∝ V for a wide range of conditions

that’s one way of thinking about it, quite useful

Michael V said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Michael V said:

Not at all.

How so?

Fitness is a continuum from fittest to least fit. Moderately fit individuals often survive to breed and pass on their moderately fit genes.

But that’s not contrary to the original statement, it just provides more detail.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Michael V said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

How so?

Fitness is a continuum from fittest to least fit. Moderately fit individuals often survive to breed and pass on their moderately fit genes.

But that’s not contrary to the original statement, it just provides more detail.

Sure. That’s my point.

so much invalid negativity, seriously you consider the two statements

Greater rate of survival of the better adapted

Survival of the fittest

and somehow fail to recognise that they are defining “fittest” and say no

but don’t worry we’re holding our penrosary in reserve for when The Rev Dodgson needs an even better definition of the selection principle

transition said:

SCIENCE said:

party_pants said:

Greater rate of survival of the better adapted ??

so what we’re saying is that “Survival of the fittest” isn’t a tautology at all, but rather it’s a definition of “fittest”, much like how there’s a high school misconception that “Ohm’s Law” is V = IR when actually it’s the definition of resistance R = V/I and the actual Ohm’s Law is a definition of Ohmic resistors id est I ∝ V for a wide range of conditions

that’s one way of thinking about it, quite useful

which goes to the usefulness of ways of conceptualizing, usefulness of a representation, which goes to what of and for what it is applied, it’s purpose

of course usefulness can be argued

Ian said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Reading on the electric internet this morning that real scientists working on evolution theory don’t talk about “survival of the fittest” these days, because it can be misleading, and even if interpreted correctly, it is just a tautology.

I agree it can be misleading, but if it is interpreted as:
“Those members of a species whose characteristics allow them to survive and breed in the greatest number, will survive and breed in the greatest number”
it is undeniably true simply because it is a tautology, but it also makes clear why evolution inevitably will work the way that we observe it does.

What do you lot think?

Should we talk of “survival of the fittest”?
Are tautologies good or bad (or something in between)?

I mean it’s not something I say because it sounds old fashioned.

But tautologies are usually not helpful. The key news is: that there exists a mechanism by which traits are inherited, and this over the long term tends to reinforce the traits of the individuals who survived to reproduce successfully in the particular circumstances of that group.
No tautology necessary.

But can you say that in 4 words?

No, and not everything needs to be extremely brief.

Basically there is an important piece of information, and an obvious corollary.

HEADLINE:
HEREDITARY TRAITS EXIST

subhead:
Obv, this has a tendency to reinforce traits that increase the likelihood of successful reproduction in the local circumstance.

Michael V said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Michael V said:

Fitness is a continuum from fittest to least fit. Moderately fit individuals often survive to breed and pass on their moderately fit genes.

But that’s not contrary to the original statement, it just provides more detail.

Sure. That’s my point.

That’s alright then :)

dv said:

Ian said:

dv said:

I mean it’s not something I say because it sounds old fashioned.

But tautologies are usually not helpful. The key news is: that there exists a mechanism by which traits are inherited, and this over the long term tends to reinforce the traits of the individuals who survived to reproduce successfully in the particular circumstances of that group.
No tautology necessary.

But can you say that in 4 words?

No, and not everything needs to be extremely brief.

Basically there is an important piece of information, and an obvious corollary.

HEADLINE:
HEREDITARY TRAITS EXIST

subhead:
Obv, this has a tendency to reinforce traits that increase the likelihood of successful reproduction in the local circumstance.

:)

To give a parallel example, consider solubility.

We could use the tautology “more soluble compounds have a greater tendency to go into solution”.
But it’s dumb, and we don’t have to do that.
It’s more informative to say “intermolecular forces control the solubility of a compound.”

dv said:

To give a parallel example, consider solubility.

We could use the tautology “more soluble compounds have a greater tendency to go into solution”.
But it’s dumb, and we don’t have to do that.
It’s more informative to say “intermolecular forces control the solubility of a compound.”

It’s dumb to define soluble¿

SCIENCE said:

dv said:

To give a parallel example, consider solubility.

We could use the tautology “more soluble compounds have a greater tendency to go into solution”.
But it’s dumb, and we don’t have to do that.
It’s more informative to say “intermolecular forces control the solubility of a compound.”

It’s dumb to define soluble¿

dv said:

SCIENCE said:

dv said:

To give a parallel example, consider solubility.

We could use the tautology “more soluble compounds have a greater tendency to go into solution”.
But it’s dumb, and we don’t have to do that.
It’s more informative to say “intermolecular forces control the solubility of a compound.”

It’s dumb to define soluble¿

We mean sure, one could sit on a wall and be confident that when they use a word it means just what they choose it to mean, neither more nor less.

But since words have meaning, and meanings can be defined, then it would seem that the opposite of the claim is true, id est, it’s dumb to not do that.

> Should we talk of “survival of the fittest”?

Too easy to misinterpret. But what would you replace it with?
I have yet to hear a better cliche.

mollwollfumble said:

> Should we talk of “survival of the fittest”?

Too easy to misinterpret. But what would you replace it with?
I have yet to hear a better cliche.

I’d go for survival of the survivors.

(And insert something about breeding in there if you are allowed a few more words).

mollwollfumble said:

> Should we talk of “survival of the fittest”?

Too easy to misinterpret. But what would you replace it with?
I have yet to hear a better cliche.

Planned evolution?

mollwollfumble said:

> Should we talk of “survival of the fittest”?

Too easy to misinterpret. But what would you replace it with?
I have yet to hear a better cliche.

Survival of the suitable.

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

> Should we talk of “survival of the fittest”?

Too easy to misinterpret. But what would you replace it with?
I have yet to hear a better cliche.

I’d go for survival of the survivors.

(And insert something about breeding in there if you are allowed a few more words).

~I’d go for improved survival of the survivors. Possibly.

Dark Orange said:

mollwollfumble said:

> Should we talk of “survival of the fittest”?

Too easy to misinterpret. But what would you replace it with?
I have yet to hear a better cliche.

Survival of the suitable.

OK. I’ll pay that.

I had thought of and discarded all of the following.
Survival of the …

strongest
luckiest (which is the closest to correct)
most fertile
most devious
meek (the meek shall inherit the earth)
bullies
most diverse
smallest (eg. extinction of the dinosaurs and megafauna)
least intelligent
bravest (fortune favours the bold)
opportunists
most heavily armed
least depressed
non-addicts
honest
healthiest
sane
farmers
most patient
most adaptable
those who see a good survival strategy and stick with it
livestock (far more livestock and useful plants than wild ones)
camouflaged

Survival of the fittest is to easy to misunderstand depending on your understanding of ‘fittest’. However those most likely to survive are those best adapted to their environment.

mollwollfumble said:

> Should we talk of “survival of the fittest”?

Too easy to misinterpret. But what would you replace it with?
I have yet to hear a better cliche.

So don’t use a cliche.

survival of the fittest sort of takes your attention away from the amount of death required to make whatever work, organic life is a bit of death machine really

there ya go, some cheer

transition said:

survival of the fittest sort of takes your attention away from the amount of death required to make whatever work, organic life is a bit of death machine really

there ya go, some cheer

What goes around comes around.

roughbarked said:

transition said:

survival of the fittest sort of takes your attention away from the amount of death required to make whatever work, organic life is a bit of death machine really

there ya go, some cheer

What goes around comes around.

thing about the better adapted organisms that proliferate, inevitably more of them die

so fitter could mean more of die , or more death

more cheer

transition said:

roughbarked said:

transition said:

survival of the fittest sort of takes your attention away from the amount of death required to make whatever work, organic life is a bit of death machine really

there ya go, some cheer

What goes around comes around.

thing about the better adapted organisms that proliferate, inevitably more of them die

so fitter could mean more of die , or more death

more cheer

You’re a cheerful chap.

roughbarked said:

transition said:

roughbarked said:

What goes around comes around.

thing about the better adapted organisms that proliferate, inevitably more of them die

so fitter could mean more of die , or more death

more cheer

You’re a cheerful chap.

:) I am

“reproductive success of the best adapted”

transition said:

roughbarked said:

transition said:

survival of the fittest sort of takes your attention away from the amount of death required to make whatever work, organic life is a bit of death machine really

there ya go, some cheer

What goes around comes around.

thing about the better adapted organisms that proliferate, inevitably more of them die

so fitter could mean more of die , or more death

more cheer

Unfortunately as things stand, one can’t live without dying at some stage.

We really ought to be looking for more workarounds for that situation.

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

roughbarked said:

What goes around comes around.

thing about the better adapted organisms that proliferate, inevitably more of them die

so fitter could mean more of die , or more death

more cheer

Unfortunately as things stand, one can’t live without dying at some stage.

We really ought to be looking for more workarounds for that situation.

A medicinal compound?

Peak Warming Man said:

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

thing about the better adapted organisms that proliferate, inevitably more of them die

so fitter could mean more of die , or more death

more cheer

Unfortunately as things stand, one can’t live without dying at some stage.

We really ought to be looking for more workarounds for that situation.

A medicinal compound?

Brains in jars is probably the way to go, as a stop-gap measure.

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

roughbarked said:

What goes around comes around.

thing about the better adapted organisms that proliferate, inevitably more of them die

so fitter could mean more of die , or more death

more cheer

Unfortunately as things stand, one can’t live without dying at some stage.

We really ought to be looking for more workarounds for that situation.

dear God i’m tired already, you must be entertaining some notion of never being tired

party_pants said:

“reproductive success of the best adapted”

Difficult when: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-02/lord-howe-island-seabird-shearwater-ingestic-plastic-deaths/101199662

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-02/high-heavy-metal-levels-found-bird-feathers-coal-fired-power-nsw/101012020

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

thing about the better adapted organisms that proliferate, inevitably more of them die

so fitter could mean more of die , or more death

more cheer

Unfortunately as things stand, one can’t live without dying at some stage.

We really ought to be looking for more workarounds for that situation.

dear God i’m tired already, you must be entertaining some notion of never being tired

It’s people of the future I’m thinking of. Me, I’m likely to die of sorrow eventually.

Peak Warming Man said:

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

thing about the better adapted organisms that proliferate, inevitably more of them die

so fitter could mean more of die , or more death

more cheer

Unfortunately as things stand, one can’t live without dying at some stage.

We really ought to be looking for more workarounds for that situation.

A medicinal compound?

Lily would be in the pink.

Peak Warming Man said:

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

thing about the better adapted organisms that proliferate, inevitably more of them die

so fitter could mean more of die , or more death

more cheer

Unfortunately as things stand, one can’t live without dying at some stage.

We really ought to be looking for more workarounds for that situation.

A medicinal compound?

Just ask Lily The Pink.

Michael V said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Bubblecar said:

Unfortunately as things stand, one can’t live without dying at some stage.

We really ought to be looking for more workarounds for that situation.

A medicinal compound?

Just ask Lily The Pink.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lydia_Pinkham

It was probably the alcohol that made it.

buffy said:

Michael V said:

Peak Warming Man said:

A medicinal compound?

Just ask Lily The Pink.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lydia_Pinkham

It was probably the alcohol that made it.

Thanks for that. I just thought it was a sixties English drinking song.

Michael V said:

buffy said:

Michael V said:

Just ask Lily The Pink.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lydia_Pinkham

It was probably the alcohol that made it.

Thanks for that. I just thought it was a sixties English drinking song.

It’s actually quite an interesting story.

:)

buffy said:

Michael V said:

buffy said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lydia_Pinkham

It was probably the alcohol that made it.

Thanks for that. I just thought it was a sixties English drinking song.

It’s actually quite an interesting story.

:)

And I learned a new word, vulnerary

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

roughbarked said:

What goes around comes around.

thing about the better adapted organisms that proliferate, inevitably more of them die

so fitter could mean more of die , or more death

more cheer

Unfortunately as things stand, one can’t live without dying at some stage.

We really ought to be looking for more workarounds for that situation.

one comma don’t get COVID-19

two comma don’t get COVID-19

three comma don’t get COVID-19

buffy said:

Michael V said:

buffy said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lydia_Pinkham

It was probably the alcohol that made it.

Thanks for that. I just thought it was a sixties English drinking song.

It’s actually quite an interesting story.

:)

Yes.

:)