My prize is in seeing.
Let’s bring it back to the domain of human experience. How much would you say adaptation is required of humans in their daily lives?
I would say a low amount in general as there is a lot of routine that doesn’t deviate outside a range. But then I think a lot of unexpected things can happen.
Daily? Maybe not a lot depending on what their job is.
It’s usually the big life altering events that cause the most adaption, I think. Though I am constantly adapting my daily habits to get more done and more efficiently.
Why is this so? Is it because of that threshold I described where humanity has adapted to the point of flooding its environment with its own traits?
Yes. What is our status in having achieved this condition? Are we perfectly in touch with reality?
We are masters and abusers of the environment. It no longer controls us. We control it and each other until a huge storm hits.
I’d say we’re removed from reality. Even the weather can be something we don’t have to notice much.
In our houses, yes. I barely know what the weather is outside.
We are approaching that end of the world day. Maybe it will just be a shift in our environment that we will be better for having experienced. It will test our adaptation skills.
I would say we have just succeeded in carving a big wound of an environmental niche, but if we have created such a wound, what is it that has been wounded?
The relationship? Adaptation requires a point by point reference or relationship between the organism and the environment. Do we have that?
No. We used to be good at it but I think we have gotten lazy.
Does this state of adaptation reflect being optimally in touch with reality? I mean the state I describe as optimal rather than the human state. Would there be any way to be more in touch with reality than that? When the traits of the living being mirror the traits of the environment on a point by point basis, could we be more in touch with reality than that?
No. It’s the same with any relationship. You have to be in sync or you drift apart, lose touch. If we haven’t achieved this what have we achieved?
Disconnection. I’m always a bit uncomfortable as people talk about humanity’s future being in outer space for example, like they have already finished the disconnect with earth.
Perhaps some definition would be helpful.
A form of symbiosis in which one organism (called parasite) benefits at the expense of another organism usually of different species (called host). The association may also lead to the injury of the host.
An association between organisms of two different species in which each member benefits.
Which of these states would seem to be the most well adapted, parasitism or mutualism? Perhaps this is where the question of evolution comes in.
Mutualism doesn’t put either side in unbalance? Parasites can take more than the host can safely give? Yes and do. This is why viruses kill us. If we see evolution as the maximum potential to reach optimal self-expression, that would require the greatest degree of integrity possible.
If we are functioning in a parasitic fashion, then one side of the equation remains open ended. As things become negative for our source of support, they become negative for us as well, breaking the flow of our self-expressive potential.
More natural disasters. Earth becoming too hot. But if our own behavior were such that our activities contributed mutually to the well-being of the planet as a whole, what impact would that have on our ultimate potential?
It would expand exponentially. Strengthen the planet, strengthen ourselves, and that forms a complete and potentially self-repairing cycle. Where is the resilience in parasitism?
Mutation, aka adaptation? That would be apparently so. Have there been no cases of environmental exhaustion though? Yes, viruses can migrate from one species to another, but what happens when they have gone through every host?
They die out. Is that successful resilience? No.
Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.