jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (10 posts)

Can this be true..the ones who survive (and thrive) are "those most responsive t

  1. pstraubie48 profile image87
    pstraubie48posted 5 years ago

    Can this be true..the ones who survive (and thrive) are "those most responsive to change" ?

    Mr. Darwin, Charles to his friends, thought this to be so...He said it was not the strongest nor the most intelligent but the ones who were 'most responsvie to change' who would survive and  and I would add, thrive.. He died in 1882 so these words were said some time before that. Do they still hold true today? Do you think they were ever true??

    https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/7575999_f260.jpg

  2. dailytop10 profile image91
    dailytop10posted 5 years ago

    I believe that phrase is and will always be true. Nothing is constant other than change. Those who fail the cope with the change and somehow improve themselves will be in a very big disadvantage.

  3. lburmaster profile image83
    lburmasterposted 5 years ago

    I do agree with that. If you are not flexible to the world around you, you will snap.

  4. Thomas Swan profile image96
    Thomas Swanposted 5 years ago

    Yes, in other words, the species that don't adapt to changing environments will die out. It's the definition of natural selection.

  5. colpolbear profile image96
    colpolbearposted 5 years ago

    Surely, you cannot fully take intelligence and strength from the equation.  It takes a culmination of these traits, and others, to determine who will survive and thrive.  That being said, if I had to choose between the three, the ability to change would be most advantageous.

    Not only does it allow for one to adapt to his environment, but it also allows for said person to develop as a person.  As soon as we lose that trait, how do we improve?  In other words, if a person is not strong or intelligent now, at least the ability to change would allow the person to work towards that goal if the environment demanded it.

    1. Thomas Swan profile image96
      Thomas Swanposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Good point. You could say that foxes are stronger and more intelligent than rabbits, but rabbits adapted by increasing their rate of reproduction. All strength and intelligence comes from adaptive change too. It's all secondary.

    2. colpolbear profile image96
      colpolbearposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I also want to point out the pure metaphysical use of those words: strength, intelligence and adaptability.  In many cases, it is difficult to even make a distinction between them.  Can one not adapt using intelligence and strength?

    3. Tusitala Tom profile image62
      Tusitala Tomposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Thomas Swan hits 'the nail on the head.'   Darwin would have been referring to ALL species.   Today that would include bacteria and viruses and all manner of organisms not known in his day.   I like the rabbits and foxes observation.

    4. colpolbear profile image96
      colpolbearposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I just cannot fully separate these things, though.  There is too much overlap.  For instance, if the rabbits had not been strong and intelligent enough to withhold the foxes during the original rabbit purges, they would not have been able to change.

  6. profile image0
    Old Empresarioposted 5 years ago

    Yes; people who thrive in this world are good planners and people who make their own luck by preparing for tough times.

 
working