[bumby]

>Even risks that appear to have negligible or even zero fitness value, like extreme sports, have netted many people valuable sponsorships or YouTube fame and fortune.

You do realize you contradict yourself here, right?

You’ve essentially said “This activity that amasses stays and resources has negligible fitness value.”

That only makes sense if you think status and resources don’t impact fitness/survivability. You might be confusing inherent value with signaling value. Driving a Ferrari doesn’t give me any additional inherent fitness. But it does serve as a potential signal for status, which can confer added fitness in practice. Signals can be wrong, of course, while still giving an advantage.

[naasking]

> You do realize you contradict yourself here, right?

I'm pointing out your contradiction, because extreme sports are exactly the same kind of behaviour which is the subject of this article, and that you classified as negligible or zero value before it exploded in popularity.

The point being that a wide latitude of risk seeking behaviour allows people to find new and unexpected success modes, even if they at first appear to convey little benefit and incur considerable risk.

[bumby]

So your point is that the v types of behavior displayed by Darwin Awards have the potential to be widely remunerated by society one day? So, things like pointing a gun at your head and pulling the trigger to prove that it’s loaded? I guess I’m not quite as cynical about society and classify those as not just differences in degree, but also differences in type.