|
|
|
|
|
by chefkd
764 days ago
|
|
even if resources were highly limited it seems intuitive that the evolution algorithm would prioritize acquiring knowledge for efficient resource gathering over killing long term wouldn't it? Let's say cave person a figured out how to dig a well cave person b not so much. cave person b kills cave person a to get the well and uses it for x years then dies because they didn't acquire the knowledge to dig another one. so cave person c will be like "protec well digger hooman". same for foraging let's say cave person a killed cave person b who was extremely good at remembering where trees are in a given area sure cave person a got a meal for today but is gonna die out unless they develop the skills cave person a had sorry I'm a homeless dropout maybe I'm missing something super obvious I'm still not seeing the how killing leads to an optimum solution. Maybe a local maxima for sure but not the most optimal solution in the search space and as civilized as humans have become killing still persists I've seen some brutal stuff by some insanely rich folk (at least to me) that had absolutely nothing to do with resources so maybe that's coloring my viewpoint but idk even for inter species stuff some species have been hunted to extinction which is like a dairy farmer killing everything instead of planning for multiple generations it doesn't make any sense |
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_cycle
Weirdly, Olaus Magnus (Big Olaf) was involved in this one as well, the same person who did the map in the article.