 |
 |
It is worth looking at niche construction theory in this regard. Organisms affect their environment (by say eating grass) and in doing so affect the whole ecological niche. The outcome of evolution however is to establish some kind of balance between populations so that they don’t over consume. Too many herbivores for the grass will attract carnivorous predators who by controlling the herbivore population allow the grass to survive. In a resilient / sustainable ecology these populations may cycle, but they will not go out of balance completely. Alan > On 9 Jul 2018, at 17:31, Stephen Guerin <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Hello Edmund, > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 9:53 AM Edmund Chattoe-Brown <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Am I unintentionally making stupid assumptions in evolutionary terms to get this outcome? What, in biological evolution, stops the quest for individual reproductive success from destroying the environment? Can this model only work if we assume that there is no total denudation? (Some other species of grass or food will always come along or it is really not possible to "forage the environment to death?") > > > What if you considered "evolutionary" models that are more bi-directional where the "food" is also actively seeking the "individual" and in fact the exact reverse chemical process. Reproductive success would be in both the "food" and the "individual" as coupled metabolic cycles. Some current "metabolism first" ideas in origin of life (Morowitz and Smith, Kauffman, England, etc ) define life in the full dissipative energy channel and not restricted to a property of an isolated individual. As an example: > > <image.png> > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from the SIMSOC list, click the following link: > https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=SIMSOC&A=1 > ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the SIMSOC list, click the following link: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=SIMSOC&A=1