Slashdot Mirror
New Research Suggests Evolution Might Favor 'Survival of the Laziest' (phys.org)
Zorro shares a report from Phys.org: If you've got an unemployed, 30-year-old adult child still living in the basement, fear not. A new large-data study of fossil and extant bivalves and gastropods in the Atlantic Ocean suggests laziness might be a fruitful strategy for survival of individuals, species and even communities of species. The results have just been published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B by a research team based at the University of Kansas. Looking at a period of roughly 5 million years from the mid-Pliocene to the present, the researchers analyzed 299 species' metabolic rates -- or, the amount of energy the organisms need to live their daily lives -- and found higher metabolic rates were a reliable predictor of extinction likelihood. "We wondered, 'Could you look at the probability of extinction of a species based on energy uptake by an organism?'" said Luke Strotz, postdoctoral researcher at KU's Biodiversity Institute and Natural History Museum and lead author of the paper. "We found a difference for mollusk species that have gone extinct over the past 5 million years and ones that are still around today. Those that have gone extinct tend to have higher metabolic rates than those that are still living. Those that have lower energy maintenance requirements seem more likely to survive than those organisms with higher metabolic rates."
Strotz' co-author Bruce Lieberman added: "Maybe in the long term the best evolutionary strategy for animals is to be lassitudinous and sluggish -- the lower the metabolic rate, the more likely the species you belong to will survive. Instead of 'survival of the fittest,' maybe a better metaphor for the history of life is 'survival of the laziest' or at least 'survival of the sluggish.'"
Strotz' co-author Bruce Lieberman added: "Maybe in the long term the best evolutionary strategy for animals is to be lassitudinous and sluggish -- the lower the metabolic rate, the more likely the species you belong to will survive. Instead of 'survival of the fittest,' maybe a better metaphor for the history of life is 'survival of the laziest' or at least 'survival of the sluggish.'"
It's not "instead of fittest". Sluggishness might be the best adaptation to an environment, so it could literally be what is meant by "survival of the fittest" in that environment. "Fittest" does not mean the most jacked.
So now we are associating lower metabolic rates with laziness in a species? fucking really? adapting to your environment with a lower metabolism is the very fucking definition of "survival of the fittest", perhaps the writers of this article need to actually understand what that means.
I believe it was the philosopher Epicurus who said, "The early bird may get the worm; but the second mouse gets the cheese."
This space unintentionally left blank.
The early bird catches the worm, but the early worm gets eaten.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
fit (adj.)
"suited to the circumstances, proper,"
Word "Fit" is experiencing a semantic drift to mean something like "athletic" in common vernacular.
Yep. Those panda guys are real go-getters. No-wonder so many of them burn out. Live fast, die young, eh?
Actually the real issue is a bit more complex than some comments suggest. Anyone who has owned a greyhound will tell you how little exercise they need. 10 minutes of going bonkers a day is fine. Cheetahs can run fast but will do nothing for hours if the don't need to. If you can go into low power mode, then you don't have to go hunting as often, with all the risks,
It's been told here before, but it seems Idiocracy might have been more than just a movie!
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/
I think the jump to reduced energy consumption to laziness is kinda a big step.
Warmblooded and larger brains, take a lot of energy. Energy uses resources, used resources become scarce. scarce resources = starvation.
However being warmblooded we can adapt to different climates which allow us to move away from areas of scarce resources. A larger brain power allows us to better utilize the resources we have.
However I think we as humans seemed to be crossing a point where we are using too much energy to survive, then the world can manage. The Lazy person with little is less of an impact then someone with a lot of resources, who may be using more then they need.
Lets just say your job requires you to travel around the world just for a 2 hour conversation with someone that you could had just as easily done via Skype. You have used resources which could had fed hundreds of people for days, just to give a 5% better chance on getting that deal, for you to raise you salary even further above what is needed to live.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
So this is a quibble over the definition of "fit" and whether it means physically fit or more generally fit? Fine. We'll call it survival-of-the-most-able-to-reach-reproducing-age-in-good-health-and-pass-on-genes. Or SOTMATRRAIGHAPOG, for those who like acronyms. That rolls off the tongue much better.
This is pretty much the norm for many so called science correspondents. The /. summary and the article misrepresent the paper it pretty much impossible to know where to start.
Evolution is not Anthropomorphic.
Bio efficiency is well documented element of natural selection.