there you are. pretty much too tired now, but i wanted to answer your posts from yesterday.  first of all - at least you gave some argumentation, that's a step in right direction. > nature nurture not with definite threshold  nurture might not be, but nature is. there either is a mutation or there isn't. and the mutation either is beneficial (at least in some way to the organism) or it is not (and will likely die out) in other words - you can't be "a bit pregnant" now as to the "resilience gene", let's face it - it's your conjecture. i mean, fuck, what would that gene even fucking do? resilience to what? it is so indeterminate that it makes my head spin from just thinking about what the fuck you imagined while typing that. and finally - back to genetics vs other reasons for the calhoun's sink - bacteria example doesn't fit and in fact fucks up your resilience push (in calhoun's sink case at least, otherwise i agree, it is an important thing to bear in mind) - the mice utopia just keeled over without "antibiotics". and if you come at me with "overpopulation/lack of roles/behavioural/psychological issues are "antibiotics" in this case", i'll clobber you! it is not genetic. i would believe it is genetic only if extremely comprehensive study with multiple variations of the experiment were to be conducted and the gene in question actually to be named. now, what i don't understand is why calhoun didn't variate his experiment with > transfer final survivors into new utopia, see results or lack thereof > just before society hits the sink, open up new utopia connected to the old, see results > just after society hits the sink, open up new habitat connected to the old, see results > etc etc etc, i could think of at least five if not more other scenarios to play out and make the theory either crumble or become iron clad
Lithuania