It defines risk as: Exposure to the possibility of loss, injury, or other adverse or unwelcome circumstance; a chance or situation involving such a possibility. This definition, using project terminology, is easily made universal by removing references to projects. The possibility that an actual return on an investment will be lower than the expected return.
Max Gerber] I am often asked whether I agree with the new group selectionists, and the questioners are always surprised when I say I do not. After all, group selection sounds like a reasonable extension of evolutionary theory and a plausible explanation of the social nature of humans.
Also, the group selectionists tend to declare victory, and write as if their theory has already superseded a narrow, reductionist dogma that selection acts only at the level of genes. The more carefully you think about group selection, the less sense it makes, and the more poorly it fits the facts of human psychology and history.
The problem is that it also obfuscates evolutionary theory by blurring genes, individuals, and groups as equivalent levels in Medical mischief essay hierarchy of selectional units; Most importantly, it has placed blinkers on psychological understanding by seducing many people into simply equating morality and culture with group selection, oblivious to alternatives that are theoretically deeper and empirically more realistic.
Does this mean that the human brain has been shaped by natural selection to promote the welfare of the group in competition with other groups, even when it damages the welfare of the person and his or her kin?
If so, does the theory of natural selection have to be revamped to designate "groups" as units of selection, analogous to the role played in the theory by genes?
Several scientists whom I greatly respect have said so in prominent places.
And they have gone on to use the theory of group selection to make eye-opening claims about the human condition. Wilson explains, "In a group, selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals.
But, groups of altruistic individuals beat groups of selfish individuals. They suggest that evolution has equipped humans to solve tragedies of the commons also known as collective action dilemmas and public goods gamesin which actions that benefit the individual may harm the community; familiar examples include overfishing, highway congestion, tax evasion, and carbon emissions.
And they have drawn normative moral and political conclusions from these scientific beliefs, such as that we should recognize the wisdom behind conservative values, like religiosity, patriotism, and puritanism, and that we should valorize a communitarian loyalty and sacrifice for the good of the group over an every-man-for-himself individualism.
I am often asked whether I agree with the new group selectionists, and the questioners are always surprised when I say I do not. Why does this matter? The first big problem with group selection is that the term itself sows so much confusion. People invoke it to refer to many distinct phenomena, so casual users may literally not know what they are talking about.
I have seen "group selection" used as a loose synonym for the evolution of organisms that live in groups, and for any competition among groups, such as human warfare.
Sometimes the term is needlessly used to refer to an individual trait that happens to be shared by the members of a group; as the evolutionary biologist George Williams noted,"a fleet herd of deer" is really just a herd of fleet deer.
And sometimes the term is used as a way of redescribing the conventional gene-level theory of natural selection in different words: For this reason, the theory is often called "multilevel selection" rather than "group selection.
No one denies that such faculties exist. Group selection as an explanation of the traits of groups. The core of natural selection is that when replicators arise and make copies of themselves, 1 their numbers will tend, under ideal conditions, to increase exponentially; 2 they will necessarily compete for finite resources; 3 some will undergo random copying errors "random" in the sense that they do not anticipate their effects in the current environment ; and 4 whichever copying errors happen to increase the rate of replication will accumulate in a lineage and predominate in the population.
After many generations of replication, the replicators will show the appearance of design for effective replication, while in reality they have just accumulated the copying errors that had successful replication as their effect. The copying errors mutations are random more accurately, blind to their effects.Swaddling is an age-old practice of wrapping infants in blankets or similar cloths so that movement of the limbs is tightly restricted.
Swaddling bands were often used to further restrict the infant. Swaddling fell out of favor in the 17th century.
Some authors are of the opinion that swaddling is becoming popular again, although medical and psychological opinion on the effects of swaddling is.
Powerful Essays words ( pages) Alistair MacLeod's No Great Mischief Essay - The search for and importance of family and identity of the Calum Ruadh clan in Alistair MacLeod's No Great Mischief is significant to the concept of blood being thicker than water.
Short story essay for lamb to the slaughter, my contribution to better society essays narrative essay literary term art of the essay essay about christianity religion vzw kriterium beispiel essay platelet function essay was ist gerechtigkeit essay, lost highway lynch analysis essay report essay about vandalism and malicious mischief bengali.
Online Library of Liberty. A collection of scholarly works about individual liberty and free markets. A project of Liberty Fund, Inc. Also, “it starts to look like me and the feminists” should be “looks like I”. And “untitled” doesn’t really make sense.
And if biology is a hard science, it’s on the extreme soft edge of hard sciences.
The mischief rule of statutory interpretation is the oldest of the rules. The mischief rule was established in Heydon’s Case. In Re Sussex Peerage, it was held that the mischief rule should only be applied where there is ambiguity in the statute.