So I was reading my textbook.

[Nestling]

To be the best in the wild, an organism must be a reproducer, not a survivor

Which pretty much means being a whore >>>> playing it safe.

[Fayt Zelpher]

To be the best in the wild, an organism must be a reproducer, not a survivor

Which pretty much means being a whore >>>> playing it safe.

Not EXACTLY true though... The thing is, not only must one be able to procreate, but one must also assure the survival of as many descendants as possible. As such, there is a delicate balance between investing few resources into a large number of children or devoting more resources to each child, increasing the chances of each of them surviving to be able to reproduce. So some species will benefit more from having fewer children and concentrating on their survival.

Or of course, I could be wrong... :)

But I doubt it... I've taken a couple of classes in biology... :)

Oh well, I guess your conclusion makes sense.

[Inactive Account]

Until you reach the point where there are so many members of your species that you don't really need to worry about survival of the species. And when you reach the point where it's hard to feed all the members of your species, you've sort of screwed yourself over.

...Yes, that was an incredibly lame pun.

[Fayt Zelpher]

Until you reach the point where there are so many members of your species that you don't really need to worry about survival of the species. And when you reach the point where it's hard to feed all the members of your species, you've sort of screwed yourself over.

...Yes, that was an incredibly lame pun.

Yep, you're ****ed when that happens. In more way than one, or so it seems. But yeah, at this point, humanity probably has a better chance of long-term survival if we severely cut back on the amount of reproduction that takes place... Resource issues and wars and the like... :(