What political ideology are you and why?

[Weeping Sore]

Lazarova,

You should read Daniel Abraham's series "the Dagger and the Coin". It explores what could be done if humans were bred the way Human's have bred dogs.

Thanks for the recommendation. I also remembered GRRM was suggesting this with the various slave troops gathering in ADwD.

@larry - You're out of your element!

[sologdin]

Where have all the Eugenicists gone, btw? For all the talk of "diversity", we're missing out on the opportunity to be truly diverse as a species, with variation as extreme as that between Mastifs, Greyhounds and teacup Poodles.

negative eugenics (buck v. bell stuff in the US, NSDAP doctrine, &c.) is probably irredeemably discredited. galtonian ('positive') eugenics is selective breeding for humans, and likely will survive in the inchoate designer fetus industry.

[Castel]

Where have all the Eugenicists gone, btw? For all the talk of "diversity", we're missing out on the opportunity to be truly diverse as a species, with variation as extreme as that between Mastifs, Greyhounds and teacup Poodles.

We call them transhumanists now.

[sologdin]

call them transhumanists now

or inchoroi.

yaknow, it makes perfect sense, especially considering that NRx greasers end up talking at times about 'transhumanism,' which is kinda the oddball interest for them, in the context of their preference to turn the clock back to the visigoth armed migration.

[Weeping Sore]

Does transhumanism include having a built-in machine-gun arm, because then you'd have an interesting confluence of 2nd amendment rights and cyborg identity politics.

[Shadow Queen Medea]

For example, if I were asked to pick one group that currently is gaining great strength I'd start looking at Arabs. They are highly reproductive, some sub-sects out producing Anglo-Saxon Christians(Catholics), or 'American' Mormons (Later day Saints). They have a religion that focus on core culture, ready to face challenges to their societies world wide, eliminating competition on potential threats to their continued growth. Also India/China have potential, though China's one child law set them back quite a bit.

There are two counters to this statement. One is that religious extremism can be viewed either as a strength or a weakness. We've seen religious extremism lead to very strong societies militarily in the Middle ages through Roman Catholicism, but we've also seen religion stifle cultural advancement and intellectualism. It's counter science. What the extremists who are controlling much of the Middle East are doing right now is weakening their culture. From the standpoint of evolution, they are simply breeding more mindless sheep that lack the will to fight back against a tyrannical system that is more about believing in something that isn't there, rather than things we can prove and improve upon. That makes for stupid people in the long run...therefore, weak.

My second counter argument is that while many may think the one child law is barbaric, and it certainly is in certain aspects, what is the alternative in a culture that has a history of bearing little responsibility when it comes to population control? I'm not saying that the whole world needs a one child law. What I'm saying is that overpopulation will simply lead to mass starvation, war, etc. We shouldn't make laws forcing people to limit the amount of children they have, but we should also show people that just having one kid after the other is simply ignorant.

[straits]

There are two counters to this statement. One is that religious extremism can be viewed either as a strength or a weakness. We've seen religious extremism lead to very strong societies militarily in the Middle ages through Roman Catholicism, but we've also seen religion stifle cultural advancement and intellectualism. It's counter science. What the extremists who are controlling much of the Middle East are doing right now is weakening their culture.

Extremists aren't controlling much of the Middle East (or North Africa) at all. It might look like it under the media lens, but people actually tend to go on with their lives despite the atrocities in neighbouring countries.

From the standpoint of evolution, they are simply breeding more mindless sheep that lack the will to fight back against a tyrannical system that is more about believing in something that isn't there, rather than things we can prove and improve upon. That makes for stupid people in the long run...therefore, weak.

I assume you mean "survival of the fittest", because evolution in itself isn't necessarily an optimizing mechanism.

I would be interested to hear you clear this point up. Arabs in particular did try to fight back against the tyrannical systems in their respective countries - this is what the whole "Arab Spring" was about, if you recall the events that dominated the news a few years back.

The fact that the fallout of the Arab Spring wasn't rainbows and butterflies does not mean they did not try to fight, nor that they are mindless sheep.

I would go so far as to say that citizens of Western countries are far less capable of fighting their own insidious systems, despite their apparent enlightenment.

In case you were referring to Islam when you described a "system", that's not what a religion is.

[SayGen]

There are two counters to this statement. One is that religious extremism can be viewed either as a strength or a weakness. We've seen religious extremism lead to very strong societies militarily in the Middle ages through Roman Catholicism, but we've also seen religion stifle cultural advancement and intellectualism. It's counter science. What the extremists who are controlling much of the Middle East are doing right now is weakening their culture. From the standpoint of evolution, they are simply breeding more mindless sheep that lack the will to fight back against a tyrannical system that is more about believing in something that isn't there, rather than things we can prove and improve upon. That makes for stupid people in the long run...therefore, weak.

My second counter argument is that while many may think the one child law is barbaric, and it certainly is in certain aspects, what is the alternative in a culture that has a history of bearing little responsibility when it comes to population control? I'm not saying that the whole world needs a one child law. What I'm saying is that overpopulation will simply lead to mass starvation, war, etc. We shouldn't make laws forcing people to limit the amount of children they have, but we should also show people that just having one kid after the other is simply ignorant.

An interesting perspective. Religion was more of what I was referring to, not so much the extremism, though no sane person would deny there is a lot of it in the ME. I'd remind people who think religion is counter science by pointing how just how much Arabs (who happened to be Muslim) accomplished over the course of world history. Arabs did great work with astronomy, literacy, and so much more. There accomplishments are often overlooked as most history that is taught is western or eastern focused, and we sadly leave out a lot of greatness that comes from other lesser visited regions of the world. Religion esp the Abrahamic ones put God in Heaven, and so looking up to the stars and trying to understand them is like trying to understand God. Americans who are still technically majority Christian (though no in practice, as much as shear numbers) put a man on the moon, sent satellites to the far reaches of our solar system. So careful when you say science is counter religion.

Science says how it happens

Religion says why it happens

Stupid people isn't weak, your making the potential mistake that I mentioned earlier. What is strength? What we think is a good trait may actually be a hindrance. If conformity allows you to be in a society that offers you and your offspring high reproduction rates then you are 'strong'. Conformity doesn't make you dumb. Education is not intelligence. Intelligence is Intelligence.

Look at Iran, an extremely submissive Muslim culture, and you'll see a city (Tehran) that rivals New York or London. That's not to say that Collectivism > Individualism. That debate swings back and forth all the time depending on the scenario being discussed and the environment at the time.

Muslim culture doesn't need to worry about the issues that you are bringing up, like food, the world contrary to popular belief isn't close to reaching an overpopulated state.

For example, people who live in an urban area often feel crowded and don't fathom just how untouched our world is. People who live in the rural, areas can look in many directions and see nothing by untouched nature. Perspective is key. Our planet, can hold HUNDREDS of billions, not just 7.7. Careful when you listen to propaganda about over population. The best 'lie' I heard on the issue was some crazy 'green party' (Think left wing American hippie) going on TV and saying that we can only feed 8b people on the planet.

Fact check him, and you know what he isn't far off. But you know what he didn't say, how many more farms can be built, how much more optimization of agriculture still remains.

Current 'thresholds' are just that....current. Not the future, if you wanna discuss the future you have to think in terms of the future.

Now on to part 2 (sorry for the long post).

I'm not interested in what is barbaric, that's a moral perspective--I'm not here to cast judgment on China. (Though they do have a really bad human rights record).

The great thing China has is numbers, they have the superior numbers, and culture to press forward. Their isolationism is counter to human nature which dictates we spread, not shrink.

Humans don't form an equilibrium with their environment, they change and expand that environment. China needs only create policy that encourages and incentivizes moving from the mainland, esp to the west. Trying to maintain in a world environment that is growing leads to irrelevancy. Again see birth ratios and culture predictions.

the fact of the matter is, if you aren't growing you are dying. Maintaining, is dying. The 'winning' move of China is to press their advantage and follow the example of the Arab nations.

Look at Spain: 50years ago once it was a typically white Euro culture, a few blacks well integrated into the greater society and culture.

Look at Spain now:

Of the almost 1.6 million Muslims in Spain as of 2013, 71 percent are foreigners.[1] Most of the Muslims presently residing in Spain are recent immigrants from North Africa, Middle East, and South Asia.[2] A smaller number are Spanish converts, estimated at between 20,000[3] and 50,000.[4] The number of Muslims in Spain reached 1.85 million in 2014, as stated in the report from April, 2015.[5]

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4616/islamic-state-spain

They don't need guns, they don't need to 'invade'. Shears numbers in a democracy.....your numbers are you guns, your ammo.

China could do the same thing, they aren't. I guess if your anti Chinese that's a good thing.

But again as I said from the start, I'm not here to take A side. I'm here to take The side.

I support the strong up and comer as it means less conflict in the long run. Supporting and fighting for a losing side adds to destruction and loss of life. A life that may have had a great impact on technology, or disease prevention, star exploration, and further expanding our ability to reproduce off spring that will reproduce.

Sorry for the long post.

As the world continues to shift to a pro democracy view, these raw population numbers will again prove to be useful.

[straits]

My second counter argument is that while many may think the one child law is barbaric, and it certainly is in certain aspects, what is the alternative in a culture that has a history of bearing little responsibility when it comes to population control? I'm not saying that the whole world needs a one child law. What I'm saying is that overpopulation will simply lead to mass starvation, war, etc. We shouldn't make laws forcing people to limit the amount of children they have, but we should also show people that just having one kid after the other is simply ignorant.

Resource distribution is a much bigger issue than population growth. You might be interested in the ecological footprint metric:

It represents the amount of biologically productive land and sea area necessary to supply the resources a human population consumes, and to assimilate associated waste. Using this assessment, it is possible to estimate how much of the Earth (or how many planet Earths) it would take to support humanity if everybody followed a given lifestyle.

For example, India has a footprint of 0.9 whereas the US has one of 8.0 - eight earths required to sustain its lifestyle if followed by everyone. I think the countries with highest footprints generally have an extremely small population, with the exception of the US.

Sorry for the derail everyone

[Shadow Queen Medea]

Extremists aren't controlling much of the Middle East (or North Africa) at all. It might look like it under the media lens, but people actually tend to go on with their lives despite the atrocities in neighbouring countries.

I assume you mean "survival of the fittest", because evolution in itself isn't necessarily an optimizing mechanism.

I would be interested to hear you clear this point up. Arabs in particular did try to fight back against the tyrannical systems in their respective countries - this is what the whole "Arab Spring" was about, if you recall the events that dominated the news a few years back.

The fact that the fallout of the Arab Spring wasn't rainbows and butterflies does not mean they did not try to fight, nor that they are mindless sheep.

I would go so far as to say that citizens of Western countries are far less capable of fighting their own insidious systems, despite their apparent enlightenment.

In case you were referring to Islam when you described a "system", that's not what a religion is.

Extremists are controlling the militaries, therefore the societies.

I think you are mistaken about the people fighting against tyranny in the Middle East. The may have a few people rise up now and again, but all are silenced through intimidation and violence.... because of religion, and the people love their religion so much over there, they really don't care if a few homosexuals or dissenters are killed by it. You're also mistaken if you think the people that hold the power over there haven't made religion THE system to keep their power. It's called a Theocracy.

Look at the way people vote. They keep voting the extremists back into power.

Tell me where the moderate majority is when they are silent in almost all of the cases where the extreme minority exploits their power.

I'm not calling the people of the Middle East that live under these Theocrats "mindless sheep". What I meant by that statement is that what the Theocracy wants. They want people to be satisfied with where they are and don't want them to rebel. They just haven't got enough people on board tofight against the system over there yet. American presence isn't helping either. Us being there just compounds the problem imo.

[SayGen]

Resource distribution is a much bigger issue than population growth. You might be interested in the ecological footprint metric:

For example, India has a footprint of 0.9 whereas the US has one of 8.0 - eight earths required to sustain its lifestyle if followed by everyone. I think the countries with highest footprints generally have an extremely small population, with the exception of the US.

Sorry for the derail everyone

Careful with those metrics. Capital has a natural tendency to shift into the hands of producers. Producers are often the more established (in infrastructure terms). I don't see countries that supply raw resources differently than counties that use them in production. Americans export cars, they buy resources from country A to make the car and then sell country A car.

Also you have to be careful on what resources are consumed and what the actual available quantity of those resources are. In my large text I made previously I used the example of a food threshold. A current threshold vs a future threshold are different in capacity. How much oil is left in our world? How many more gallons of gas can we refine/produce. A loaded question. How many untapped oil reserves are there is the better question, and how many millions of barrels do they contain is just as applicable a question.

you didn't derail, we are just expanding the conversation to understand how human behavior works, which gets tied into our views on ideology.

Extremists are controlling the militaries, therefore the societies.

I think you are mistaken about the people fighting against tyranny in the Middle East. The may have a few people rise up now and again, but all are silenced through intimidation and violence.... because of religion, and the people love their religion so much over there, they really don't care if a few homosexuals or dissenters are killed by it. You're also mistaken if you think the people that hold the power over there haven't made religion THE system to keep their power. It's called a Theocracy.

Look at the way people vote. They keep voting the extremists back into power.

Tell me where the moderate majority is when they are silent in almost all of the cases where the extreme minority exploits their power.

I'm not calling the people of the Middle East that live under these Theocrats "mindless sheep". What I meant by that statement is that what the Theocracy wants. They want people to be satisfied with where they are and don't want them to rebel. They just haven't got enough people on board tofight against the system over there yet. American presence isn't helping either. Us being there just compounds the problem imo.

The lives of homosexuals do not matter (in CONTEXT). If you do not reproduce offspring that will also reproduce you aren't helping, and whatever 'factor' lead you to be a homosexual is not a trait that will be of use since all traits that aren't passed down die. A society that removes those who defy the culture that empower it is a well built society. It makes it impervious to foreign assault and allows said society to continue to grow and expand. This expansion allows for more people who will potentially be able to further the society, again in terms of human survival such as space exploration, disease prevention, etc.

The traits that allow someone to kill another in order to achieve continued reproduction are strong.

If you are killed you do not reproduce further. If you are unwilling to kill, you will be killed. That is one constant trait that has been valid since the dawn of the Neanderthal.

Again, if you aren't growing you are dying--whether directly, or through irrelevancy.

Sadly Shadow Queen you seem to see things in terms of emotion, you references to the life of those who will not reproduce (willingly). Your idea of religion in negative terms, rather than a social construct that promotes a culture that thwarts outside influences.

Religion is 'good' in terms of survival. Religion is 'good' as a defense mechanism on a grand scale. Religion is 'good' as an offense mechanism to eliminate competition.

The context of these things is from an amoral perspective. If you want to discuss ideology in terms of 'justice' which is a moral based construct then the conversation can not have an overlap as it becomes apples and oranges.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Wasn't there just a thread about Ayn Rand impersonators?

[Crom Dubh]

Wasn't there just a thread about Ayn Rand impersonators?

So you're saying solo went along with his plan?

Kudos if true, he's selling it.

[Shadow Queen Medea]

Careful with those metrics. Capital has a natural tendency to shift into the hands of producers. Producers are often the more established (in infrastructure terms). I don't see countries that supply raw resources differently than counties that use them in production. Americans export cars, they buy resources from country A to make the car and then sell country A car.

Also you have to be careful on what resources are consumed and what the actual available quantity of those resources are. In my large text I made previously I used the example of a food threshold. A current threshold vs a future threshold are different in capacity. How much oil is left in our world? How many more gallons of gas can we refine/produce. A loaded question. How many untapped oil reserves are there is the better question, and how many millions of barrels do they contain is just as applicable a question.

you didn't derail, we are just expanding the conversation to understand how human behavior works, which gets tied into our views on ideology.

The lives of homosexuals do not matter (in CONTEXT). If you do not reproduce offspring that will also reproduce you aren't helping, and whatever 'factor' lead you to be a homosexual is not a trait that will be of use since all traits that aren't passed down die. A society that removes those who defy the culture that empower it is a well built society. It makes it impervious to foreign assault and allows said society to continue to grow and expand. This expansion allows for more people who will potentially be able to further the society, again in terms of human survival such as space exploration, disease prevention, etc.

The traits that allow someone to kill another in order to achieve continued reproduction are strong.

If you are killed you do not reproduce further. If you are unwilling to kill, you will be killed. That is one constant trait that has been valid since the dawn of the Neanderthal.

Again, if you aren't growing you are dying--whether directly, or through irrelevancy.

Sadly Shadow Queen you seem to see things in terms of emotion, you references to the life of those who will not reproduce (willingly). Your idea of religion in negative terms, rather than a social construct that promotes a culture that thwarts outside influences.

Religion is 'good' in terms of survival. Religion is 'good' as a defense mechanism on a grand scale. Religion is 'good' as an offense mechanism to eliminate competition.

The context of these things is from an amoral perspective. If you want to discuss ideology in terms of 'justice' which is a moral based construct then the conversation can not have an overlap as it becomes apples and oranges.

People aren't robots SayGen. We'll always include morals in discussions of ideology. Opinions are what really matter, and listening to the opinions of others rather than just dismissing them outright because they may have some kind of feeling attached to them. Religion itself attempts to inject morality into society. Some of it is extremely antiquated and makes no sense, such as a specific biblical law where a woman having her period is unclean, and everything that touches her is unclean. At the end of a seven day cycle where she has to isolate herself, she has to bring two turtles to a priest as part of a sacrificial offering. That's just... ridiculous.

There are things about religion that are positive, such as helping the poor and healing the sick, etc., but I don't see many democrats demanding that rich people should give away all their material wealth or spend eternity in Hell. But I digress, because this discussion isn't about religion. Arguments about religion can last until we die and finally figure out the answer.

I'm still wondering how you think that Arab societies are "gaining great strength". If the west really wanted to we could wipe them out in a matter of months. We could bomb them without mercy, poison their water supply through salination of their soil, destabilize and undermine their entire economy instead of attempting to set it up for stability after we get rid of the "bad guys", steal all of their oil, etc, because we have the means to do so.

I think perhaps the greatest test of how strong a civilization is, is when they have superior technology and military might and instead of using it to simply wipe out any potential threat (or weaker civilization), they show more restraint and help to pull the weak ones up. Cooperation trumps evolution, just as evolution trumps much of religious theory. Willingness to help others proves Darwin wrong. At least in terms of "survival of the fittest".

[SayGen]

People aren't robots SayGen. We'll always include morals in discussions of ideology. Opinions are what really matter, and listening to the opinions of others rather than just dismissing them outright because they may have some kind of feeling attached to them. Religion itself attempts to inject morality into society. Some of it is extremely antiquated and makes no sense, such as a specific biblical law where a woman having her period is unclean, and everything that touches her is unclean. At the end of a seven day cycle where she has to isolate herself, she has to bring two turtles to a priest as part of a sacrificial offering. That's just... ridiculous.

There are things about religion that are positive, such as helping the poor and healing the sick, etc., but I don't see many democrats demanding that rich people should give away all their material wealth or spend eternity in Hell. But I digress, because this discussion isn't about religion. Arguments about religion can last until we die and finally figure out the answer.

I'm still wondering how you think that Arab societies are "gaining great strength". If the west really wanted to we could wipe them out in a matter of months. We could bomb them without mercy, poison their water supply through salination of their soil, destabilize and undermine their entire economy instead of attempting to set it up for stability after we get rid of the "bad guys", steal all of their oil, etc, because we have the means to do so.

I think perhaps the greatest test of how strong a civilization is, is when they have superior technology and military might and instead of using it to simply wipe out any potential threat (or weaker civilization), they show more restraint and help to pull the weak ones up. Cooperation

trumps evolution, just as evolution trumps much of religious theory. Willingness to help others proves Darwin wrong. At least in terms of "survival of the fittest".

I managed to put aside by bias (Christian background) to discuss ideology, and discuss things from a historical cause and effect perspective-- I am not a robot, obviously.

Hope you don't feel I'm dismissing your opinion as much as countering it. I don't engage in tit for tat discussions on the internet, I've better things to do :)

Not sure what demanding wealth being given up or going to hell has to do though or the mention of democrats, I seem to be missing your point on that. Explain?

The Arab societies are gaining great strength by expanding cultural influence. I used Spain as an example earlier, soon the population will shift enough for arabs to use superior number to 'take over' the government without firing a shot.

The west is powerful for now.....technology leads, capital accumulation...all that's well and good.

As someone who has served in the United States military I can assure you I know better than most just how easy it would be to floor the entire ME and put them back in the stone age. Western forces lack the will is why they show restraint. It's not out of kindness or compassion, it's because we have a society that is weak. We don't have conviction, the Arabs do. America/Canada have a 2.11 birth rate--that is the BARE minimum to maintain a culture. Arab nations average MUCH MUCH higher, exact figures are hard to come by since many births in that region of the world go undocumented--think in terms of greater than 5.5 and you'll be close. Remember what I said about maintaining....that road leads to irrelevancy, only growth leads to continued life for a society. Western world blindly believes that democracy is the answer to our problems. This sadly isn't the case. How do you combat mass emigration from arab nations into your own? What happens when they vote for what their culture believes? What happens when their judges decide what is fair....remember what we said about justice....justice is a moral stance on issues, and morality is determined by greater society.

[SayGen]

"I think perhaps the greatest test of how strong a civilization is, is when they have superior technology and military might and instead of using it to simply wipe out any potential threat (or weaker civilization), they show more restraint and help to pull the weak ones up. Cooperation trumps evolution, just as evolution trumps much of religious theory. Willingness to help others proves Darwin wrong. At least in terms of "survival of the fittest"."

Pull the weak up? To what ends? You seem to have this logical fallacy that if you put them on the same playing field their culture will change? Pull them up, and it will increase western downfall. A Tiger doesn't change it's stripes. They have a great identity, that even western propaganda can't beat.

Cooperation trumps evolution? What evidence supports such a claim? Cooperation is part of evolution, the forming of collations, the building of diplomacy. Why are we discussing the evolution of societies and cultures instead of the individual if anyone disagreed that cooperation was key? The two coincide, they aren't opposing forces.

Evolution trumps religious theory?

Explain?

Do you mean the Theory of the origin of life has greater scientific merit over the Abrahamic ideas of the origin of life?

If you meant the statement as originally phrased I'd have to strongly disagree, religious theory is part of evolution, much like the fundamental ideas of cooperation. These aren't opposing forces but building blocks to be stacked together.

Willingness to help others proves Darwin wrong. At least in terms of "survival of the fittest".

In what way? If helping others advances your ability to survive, reproduce, and have offspring that can do the same than it's likely but not always a sign of a strong culture

[TrueMetis]

I feel the need to point out the issues of three particular points that have been made.

Homosexuality is clearly a trait that's being passed down as homosexual's exist. Obviously then the benefit's at the very least are equal to any detriments.

Cooperation is very much be an evolutionary trait, social animals do not trump evolution, they are a result of evolution.

And individuals do not evolve.

[SayGen]

I feel the need to point out the issues of three particular points that have been made.

Homosexuality is clearly a trait that's being passed down as homosexual's exist. Obviously then the benefit's at the very least are equal to any detriments.

Cooperation is very much be an evolutionary trait, social animals do not trump evolution, they are a result of evolution.

And individuals do not evolve.

Homosexuality as an expressed trait (meaning the individual is a homo) has 0 benefits, 1 major downside.

Homosexuality as an unexpressed trait (One that gets passed down) has 0 benefits, 0 downsides.

Individuals do evolve, just not a specific individual during his lifetime, but as a result of thousands of years of traits being passed down.

If individuals do not evolve, how did you get here Mr Neanderthal? ;)

[TrueMetis]

Homosexuality as an expressed trait (meaning the individual is a homo) has 0 benefits, 1 major downside.

Homosexuality as an unexpressed trait (One that gets passed down) has 0 benefits, 0 downsides.

Unless that homosexual has siblings with children in which case there is extra help to care for offspring without the added burden of more children. so 1 benefit and 0 downsides. And even without siblings not having children is not a major downside given genetically similar humanity is. There's also studies that point to heighten fertility in siblings and family of homosexuals. At least the first one should be blindingly obvious to anyone who's aware ant's exist. Though I guess this get's back into the issue of you thinking that evolution has anything to do with the individual.

Individuals do evolve, just not a specific individual during his lifetime, but as a result of thousands of years of traits being passed down.

If individuals do not evolve, how did you get here Mr Neanderthal? ;)

If evolution is the result of thousands of years of traits being passed down then obviously individuals, who can't live more than a century, don't evolve. Evolution is about changes in gene frequency of populations over time, even at the smallest scale this requires at least one generation. Individuals do not evolve.

ETA: Also while there is evidence of some hybridization between us (at least those descended from Europeans) and Neanderthal's we did not evolve from Neanderthal's

[Seli]

...

Individuals do evolve, just not a specific individual during his lifetime, but as a result of thousands of years of traits being passed down.

If individuals do not evolve, how did you get here Mr Neanderthal? ;)

Individuals don't evolve, they live (procreate) and die. Species and populations evolve.