Connections With Class

So far from reading this book the main thing that I have noticed a connection with in class is the description and use of the idea of adaptation. AS they talk more and more about what we must to do increase defenses and strengthen our physical immunities to both inside and outside threats they constantly repeat the idea that adaptations are the only way for us to move forward. At one point they make the claim that “security must ultimately come through adaptation”, which essentially sums up the greatest point of the book thus far (28). On that same page they also give two distinct definitions of adaptation: the first is the biological approach, where it is viewed as a short-term fit between living things and their current environment/circumstances; the second view is given as nothing more than a hypothesis about predictable aspects of an entity’s environment, including dangers and risks.  Overall to me this seems as though the main mechanism to solving our problems and fears is through adaptation, which unfortunately means we must first require some type of stressor for us to learn from. This makes me wonder, is there really any other evolutionary mechanism in which you can even look at security and self-defense? To me it seems as though there isn’t, and brings up the sad fact that we must undergo such drastic and sad events such as 9/11 to prevent them. Ultimately this makes sense in the biological and natural worldview, but for us we all know we wish we could somehow prevent them from happening all together.

There is also another point that was touched on in this book that has to do with factors that cause the adaptations. They talk a lot about competition for resources as well as geological factors that play a role in adapting and ultimately evolving populations. The big point that was made during this talk though was that humans evolve differently in that we usually evolve culturally father than genetically. Something that can connect the ideas however is when looking at mutations. Another statement that was made was that an attack on one component has repercussions for other components and for the whole larger system as a whole. This idea is similar to mutation, such as “switch genes”, where the further downstream the process is the less “collateral disruption is has” (28). This would be similar to an extinction of a species that carries out an important role for the community or ecosystem, and will therefor have large repercussions since it reaches out to so many other groups and species.

Overall so far from what I can tell the main point of this book seems to be in looking at situations that stresses the human environment and thus causes a need for change, or adaptation, to react and evolve the way in which things we done before that allowed the problem to occur. I really want to know if there is any other way to even think about improving problems and whether or not this study can take it into the evolutionary thought any further? Which I’m sure I will find out as I continue reading.