the risk factor

[cacian]

are we humans naturally daring we like to push the boundaries and take risks?
we deliver the extreme in order to compensate for something else we have yet not grasped?

[Nick Capozzoli]

are we humans naturally daring we like to push the boundaries and take risks?
we deliver the extreme in order to compensate for something else we have yet not grasped?

It seems obvious that risk-taking behavior varies among humans. Some of us take greater risks than others. Like any
human behavior, it seems that it depends upon individual personality traits, which are in large part dependent upon how
are brains are "wired" by our nature and nurture.

It's likely that all behavior, including risk-taking, has evolved through biological and cultural natural selection. Biological selection
is strong enough to explain all non-human behaviors, but for many human behaviors, that involve greater degrees of consciousnesss,
including our human capacities for language and abstract thinking, we need to invoke what can be called "cultural" selection.

Non-human animals are involved in a constant biological struggle to live and reproduce, and they seem to do so without having
"to think about it." You could even say the same thing about bacteria and plants... These non-human organisms in some sense
certainly "take risks" merely by living in the world and competing for existence. Living itself is risky, and we might say that biological
success depends to some degree on an organism's ability "to push the boundaries."

We humans have succeeded by pushing our boundaries. Our primate ancestors had to deal with some predators (big cats, canines,
bears, etc) that were better equipped than us with fearsome teeth and claws, keener senses, and greater strength and speed. We
did evolve some unique skills, mainly language, tool making, and abstract thinking that allowed us to make up for our physical
weaknesses and defend ourselves from fearsome predators and to take down very large and dangerous game (e.g. bison and mammoths).
It required cooperation (language helped there), but it was still very "risky." Our early ancestors had to be willing to learn to cooperate
and trust their fellows, and they certainly had to have a certain degree of "fearlessness." Individuals who were more "timid" and "risk-averse"
did not survive as well as the more fearless risk-takers in this early stage of Hunter-Gatherer human evolution.

It is likely that a lot of our species' risk-taking behavior originated in this early stage of our societal evolution. And these behaviors still
have selective value today, but they are also sometimes at odds with our modern civilization. The conflict is due to the fact that humans, unlike
other animals, live not only in a biological world, but also a "cultural" world, and are thus subject to both "natural/biological" selection, but
"cultural" selection as well. Perhaps a more apt term would be "culturally mediated biological selection."

[cacian]

It's likely that all behavior, including risk-taking, has evolved through biological and cultural natural selection. Biological selection
is strong enough to explain all non-human behaviors, but for many human behaviors, that involve greater degrees of consciousnesss,
including our human capacities for language and abstract thinking, we need to invoke what can be called "cultural" selection.
Hi Nick and thank you for posting.
I am not sure what you mean by ''risk linked to natural selection''.
I do not understand what ''cultural selection'' means either.
are you linking non human behaviour to that of a human? oh I am a no believer in evolution but that is OK because there is a lot to talk about regardless.
also what is 'abstract thinking''?

Non-human animals are involved in a constant biological struggle to live and reproduce, and they seem to do so without having
"to think about it." You could even say the same thing about bacteria and plants... These non-human organisms in some sense
certainly "take risks" merely by living in the world and competing for existence. Living itself is risky, and we might say that biological
success depends to some degree on an organism's ability "to push the boundaries."
I see pushing the boundaries as a risk taking yes but with animals it is the only boundary they have and that is to take risk since their language skill is non existent.


We humans have succeeded by pushing our boundaries. Our primate ancestors had to deal with some predators (big cats, canines,
bears, etc) that were better equipped than us with fearsome teeth and claws, keener senses, and greater strength and speed. We
did evolve some unique skills, mainly language, tool making, and abstract thinking that allowed us to make up for our physical
weaknesses and defend ourselves from fearsome predators and to take down very large and dangerous game (e.g. bison and mammoths).
It required cooperation (language helped there), but it was still very "risky." Our early ancestors had to be willing to learn to cooperate
and trust their fellows, and they certainly had to have a certain degree of "fearlessness." Individuals who were more "timid" and "risk-averse"
did not survive as well as the more fearless risk-takers in this early stage of Hunter-Gatherer human evolution.
I somehow think risky is because of the fear factor. risk equals fear pursuit . ie one pushes the boundaries because one wants to chase the fear and not the other way round.
I am not sure however about hunter gatherer but to survive they had to go out and hunt. that is not a risk it is a way of life.


It is likely that a lot of our species' risk-taking behavior originated in this early stage of our societal evolution.
well I think it is within us /inherent to want to take risks. it is however down to how much one can push without being stopped that is the issue and society is the reason to and for it. culture therefore has also a lot to do with it because the more it lapses about what the meaning of risk is and the more risk is taken.

[Nick Capozzoli]

Thanks for the comments. I'll try to answer one of your questions, i.e. the difference between "natural" and "cultural" selection. Natural selection is what Darwin and Wallace described in their explanations of how living things "evolve." This is basically the idea that: 1) There is a struggle for survival wherein organisms compete with each other for limited environmental resources (mainly food) in order to survive and at the same time (at least for sexually reproducing organisms) compete with conspecifics to mate with the opposite sex and produce offspring; 2) "Success" in this "struggle for existence" is defined not merely by the ability of an organism to survive, but on its ability to produce offspring that survive and go on to reproduce copies of themselves. A key concept of this theory of evolution by means of natural selection is that organisms have varying characteristics and these characteristics are capable of being transmitted to their progeny by "genetic means." Neither Darwin nor Wallace had any scientific explanation for the genetic transmission of organismal characteristics, but they assumed that there was a mechanism. Both of them, however, understood that for evolution to occur there must be some degree of transmissible genetic "variation" among living and reproducing organisms. Working upon these variations, nature selected the "fittest" organisms and promoted their "survival." Over long periods of time, this natural selection led to the appearance of new "species." That is why Darwin titled his book The Origin of Species and not just "Natural Selection" or "Evolution."

Life has been present on Earth for quite a long time...as early as 2.5 Billion Years Ago. For most of that time livingrganisms have not, so far as we know, had any ability to interact with their environment (including interactions with other organisms) in any "thinking way." That is to say, these organisms behave reflexively, without "thinking," and either "survive" or do not in a Darwinian sense.

That has changed with the appearance of humans, who have developed unique cognitive abilities, mainly abstract thinking, tool-making skills, and, above all, language. These abilities have led to the development of human "culture." We can assume that this is a fairly recent development in terrestrial biology, as recent as perhaps the past 250,000 years, and maybe even much less than that...

Humans with a thinking and linguistic ability are certainly subject to "unthinking" natural selection, but as "culture" becomes more important in regulating our behavior (especially in regard to our mate selection behavior), the biological evolution of our species becomes more determined by our cultural "choices" and less dependent upon the "biological" actions of "natural" selection.

[Ecurb]

Bearing children is risky business, especially for humans. So, yes, evolutionary forces clearly promote risk taking.