←back to thread

Space Elevator

(neal.fun)
1773 points kaonwarb | 2 comments | 20 Oct 25 04:42 UTC | HN request time: 0.033s | source
Show context
cyode ◴[20 Oct 25 07:05 UTC] No.45640748[source]▶
A beautifully executed project here, I bought Neal a coffee.

What evolutionary advantage, I wonder, is there to Ruppell's griffon vulture flying at 11400 meters?

edit: units

replies(3): >>45640782 #>>45640807 #>>45645415 #
rkomorn ◴[20 Oct 25 07:12 UTC] No.45640782[source]▶
Not every behavior has an evolutionary advantage.

If anything, "evolution" filters out disadvantages (eg: can't survive because your neck's too short and that pesky giraffe is eating all the leaves you could reach).

Evolution kills what doesn't work.

replies(1): >>45640909 #
trinari ◴[20 Oct 25 07:37 UTC] No.45640909[source]▶
but every behaviour has a cost. In cast of flight altitude its energy and distance to food, water, mating zones.
replies(3): >>45640946 #>>45641151 #>>45641336 #
hatmanstack ◴[20 Oct 25 08:12 UTC] No.45641151[source]▶
Darwin started with survival of the "fit". It changed to "fittest" in later editions.
replies(1): >>45643047 #
1. robocat ◴[20 Oct 25 12:19 UTC] No.45643047[source]▶
People focus on the wrong issue so most quotes about evolution are highly misleading: the keyword should be about reproducing. Survival is almost irrelevant. Darwin awards in particular should never be given to anyone with kids (unless they kill their kids too).

"Most grandkids" is good but not catchy.

Or Idiocracy "evolution began to favor those who reproduced the most".

replies(1): >>45643969 #
2. rkomorn ◴[20 Oct 25 13:54 UTC] No.45643969[source]▶
I agree to some extent but I don't think you can really separate the two. You have to survive long enough to reproduce enough. For almost all species, reproduction implies a non trivial amount of survival.

Edit: actually, "almost all species" is not right. Maybe "almost all interesting species"... which is admittedly too subjective a take.