fractalnavel

thesis:  evolution, and specifically speciation, is assumed to occur through the passive and indirect (and indifferent) competitive influences of natural selection.  but is that really the case ?  it seems that particular species - and proto-species groups - will actively (offensive as distinct from defensive) and systematically attempt to destroy their nearest genetic “competitors“, and that this fight propagates to successively more distant relatives in an effort to continually widen the gap and remove competition for similar resources.  in the human case, “actively and systematically” should not be confused with “consciously”. 

discussion:  that's an interesting way to look at wars and extinctions, especially the way humans are treating the great apes and other large mammals.  the existence of multi-specie groups of fish or birds would seem to provide a counter example, but maybe they are just not that good at detroying their neighbors.  like any other trait, the level of “cousin-cide” present would vary by species.

and the active form does not necessarily take only physical form:  social behaviors can be primarily destructive influences as well, not just harmonious and organizing.  these social influences can lead to either active physical destruction, or to more indirect destructive forces.  they're all intertwined in a complex of competitive behaviors, so attempting to characterize cause and effect would be incorrect.

are we genetically predetermined to have racial/ethnic/tribal/national problems ? (hell, just look at the richness of our vocabulary here !)  and how did this competition through direct active destruction arise ?  an emergent property, to be sure.  such self-organizing effects are first recognizable through the establishment of boundaries, something which makes them distinguishable.  we have also evolved to _perceive_ certain boundaries, the “truth” of which is not really pertinent. 

seems to be a result of existence naturally excluding concurrent co-existence, in the sense that more than one bit of matter cannot occupy the same point in space and time (as in, dimensionality and degrees of freedom are significant).  also in the sense that something cannot be simultaneously a cone and a sphere, the creative destruction of concurrent possibility.

part of the entropy-antientropy balance, one more mechanism for staying on the border between chaos and stagnancy.

for now, i'll just put this in the bag interesting potential phenomena for future reference.