Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 24 of 24

Thread: Daredevils and adrenaline junkies page 3

  1. #21
    sbhikes's Avatar
    sbhikes is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Santa Barbara
    Posts
    10,205
    I might give up riding my Vespa when Google Glass comes out. Might give up driving altogether. Rock climbing and base jumping will seem way safer than driving. It probably already is right now even without a nation of Google Glass zombies behind the wheel.
    Female, 5'3", 49, Starting weight: 163lbs. Current weight: 135 (more or less).
    I can squat 180lbs, press 72.5lbs and deadlift 185lbs

  2. #22
    LauraSB's Avatar
    LauraSB is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Delaware Valley
    Posts
    717
    Quote Originally Posted by jfreaksho View Post
    At the same time, humankind has been greatly improved by those willing to take risks, even crazy ones, like taking the Oregon Trail, or revolting against the ruler of the day, or risking their lives in an airplane that the world has never seen.

    Evolutionarily, those who are extreme daredevils should weed themselves out of the gene pool sooner rather than later, but there is apparently some reason that trait still exists, and is attractive to many women.
    I am quite sure there was strong selection pressure for the willingness to take risks. Taking down big game with Paleolithic weapons is not for the timid. And since humans are so pleasure driven, enjoying the feeling of an adrenaline rush would be a big advantage as well. On the other hand, if you die in the process, your mate will have a much harder time feeding your fetal or nursing offspring and your older offspring will have a harder time making it to reproductive age so they can pass on your genes. So in evolutionary terms, the drive to be really masterful at what you do (like a Navy Seal), must balance the pleasure from an adrenaline rush.

    I wonder if the decreasing availablity of useful tasks in modern life that are also dangerous doesn't encourage crazy stuff like going 160mph on a motorcycle. I doubt this guy had the discipline to be a Navy Seal, but he might have enjoyed something like being a diver on an oil rig. Or something. Or maybe he really was suicidal on some level.
    50yo, 5'3"
    SW-195
    CW-125, part calorie counting, part transition to primal
    GW- Goals are no longer weight-related

  3. #23
    Derpamix's Avatar
    Derpamix is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    5,371
    Quote Originally Posted by wiltondeportes View Post
    Save the mumbo jumbo because you're missing my point. If people went out and did stuff like the prehistoric equivalent of 160mph on a motorcycle, their risks would have resulted in lots of deaths. At the very least, lots of lost limbs or broken bones. Remember, prehistoric man didn't have the ER. I don't care how much grassfed meat you eat; it's not going to put pins in your compound fractured leg.

    This would lower the frequency of their genes in the gene pool over time. Basically, this is probably not a common thing for a human to "naturally" do. So if you're out doing stuff like that you're either A) a rare case that somehow got those risk taking genes B) not as healthy or happy as you could be.

    This concept doesn't take into account the possibility that "excessive risk taking" comes from a gene that controls both this negative trait AND a positive trait, thus making it more likely to stay in the gene pool. Genetics is quite tricky the more you study it.

    Using "grok" is the shorthand way of saying evolution of man. I don't see anything wrong with analyzing things through evolution. Do you?
    Conservation of self is a person's top priority, of course.

    No one is that healthy or happy anymore, stress exists and is unavoidable.

    Cavemen actively took risks daily, to hunt, gather, whatever. There was no shortage of stimulation back then. Just living required risk, I would imagine.

    I don't think a personality trait can be passed on through the gene pool, seems interesting though.

    In essence, this is what I was doing.
    Last edited by Derpamix; 05-03-2013 at 06:04 PM.
    nihil

  4. #24
    wiltondeportes's Avatar
    wiltondeportes Guest
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    Quote Originally Posted by Derpamix View Post
    Conservation of self is a person's top priority, of course.

    No one is that healthy or happy anymore, stress exists and is unavoidable.

    Cavemen actively took risks daily, to hunt, gather, whatever. There was no shortage of stimulation back then. Just living required risk, I would imagine.

    I don't think a personality trait can be passed on through the gene pool, seems interesting though.

    In essence, this is what I was doing.
    Personality is linked to genetics. There was a great article in Time Magazine recently on that exact topic.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •