Trade-offs Trade-offs often occur when the members of a system are competing with each other. It is one of the most prevailing acknowledgements for coexistence in the communities. The ‘Darwinian demon’ theory indicated that “Trade-offs between survival and reproduction, however, constraints any organism from realistically resembling that creature.” Similarly, ‘Hutchinson demon’ theory also pinpointed whereby “one species in a community dominates because it is best colonizing new patches, utilizing all the resources, avoiding predators and resisting stresses.” Trade-offs in a community can be controlled by several limiting factors, such as scarce of resources, abiotic factors like pH, salinity, presence of sunlight, and presence of competitors. Interspecific trade-offs are typically thought to be a requirement for species coexistence in communities at small spatial scales. Within meta-community context, trade-offs are still often harbingered as imperative for coexistence at a regional scale rather than local scale. There are three elements of trade-offs among competing species within a trophic level like the interaction between local and regional trade-offs, regional-scale coexistence and trade-offs and species diversity at multiple spatial scales (alpha, beta, gamma). When environments are diversified and irregular, species can exhibit trade-offs in their ability to utilize local habitats and to exploit patches regionally. When the dispersal rates are low, each species persists only in the habitat type in which they are favored; local diversity is low. In contrary, at the highest rates of dispersal, species that are better at colonizing empty patches can dominate and drive other species extinct, even though those species ... ... middle of paper ... ...ches and different species are favored under different environments. As dimensionality increased control of community dynamics was predicted to shift from local to regional processes. Species can coexist at the local and regional scale by specializing on a specific habitat. Specialists, by definition, have highest fitness in a particular habitat and the trade-off is then exhibited across habitat types, whereas generalists do not exhibit trade-offs across habitat types. Coexistence at local scale will occur between habitat generalists and specialists, while regional scale coexistence will occur between difference habitat specialists and generalists. Increasing connectedness among patches may decrease beta diversity and increase alpha diversity in certain situations; dispersal rates essentially shift the relative importance of local and regional scale trade-offs.
Prince Henry of Portugal, more commonly known as Henry the Navigator, and Zheng He, a successful Chinese admiral, were both extremely accomplished men throughout the 14th and 15th centuries. During this era, many accomplished explorers ventured out into the ocean and discovered new lands, two of the most important men being Henry the Navigator and Zheng He. Although both men came from different backgrounds, their contrasting societies and structures affected the way in which they regarded economic and political expansion and also their contact with other cultures. Societies like the Chinese and Portuguese had many cultural differences such as their different religions. The Chinese practiced neo-Confucianism whereas the Portuguese were Christians which was one of the many purposes of their exploration, to spread Christianity. There were also many cultural similarities between the two societies such as their long lasting histories and their explorer’s curiosity to seek out to new lands, which resulted the two societies in having different views on economic and political expansion and contact with other cultures. Both Confucian and Christian ideologies favored those who worked over the wealthy. Thus, to a larger extent, the structures and values of a society have an extensive impact on the way people view economic and political expansion and contact with other cultures.
Soule, Michael E et al. “Ecological Effectiveness: Conservation Goals for Interactive Species.” Conservation Biology 17.5 (2003) : 1238-1250.
Between the period of 1820-1861 there was a number of political compromises done in order reduce the sectional tension between the North and the South. While each of the compromises created helped the issue that the country was facing at that time, they did not help overall. The compromises were only a temporary fix for the country’s problem of sectionalism. Therefore while political compromises were effective in reducing the tension between the North and the South it did not help in preventing the civil war.
It has been noted that intraspecific competitions tend to be more intense than interspecific ones (Ciara, 1993). This is because members of the same species need the same types and amounts of nutrients. When these similar species are in the same habitat with fixed resources, then they consequently have to "fight " for their needs. This is was basis for our hypothesis. We hypopthesized that the species that were involved with the interspecific competitions would have greater production (by ave. weight of grams) than their counterparts involved in the intraspecific competitions. Furthermore, we hypothesized that as the density of the intraspecific and interspecific competition species increased, then the production of the plants (by ave, weight in grams) would go down.
Every action or proposal needs to balance equity and efficiency needs in order to deliver optimal dividends to its targeted audience. Given the fact that resources are relatively scarce compared to the innumerable needs, businessmen, economists, administrators among other leaders reckon that every proposals needs the equity-efficiency balance in order for set goals and objectives to be achieved. This paper seeks to describe the role of equity and efficiency trade off in proposals.
“For whatever reason, there has been a continued pattern of misinterpreting or incorrectly describing multiregional evolution.” (Wolpoff et al. 2000)
The success of conservation of a species depends on the understanding of the ecological factors driving the continued survival of that population (Bonsall et al. 2014). This will aid in the understanding of the temporal dynamics of the population when looking at the relationship between per capita growth rate and the local density of that population (Bonsall et al. 2014). When populations are fragmented, they rely on dispersal through migration to prevent inbreeding, and run the risk of extinction if they can’t (Bicknell et al. 2014). Populations are classified as metapopulations if they are demographically or genetically isolated from one another (Hanski 1998).
The aim of utilitarianism in general is optimal happiness, which is the only intrinsic good according to Mill. More specifically, act and rule utilitarianism differ in the manner in which they asses what will yield the greatest amount of happiness. Often, one of the objections to utilitarianism is that it is overly demanding. However, this objection that the utilitarian view is too demanding is fitting for both forms of utilitarianism, according to the Fundamentals of Ethics. In the following, I will address why utilitarianism is habitually seen as overly demanding, and I will provide a defense of utilitarianism contrary to these objections.
Utilitarianism is zdefined, as the right way to act is one that maximizes your happiness, (pleasure and happiness is the absence of pain) while the wrong way is one that produces the opposite i.e. pain. Unhappiness here is defined as pain or the opposite of happiness. This is the basis of utilitarianism or what Mill calls the “greatest happiness principle” and it is the best ethical theory by which humans should follow. The argument for the above is as follows
Utilitarianism is frequently define as “the belief that a morally good action is one that helps the greatest number of people.” Also reflected as “the greatest good with the least amount of pain.” Therefore, human beings, actions should be contingent upon the consequences. The end of all human conduct should be only happiness. Greater someone’s happiness overall generate others to have a greater happiness. So Utilitarian’s believe that the purpose of morality is to make life better by increasing the amount of good thing such as pleasure and happiness in the world and decreasing the amount of bad things such as pain and unhappiness. They also refuse mora codes that consist of commands that are based on customs, traditions, or orders given by leaders. Utilitarian’s think that what makes a morality be true or justifiable is its positive contribution to human beings.
The moral philosophy of Utilitarianism includes a calculation of happiness, in which actions are considered to be good if they produce happiness and evil if they produce pain. Utilitarianism also considers at what extent happiness can be created not just for an individual, but also others whom may be affected. By following a Utilitarian moral philosophy, a person can assure the best possible situation for the most amounts of people affected by every action they make. Utilitarianism is the centered on happiness, as a concept, and tries to promote the idea. The vision here is that if all people seek happiness, it will result in the happiness for all humans and animals. In the case that one does not produce happiness, one should also strive to reduce unhappiness. As Utilitarianism is wholly focused on the utility of a person’s actions, it is called a “consequentialist” theory. I argue that Utilitarianism is the best moral philosophy to follow due to its versatility, ethicality, and production of happiness for all.
In this paper, I will define and explain Utilitarianism, then evaluate the proofs made to support it. In the nineteenth century, the philosophy of Utilitarianism was developed by John Stuart Mill. Utilitarianism is the theory that man should judge everything in life based upon its ability to promote the greatest individual happiness. While Jeremy Bentham is acknowledged as the father of Utilitarianism, it was Mill who defended its structure through reason. He continually reasoned that because human beings are capable of achieving conscious thought, they are not simply satisfied by physical pleasures; humans desire to pleasure their minds as well. Once a person has achieved this high intellectual level, they do not want to descend to the lower level of intellect where they began. Mill explains that “pleasure, and
On the first level, when foreign, but previously non-invasive species is first introduced to a new area, the new species may play a role in a community that was previously unfulfilled; it may fill a vacant niche in the ecosystem. Originally this new species may be seen as a useful contributor to its new surroundings because it has only (temporarily) increased biodiversity in the area (Meinesz, 2003).
I see utilitarianism as a powerful and persuasive approach to ethics in philosophy. There are varieties of views discussed but utilitarianism is generally held to be the view that the morally correct action is the action that produces the most good. In its simplest form it is maximizing pleasure while minimizing pain. There are a few ways to think about this claim. One good way to think about is that this theory is a form of consequentialism. The right action is understood basically in terms of consequences produced. The utilitarian view is one thought to maximize the overall good; that good being the good of others as well as the good of ones self. Utilitarianism is also not partial. Everybody 's happiness counts the same. This version of the good is one that must maximize the good for everyone. My good counts just the same as anyone else 's good.
Can a person’s worth be measured? Every person’s value or purpose in life is quantifiable by the economic worth of each individual. Those who are a burden to society by not being able to reach financial balance and must rely on others to provide and therefore are seen as dispensable. This is book argues that human life has no worth and we are only valued for what we can provide for those around us. Thus, those who can provide more to those around us are more successful in life. Within the book The Unit, a single person’s purpose and value in life is quantifiable to the economic worth of every other individual.