Babies

[Odjn]

Sith's right. It's the same thinking behind the 100% successful debate strategy- when they start talking, you start punching. Nature gives us the tools we need.

[Amake]

We should really stay in the womb for about 16-20 years to be born as physiologically developed as most lower animals. But that's the price we have to pay for our oversized heads.

[Geminex]

It truly is the best possible way to have babies.

Is it really? I agree with what you've said about genetic diversity, this maximises the... well speed of an organism's evolution, the number of generations required for said organism to adapt to new external conditions...
But the best?

What is the definition of best? Which species is most likely to survive in the long term (Meaning evolutionary long term. Meaning a really long fucking time.)? Neither... one isn't sufficiently capable of adapting due to having too few offspring, too few generations, the other's much more likely of having speciation occur, thus that species'd be gone as well.

[Sithdarth]

Lets just say squid, octopi, other mollusks, jellyfish, etc. Have all been here much longer and in relatively unchanged forms than basically any other multicellular life.

[Osterbaum]

Maybe so, but you couldn't truly judge which strategy is "better" before the end of all life as we know it, basically.

[Geminex]

Originally Posted by Sithdarth

Lets just say squid, octopi, other mollusks, jellyfish, etc. Have all been here much longer and in relatively unchanged forms than basically any other multicellular life.

Yes, but as you said, (and I agreed) that

it takes genetic diversity even within a single generation to it's maximum

.

The fact that they've remained unchanged rather seems to indicate that they haven't needed to adapt to a new environment (possibly due to all the ocean they live in) rather than the fact that their method of reproduction is somehow superior...

Though I wonder... would the high-devotion, low-number strategy humans seem to use be more likely to achieve more complex life?

In other words, if we reproduced like Starcraft players Zergling-rush, would we have been capable of the kind of intelligence neccessary to use tools, discover nuclear fusion and use that nuclear fusion to kill other people?

These are really just hypothetical questions. And for once pseudo-scientific debate that's on-topic.

[Amake]

Qi determined that the most successful form of life is bacteria. They far outstrip all other living things combined in both numbers, resilience, adaptability and range of withstandable environments.

[Sithdarth]

Originally Posted by Geminex

Though I wonder... would the high-devotion, low-number strategy humans seem to use be more likely to achieve more complex life?

Here's your problem. We are not more complex by a long shot. Genetically speaking I know plants far surpass us in terms of useful genes as well as structures. (Photosynthesizing isn't easy and yet they do it and still manage to communicate with each other and respond to stimuli like light without anything we'd really call a nervous system.) Really plants are the ultimate in multicellular billions of baby producers.

Originally Posted by Geminex

In other words, if we reproduced like Starcraft players Zergling-rush, would we have been capable of the kind of intelligence neccessary to use tools, discover nuclear fusion and use that nuclear fusion to kill other people?

See above. Also, as great as intellect is Jellyfish would probably still out survive us as will cockroaches and various other insects. Technically speaking we aren't all that well adapted nor complex. We're just bigger and smarter than most things. Between that and a healthy dose of arrogance we've convinced ourselves we're more complex. Really our brain is only marginally more complex than say a chimps and overall we're not really all that genetically complex when compared to a tree.

Originally Posted by Geminex

The fact that they've remained unchanged rather seems to indicate that they haven't needed to adapt to a new environment (possibly due to all the ocean they live in) rather than the fact that their method of reproduction is somehow superior...

Or that they rapidly achieved a design that with slight modifications allows them to survive so well in such a wide range of conditions they haven't needed to change. Which makes us look rather pitiful in comparison with our rather narrow range of suitable conditions. That and our intellect with all it's great advances has arguably made us less likely to survive a cataclysm that takes it away.

One must also remember that genetic diversity isn't all about evolution. It also keeps a population from regressing or contracting genetic disorders. Also, it would conceivably allow them to come back very quickly from a near extinction once the pressure was removed with minimal genetic damage. Lets see humans do that.

Originally Posted by Invisible Queen

Qi determined that the most successful form of life is bacteria. They far outstrip all other living things combined in both numbers, resilience, adaptability and range of withstandable environments.

Which is why I carefully limited my statement to multicellular life. Although I should have been more specific in stating macroscopic multicellular life. Everything smaller is a whole other kettle of fish.

Originally Posted by Osterbaum

Maybe so, but you couldn't truly judge which strategy is "better" before the end of all life as we know it, basically.

They've been here longer, through several extinctions in fact, and they out weigh/number us. I'd say their winning at least and have a good shot at taking the whole show eventually.

[Osterbaum]

It's not a competition.

[Arhra]

That's loser talk!

Hurrah for K-selection! Frankly, we probably wouldn't have developed big brains if we hadn't had parental investment

On the other hand, cephalopods just spray eggs everywhere, live for only a few years and die after mating anyway. They are also chameleonic, shapechanging alien creatures of frightening intelligence. We could be in trouble!