It doesn’t seem hard to observe that one thing about environments is that the participants in any given environment are pretty adaptable to it.
I think this might be true across many contexts — it seems to be true for plants. For insects. For animals. Aquatic life. Birds. ...and polar bears (though adaptability and survivability are still two different things).
Oh, and humans.
Yes, like many things we also seem rather adaptable to the environment we’re in; especially to the elements that make up our environment. Look at species all over the world, and throughout time, and notice that creatures have not only learned how to survive, but also prosper.
But, there are, of course, participants in any environment that resist it or, at least, adaptability to it.
So, it also seems observable that another dynamic exists — those participants that resist the environment or seem unable, by choice or otherwise, to adapt to it are often rejected by the environment. At times, there appears to be a kind of dance in any given environment between those that are cooperating with it, adapting to it, and those that are resisting it. At other times, though, that dynamic is not so friendly. Either way, one could imagine that some of the dynamic is even necessary, for the purposes of environments in general.
Participants who become entrenched in resisting the environment often end up finding themselves mostly outside of the benefits of the environment. At the very least, if not outside it all together, unable to join it; both as a function of their choice or of the collective choice of those which represent the features or embodiment of that environment.
In other words, there are participants at the center of environments who by nature or function perpetuate it and there are participants at the margins of environments which are resisting it. They, too, provide a function and may, at times, even be the catalysts for the environment itself to adapt.
...finish here.
