Animals understand this
I'm going to disagree again here. Don't tell me you've never seen a fat, lazy pet. 😉
In the wild animals don't get a choice about honing their skills in order to survive, hence why it's natural to take the path of least resistance when the opportunity presents itself. Save effort and energy where you can, because you might need it later. If a lion can chase a weaker animal from its kill to eat it will do that rather than make life harder for itself and try to make its own kill from the herd. It's not thinking, "I should probably let them keep their kill and keep my fitness levels up by catching my own." Especially when most hunts end in failure.
A feral child also keeps their effort into adulthood because...well, key word is "feral". If they are having to survive they do what they have to in order to. No more, no less.
What society allows is for that nature of taking the easiest path to thrive. So we actually have to go against our nature to rise above it and realise that it's not doing us any good to just do what seems easiest; something that takes both intelligence and willpower.
You could even say that we've built society around making things easier for ourselves and have become so successful we've sabotaged ourselves. Now we're stuck in a feedback loop.
You're welcome to. :)
And your pet example proves what I was getting at.
From a cheetah to a sloth, both understand the path of least resistance for them does NOT include atrophy, or failure to apply themselves to life. Both will play. Both will locomote for reasons beyond survival. Both will apply themselves to life, with 'effort.' Because nature's 'path of least resistance', as you said, calls them to do so.
But if you uproot them, place them into society, and turn them into a pet, they will become trained AWAY from their true nature. The same thing happens to children. Born attuned to nature, taking the 'proper' path of least resistance (one which includes 'application'), they eventually become socialized and begin avoiding effort.
It's possible we agree after all because your conclusion here:
And from your original comment:
The path of least resistance includes application of 'effort,' always has. All creatures of nature understand this, including humans when initially born. Failure to apply effort and self-challenge results in atrophy and stagnation, both of which are opposite to nature's continual growth and evolution. Humans can choose to avoid self-challenge, but it goes against nature and is not the path of least resistance, it's just that many people have somehow convinced themselves it is.
Anyway, potentially we're saying the same thing in different words, and if not, then I'm definitely able to agree to disagree... and either way, I thank you for the wonderful discourse and perspectives.
I appreciate you and wishing you a great day! 🙂 👌 🙏
Feels like a chicken and egg scenario! 🤣
LOL, I guess it's only natural for chickens and eggs. 🤣🤣🤣