Evolution and Humanity

lame-o

lame-o

Newbie
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
1,003
Reaction score
0
Sulkdodds said:
Hello. If you are reading this quote, you are looking at a brand new thread that I have split off from the mother topic to which it was not immediately relevant. Simply read the first few posts, and the field of the debate will become clear.
Click to expand...

I feel that sometimes people have to die...there is a such thing as too much good.
 
People always have to die, eventually.
The trick is to avoid as many deaths as possible for as long as possible.
 
Sulkdodds said:
People always have to die, eventually.
The trick is to avoid as many deaths as possible for as long as possible.
Click to expand...

And lead to the death of evolution and in turn, humanity itself?
 
Ah, so that's why so many people die in the world today. It's all natural selection operating in a stable ecosystem.

Clearly, affluent white people are the future of the species. They seem to be dying the least.

By the way, if you wish to continue, or if you have a point to make, start a new thread.
 
No, you don't seem to understand me. If I am weak, according to evolution I should die or live seperately from the species. But instead, society will allow me to spread my defective genes further, eliminating natural selection, and dooming future generations. But I'm not saying we have to live like animals either. I'm just saying there has to be a balance between tragedy and happiness. White people live too long underneath a shroud of false security (LAWS/social attitude). White people are the past of the species, the asians will take over pretty soon.
 
What does "weak" mean in the context of a social species? That you can't hunt your own mammoth? That you have a genetic disorder? That you're too stupid to vote responsibly?

I think I'm going to split this off into a new thread. It is an interesting discussion, but not an immediately relevant one.

EDIT: Damn you, stab-man :shakeyfist:

EDIT2: Geez, my genes are defective, I should just stop posting ;(
 
Mr Stabby said:
What qualifies as a defective gene?
Click to expand...

Stupidity maybe? People care too much about how LONG people live rather than HOW they live. The guy was a combatant who wanted to kill people who are trying to liberate the oppressed, in my opinion debating his death is pointless... it didn't HAVE to happen, it would be nice if it didn't, but it did.

Also allergies are becoming more and more of a problem for humans XD (or just white people?)
 
A good gene is one that allows- 1. survival from infancy throughout the whole fertile period; 2. a high probability to reproduce, related to both the ability to reproduce and qualities to be selected by the other sex to carry out reproduction. A defective gene prohibit either one. For example, a man with Down Syndrome is highly unlikely should be selected by a female. And a stupid man is less likely to get married than a clever man.
 
bbson john said:
A good gene is one that allows- 1. survival from infancy throughout the whole fertile period; 2. a high probability to reproduce, related to both the ability to reproduce and qualities to be selected by the other sex to carry out reproduction. A defective gene prohibit either one. For example, a man with Down Syndrome is highly unlikely should be selected by a female. And a stupid man is less likely to get married than a clever man.
Click to expand...

What about genes that protect from mass extinction from disease or otherwise, or one that prevents the decay of human thought through lack of intelligence or lack of reasoning. If all you want for humanity is the ability to reproduce then you are right, but I don't think humans can think of themselves as simply animals. I'm no god damn pine-beetle whose sole purpose is to eat wood.

Nice edit: but what if there's a stupid woman to go with that stupid man? The more stupid people there are the more there are going to be. Pretty soon the clever man won't be able to find a partner because no-one understands him and they think he's a creep. I think it's called genetic drift.
 
lame-o said:
No, you don't seem to understand me. If I am weak, according to evolution I should die or live seperately from the species. But instead, society will allow me to spread my defective genes further, eliminating natural selection, and dooming future generations. But I'm not saying we have to live like animals either. I'm just saying there has to be a balance between tragedy and happiness. White people live too long underneath a shroud of false security (LAWS/social attitude). White people are the past of the species, the asians will take over pretty soon.
Click to expand...
You misunderstand evolution if you think like that. natural selection isn't the be all and end all of evolutionary biology. Times of plenty lead to much higher genetic diversity which in turn can actually speed up evolution along certain lines thanks to genetic drift and sexual selection.
 
I don't see evolution as simply natural selection. Weren't we just talking about genetic drift and sexual selection? I know there's a lot more to it.
 
With the advancement in technology these so call "weak genes" are becoming less of a factor.
 
Also allergies are becoming more and more of a problem for humans XD (or just white people?)
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it make more sense that the increase in allergies is due to the west's increasingly sterile surroundings and sheltered upbringing then anything to do with the arbitrary colour of skin we are born with?.


I am confident that if the west was populated by purple people and they lived the same lifestyles we do, they'd have higher incidences of allergy.



Tyguy said:
With the advancement in technology these so call "weak genes" are becoming less of a factor.
Click to expand...

Spot on. Were at the start of the age where humans can pick and chose embryo's based on their diseased genes, and everything else that the advancement of genetic and medical science brings, it could eventually be that natural evolution ceases to be an issue to the human race as a whole.

we'll simply engineer ourselves.
 
Yeah, seriously, evolution can't actually happen quickly enough for us all to be suddenly getting allergies. Maybe, just MAYBE, it's more to do with the environment we create for ourselves and the sometimes irresponsible way in which we go about managing it.

Nuri, something inside me wants to dispute what seems like your wide-eyed faith in Progress(tm), but it's very hard not to share a similar opinion.
If not for the fact that I don't believe 'civilisation' will be going much further without some significant setbacks.
 
Europeans relative immunity to smallpox, compared to North American Indians, was due to Europeans domesticating the cow, smallpox is the cousin of cowpox. So environment does affect immunity.

Kids today don't climb trees and are therefore pussies with poor immune systems.
 
Around here they aren't allowing swings anymore, because kids get hurt on them, or something. What the hell? Swings are the only fun things at parks. Goddamn stupid clumsy kids ruining it for everybody. It was probably just like five kids, too. ****ing dumbasses.

Is this on topic? I think it is.
 
If children don't fall and cut themselves they won't develop a good immune system.
 
Damnit, the emo kids had the right idea all along.
 
Another thing that happens in the west is using antibiotics to treat everything, we are now far to dependent on them and they are losing their effectiveness.
 
you know how civilization destroyed (natural) human evolution?
(i don't quite agree but for argument sakes)

it is when we started to cure genetic diseases without actually getting rid of the bad gene.
like allowing people with downs syndrome to procreate, or people with bodily or brain dysfunction.
treating the consequence rather than the cause it's what's killing human evolution. in other words...letting live those that without civilization wouldn't survive and without "cleaning" up their genome.
but that is probably about to change when we master genetic engineering of people.



i repeat...i don't agree with this view point but that's how it is.
 
That doesn't make any sense. We cannot be less 'natural' than we ever were; when people say that humanity is the only animal that is incapable of operating on its own, they miss the point, as if the wits that we possess and which we use to make tools were not a 'natural' part of ourselves.

Evolution can't stop operating as a factor. The environment has changed, that is all. And in our constructed environment, a person with a genetic disorder is now no longer unfit for survival. Stephen Hawking hasn't succeeded in spite of his disability. He is not the plucky cripple who could. The idea that a disabled person or one with a genetic disorder is somehow less of a person, a malfunctioning person, is one belongs to a primitive time when it might have been true. It does not belong to our modern environment, where a person in a wheelchair can contribute massively to the advancement of knowledge - which, for good or ill, was what got us here in the first place.
 
Sulkdodds said:
That doesn't make any sense. We cannot be less 'natural' than we ever were; when people say that humanity is the only animal that is incapable of operating on its own, they miss the point, as if the wits that we possess and which we use to make tools were not a 'natural' part of ourselves.

Evolution can't stop operating as a factor. The environment has changed, that is all. And in our constructed environment, a person with a genetic disorder is now no longer unfit for survival. Stephen Hawking hasn't succeeded in spite of his disability. He is not the plucky cripple who could. The idea that a disabled person or one with a genetic disorder is somehow less of a person, a malfunctioning person, is one belongs to a primitive time when it might have been true. It does not belong to our modern environment, where a person in a wheelchair can contribute massively to the advancement of knowledge - which, for good or ill, was what got us here in the first place.
Click to expand...

that's why i said that without civilization these people wouldn't exist.
evolution can't be so well defined with humans...we have the possibility to strive for certain goals which destroys the classical definition of evolution.

even tough i wouldn't like to debate this issue, there are some genetic disorders that sadly make people less suitable for today's society. for example being unable to walk was way more difficult 100 years ago than it is now. or being blind, or heavily retarded and/or unable to fend for yourself.
and i never said these people were less human.
this is such a nazi theme i really don't like to be part of...so move along

all i'm saying we need a new model of evolution for modern people.
 
all i'm saying we need a new model of evolution for modern people.
Click to expand...

I think the theory of evolution only applies to a species that cannot adapt the environment to itself.
 
Excuse me, I don't understand what the hell you are all talking about.
 
I think he's saying dogs will never become cats because they dont build their own cities and stuff



wat?
 
Ever been to Catopia? It's pretty cool there.
 
jverne said:
that's why i said that without civilization these people wouldn't exist.
evolution can't be so well defined with humans...we have the possibility to strive for certain goals which destroys the classical definition of evolution.

even tough i wouldn't like to debate this issue, there are some genetic disorders that sadly make people less suitable for today's society. for example being unable to walk was way more difficult 100 years ago than it is now. or being blind, or heavily retarded and/or unable to fend for yourself.
and i never said these people were less human.
this is such a nazi theme i really don't like to be part of...so move along

all i'm saying we need a new model of evolution for modern people.
Click to expand...

We don't need a new model of evolution for humans, the current one applies perfectly. Selection pressure for our species has simply moved away from the environmental, and towards the artificial. Because we can cure, suppress, and treat so many life-threatening diseases and syndromes, we have partially removed the selection pressure against those who are stricken with them, and so they continue to exist. If we can't keep up our artificial selectors against the natural ones, then the natural progression is for those with disease to die out en masse, and evolution continues unabated.
 
Stigmata said:
We don't need a new model of evolution for humans, the current one applies perfectly. Selection pressure for our species has simply moved away from the environmental, and towards the artificial. Because we can cure, suppress, and treat so many life-threatening diseases and syndromes, we have partially removed the selection pressure against those who are stricken with them, and so they continue to exist. If we can't keep up our artificial selectors against the natural ones, then the natural progression is for those with disease to die out en masse, and evolution continues unabated.
Click to expand...

ok so...did you just confirm that classical natural selection doesn't really apply that much to civilized society?
 
But natural selection is not the sole instrument of evolution.
 
jverne said:
ok so...did you just confirm that classical natural selection doesn't really apply that much to civilized society?
Click to expand...

No, I said it does apply. Any selection pressure we put on ourselves is the same as any other species with higher brain functions has. I'll make up an example:

Monkeys in the wild might learn that cleaning a wound (let's call this a "skill") keeps it from getting infected and thus keeps monkeys from dying as often - though of course, they would understand it in simpler terms - and thus they start proliferating slightly more (this would be the "skill selection pressure"). But then a new bacteria comes along that spreads and breeds far too quickly for wound cleaning to have any effect. This negates the skill that the monkeys have learned, and the resultant skill selection pressure. The monkeys who learned to clean wounds begin dying just as often as before.

You can apply this to humans as such:

We discovered penicillin about 80 years ago, which allowed us to treat and cure many infectious diseases (the "skill"). Suddenly, we are all but immune to a slew of bacteria that used to maim and kill us, and we proliferate (the "skill selection pressure"). But now bacteria are becoming increasingly resistant to it, and we are having to turn to newer, more specific drugs that are themselves becoming increasingly less effective. It's safe to assume that in the near future we may, for a time, have no way to fight off newer strains of bacteria and viruses that are resistant to our drugs. And accordingly, many humans, especially the elderly, will succumb to simple bacterial infections once again. The bacteria evolve, and negate our skill selection pressure.

I made up some terms, but there you go. Just because we have a word to differentiate things that are and are not created by us (i.e. natural and artificial), does not mean that they exist in two separate spheres of influence.
 
Cultural evolution (which is very important to human evolution itself since it basically decides our behavior to a large extent) has taken over classical species evolution in our case I think.
 
I haven't fully evolved. I still like to drag women by the hair into my cave.
 
jverne said:
it is when we started to cure genetic diseases without actually getting rid of the bad gene.
like allowing people with downs syndrome to procreate, or people with bodily or brain dysfunction.
treating the consequence rather than the cause it's what's killing human evolution. in other words...letting live those that without civilization wouldn't survive and without "cleaning" up their genome.
but that is probably about to change when we master genetic engineering of people.
Click to expand...


Bad gene is always getting marginalised . Although there is news saying that some brain dysfunctional guys got married and have children, the reproductive rate of bad-gene processing people is much lower than normal people. This is already a natural selection. It doesn't matter whether people with downs syndrome have a spouse. The fact is that normal man far out-reproduce the abnormal ones. The abnormal genes are marginalised. Therefore, they won't destroy our species. Perhaps some genetic disease, such as thalassemia is preserved. It means only the nature selection is not as vigorous, as relentless as before, but it doesn't rule out the whole selection process. We are now a fish in a hillside lake, not in the cruel sea.

Intelligent people have a better chance to reproduce since people adore their wisdom. Stupid people have less chance to procreate as they do not have special ability and are not sociable. It is impossible to eliminate natural selection from the nature. It is what makes life living. It is our in born character.
 
bbson john said:
Intelligent people have a better chance to reproduce since people adore their wisdom. Stupid people have less chance to procreate as they do not have special ability and are not sociable.
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with the rest of your post, but you're making an enormous and false generalisation by saying that. Intelligent people flock to intelligent people, and stupid people are drawn to stupid people. It's natural, it's common, and it's apparent in almost any and every social situation. And with that said: Intelligent people are less likely to have unprotected sex, and are less likely to over-breed, while stupid people are the opposite. In addition, stupid people are more common than intelligent people. Lots and lots of stupid people are having unprotected sex and overbreeding, while intelligent people are having protected sex and not having as many kids, creates an exponential and proportionate increase in the populations of both.

People may "adore" the intelligent in theory, but in practice we simply adore those that are like us.
 
bbson john said:
Bad gene is always getting marginalised . Although there is news saying that some brain dysfunctional guys got married and have children, the reproductive rate of bad-gene processing people is much lower than normal people. This is already a natural selection. It doesn't matter whether people with downs syndrome have a spouse. The fact is that normal man far out-reproduce the abnormal ones. The abnormal genes are marginalised. Therefore, they won't destroy our species. Perhaps some genetic disease, such as thalassemia is preserved. It means only the nature selection is not as vigorous, as relentless as before, but it doesn't rule out the whole selection process. We are now a fish in a hillside lake, not in the cruel sea.

Intelligent people have a better chance to reproduce since people adore their wisdom. Stupid people have less chance to procreate as they do not have special ability and are not sociable. It is impossible to eliminate natural selection from the nature. It is what makes life living. It is our in born character.
Click to expand...

most people dont admire people with high intelligence ..in fact they usually dislike them because they feel threatened. the proof in this is pretty obvious as far more people know and admire someone like ryan seacrest than someone like stephen hwking



some of you are advocating eugenics ..moreso the scary kind than not

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#United_States
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
B
Marc Laidlaw releases Half-Life 2: Episode Three's plot
Replies
32
Views
39K
BabyHeadCrab
BabyHeadCrab
B
Community Interviews: Final Exchange development team
Replies
0
Views
5K
Barnz
B
B
Gabe Newell's AMA summary (January 17, 2017)
Replies
1
Views
24K
Gerzowktz
Gerzowktz
JackPhoenix
Resurgence
Replies
1
Views
2K
Karim
Karim
Back
Top