Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[umiman]

This isn't a religious thread. Don't make it into one.

I really don't think people are confined within Darwinism any more (survival of the fittest). You see, all the lower denominations in terms of broad species survival like suicidal folk and mentally retarded people (real ones) don't get much opportunity to spread their genes as compared to other people. Sure, they might spring a kid or two before whatever happens to them and they don't matter any more, but generally speaking, their reproductive abilities are not quite up there.

Then there's all the high value individuals like geniuses and world-class sportsmen. These guys, generally speaking, either have children or have very few children for various obvious reasons. In fact, I'm pretty sure most Bay12 members don't want to have more than 3 children either if any at all.

So, what are we left with? We are left with the mass majority of common, average, mediocre people. It doesn't really matter who they are, be it the cubicle man or the trailer family, the end result is that these people make up the vast sum of our population. Neither spectacularly good or bad at anything. This is further examplified by the fact that most of our newborn children come from this subgroup. Even if we say that 1 out of 3 children born out of an "average" family will be "non-average", the end result is that the grand majority of our population will be average.

We are headed in the direction of average... I couldn't say when we started heading in that direction, when being average meant being the strongest of our race, but it really is depressing. It also seems that we spread this trait to everything we associate with life, like pets. Cats no longer live on a principle of the fittest survive, but rather, the cutest or whichever gets along with humans the best. Goldfish have been that way for centuries now, thanks to the Chinese.

What do you think? Is this a good thing? A bad thing? I'm quite on the fence.

Keep in mind that it doesn't mean humankind won't progress. It just means that we'll progress by taking the mean of all our achievements and failures instead of just the achievements.

tl;dr: Reading is a very important skill in life.

[woose1]

Well, it's not a bad thing if our definition of 'attractive' changes as well, towards something more fitted for the future ahead of us.

And whoever said that humans will be done evolving after that? According to studies done by Duke University students, the process of evolution for humans is actually speeding up, not slowing down.

[Cthulhu]

The obvious solution is to put all of the smart people in a space station and send it into orbit.

[woose1]

The obvious solution is to put all of the smart people in a space station and send it into orbit.

But who will build the space station? Not the smart people, let me tell you that. 

[Jude]

It's so funny when people don't understand what evolution is all about

[umiman]

Uhh... this isn't really about evolution. Evolution may be a part of it, but it's more of how the term "survival of the fittest" doesn't apply to mankind and his cohorts.

[Jreengus]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Yes you didn't put the negative spin on it like that guy but I was still reminded of it.

[woose1]

Evolution is the mysterious process that makes a species fitter for survival in its natural habitat. It's caused by fitter individuals having more babies then others, thus causing a higher percentage of those individuals in the overall population. Darwinism was originally applied to a species of bird that, through separation and different environments, evolved to have different shaped beaks suitable for their  respective environment.

Umiman is saying that this doesn't apply to humans, since those tough muscular tanned men you see on the beach should be getting twice as much babies as the average schmo, but for some reason, they're dying out. Look back at the 1800-1900's. People then didn't get sick as often because the fittest survived.

[umiman]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Yes you didn't put the negative spin on it like that guy but I was still reminded of it.

Thanks for understanding. I'm not saying it's a bad thing like people would be prompted to imagine. We can't say whether it's good or not because... well... we aren't particularly qualified to judge the quality of our genus.

For all we know, we might be subconsciously preparing for an alien invasion that only targets sublimely perfect people like me. Who knows?

[woose1]

Oh, and inb4 religious flame war. (I win)

[LegoLord]

"Fittest" in terms of Darwinism refers to behaviors favoring reproduction, not physical proficiency (in can be the latter, but not always).  If the theory used the mundane form of fitness (physical proficiency) an extremely large number of creatures, the cuttle fish for example, would break the theory.   An athlete who has always driven poorly and dies in a car wreck he caused before ever having kids is not by the standard of Darwin's theory considered "fit" as he lacked skills to allow him to reproduce.

With the said cuttle fish, those males with the best mimicking abilities are chosen by females more often than the larger, stronger males.  The stronger males will be fighting each other over the issue, while the small males disguise themselves as females and sneak right by.

So Darwin's theory applies to every living species, no matter what.  With humans in modern times, "fit" means having good social skills (generally speaking).  The latter is probably most important for us.

[Richochet]

Does that end the conversation now? 

[Luckk]

I don't think its entirely bad, since how have humans in general advanced in technology and intelligence throughout history?  They have done it through trial and error, not through doing everything right the first time they try something.  Anyways, I don't understand whats great about hating everyone who doesn't have anything unique or special about them.

Somebody has to do the work that no one wants to do and besides, if everyone was a genius and/or athletic, life would be even more boring then it currently is.  Yes I am slow at typing and just saw that everyone posted before me but whatever.

[Vactor]

Evolution/Darwinism has NOTHING to do with being stronger, more intelligent, or anything that we as humans value.  It has one value: the transmission of genetic material.  If you transmit your genes on to a new generation you are fit. Mice aren't smaller and weaker than an elephant because they are behind on evolving, its just that however that mouse ended up when it was born, it managed to go on to have children, making it fit.  Evolving does not necessarily make you more powerful. 

So to the title of the thread, Yes, Humans are within the scope of Darwinism.  Humans will continue to evolve, it may not be in a direction that we think is good, but it wouldn't be the first time that a population has evolved its way into a corner.

A better statement would be that Selective pressures relating to humans are trending towards trouble for mankind.

[Leafsnail]

This has nothing to do with religion, firstly.

Anyway, secondly, I think you may have misunderstood the term "Survival of the fittest".  It doesn't mean that the fittest (most attractive or best at running) person will survive, nor does it mean that people get better.  All it means is what survives survives.  Cultural influences allow some people to breed more.  Certain genes will gradually fall out due to disadvantages conveyed, and other genes will become more common.

In addition, we have to think socially.  If we look at society as a whole, we know that there is very little social mobility.  If someone is born into a poor family, then sadly they will usually go to a bad school and get a bad job when they're older.  This doesn't necessarily mean they have bad genes.

Tl; DR The gene pool will always move, but in subtle ways.