Does man kind destroy himself by changing his own evolutionary process?

[mooeypoo]

Well, we all know we took over the world.
We created factories that throw loads of smoke and chemicals into the atmosphere, we use cars, we watch television, we speak on cellphones and we are generally surrounded by electromagnetic radiation that is usually not found in nature.

Good or bad, one thing is certain: We are changing our own evolutionary process.

Even the fact we go with shoes is changing us. When we click a computer and sit on a comfortable chair - it's all changing the "natural" way of the evolution.

We might think thats awsome and great and natural - but we should also remember we don't yet know all about our OWN BODIES - to know what those changes will affect not only ourselves but the entire planet in terms of evolution and nature in general.

My question is this:

Do you think nature will regain balance and our own changes in the evolutionary process will ultimately come to bite us in the ass - or do you think this is actually the best way of human kind to survive.. ? Have we taken the term "Survival of the fittest" a bit too far?

~mooeypoo

[Pinch Paxton]

I think that we change the human evolution by building robots that take over the world. That may sound like Sci-fi but it is easy for robots to destroy mankind with germ warfare.

Pincho.

[mooeypoo]

Good point.
I agree, we seem to build weapons that will aventually kill us - but I was actually meaning more towards the idea of mankind changing his physiology -- through sitting near computers, driving cars instead of walking, breathing polluted air, cooking meals in microwaves, cutting off our "Green Lungs" - the rainforests and so on.

Those all change the human physiology and aventually his evolutionary process that "Nature meant".. if that makes sense.

The question is do you think we'll "Get over it" despite it's mostly EXTREMELY against the balance of nature - or do you think nature will have the upper hand, and we'll end up destroying ourselves when the natural order of balance will come biting us in the ass?

~mooey

[iglak]

i think one day, far in the future, it WILL come back and bite us in the *AHEM*. and when that day comes, only those capable of understanding martial arts (not necessarily using) will live.

[ramanan]

My personal opinion is that there is no challenge against the nature .

if u talk of evolution u r talking about genetic material and how the nature (climate ,environment everything) is playing with that element.nature knew exactly of what it is doing.

but given that element to us we think differently. we are thinking of doubling our life span .we already had tried and doubled drosophila's life span. stepwise this experiment wud cum to humans as well.
on the otherhand wars weapons. we may seem to destroy ourselves.But no
If anything dramatic change occurs to our earth we may readily evolve to sustain or be destroyed for that matter which will be comparatively a slower evolutionary trait
because our dna obeys nature than we do.
all in all if the nature wants us to be here, we can be here.
if it does not want us to be here we should go and there is no point in arguing whether our behavior affect or effect our evolution. nature selects everything and gives it enhancement.
we should remember that we r on the mercy of it.RIGHT!
this is nothing like philosophical this is real.

[YT2095]

well after MANY debates I`ve had on here with regards to evolution, I`ve become convinced that we don`t evolve in a PROACTIVE way (I used to think we did).
so I figure what would happen would be that the ones that die due to pollutants and mobile fone radiation etc... were not meant to breed. but there will be some that survive quite happily with the smog and radiation, they will then go on to breed and make others that are equaly immune or at least have a higher probability of immunity. so we would actualy evolve THAT way, maybe people that sit at a computer (if it meant life or death) the ones that could type the fastest would live, and so fast typers would rule the planet, it`s ridiculous idea I know, but that would be the mechanism :)

[mooeypoo]

I've been working like mad the past few days, and just about to go out to another work frenzy for five days, so I didn't have much time reading each post (I will when i get back, promise!!) BUT i just wanted to post something to clarify what I meant by the thread question -

I understand what you guys mean by "survival of the fittest" - those who will not survive the changes are probably not meant to survive, that's fine physically but what I meant wasn't an "individual" resistance to the changes. I meant to ask you what do you think the ENTIRE human race would suffer.

Those who die from heart desease that is related to pollution (see article here (http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,61628,00.html?tw=wn_techhead_1) ) might not be resistant enough - but aventually AS AN EVOLUTIONARY process, the rest would probably get different heart biology or physiology so they CAN survive it on the long run.

I am also talking about 'small' things like our tiny "pinky" (on the foot) that is becoming smaller and smaller from generation to generation. EVERYTHING affects our evolution on the planet - the question is whether we are making it "unbalanced" and aventually we will suffer greater risks to the HUMAN KIND resistance (not individual groups). There's no question about the fact that *we* are responsible for those changes - we cut the trees that supply oxygen to the atmosphere, we walk with shoes, we stare hours on hours at a computer monitor, we sit on chairs, we drive polluting cars and eat greasy unnatural food.

Will the human race survive its "war" against the balance of nauture?

Don't forget that those changes don't only affect humanity - but the animal and plant world also. Just like when you bring an animal to extinct a rodent somewhere (When its not its original and natural habitat) you get DIFFERENT and sometimes very hazardous occasions of over-population, and destroy the natural balance - are we going to the same path?

I'm less talking about the "short-term" changes, when people might die of heart desease or such - but more of the LONG term where we might end up with tiny hands (due to comp use), huge eyes (monitor?) short-sighted (radiation from monitor and tv?), enourmous and thick lungs (pollution), tiny feet (shoes and the fact we're barely walking) and so on.

Hope that was clear.. trying to clarify my question.

see ya in a few days.

~mooeypoo

[Kedas]

Because we are a part of nature everything we do is then by definition natures plan. So saying we are changing natural evolution is 'naive' & overestimating yourself.

Nature has a goal(way of doing) and we are the TOOLS/WAYS to get there.

You ask what that goal is?
Maybe letting the entropy rise as fast as possible. etc.

[Sayonara³]

What evidence do you have that nature has a goal?

[Kedas]

Sayonara³ said in post #9 (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=30307#post30307):
What evidence do you have that nature has a goal?

'goal' is probably a bit too strong word more like 'a way of doing'.

[NavajoEverclear]

iglak said in post #4 (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=29809#post29809):
i think one day, far in the future, it WILL come back and bite us in the *AHEM*. and when that day comes, only those capable of understanding martial arts (not necessarily using) will live.
congress repeals the pooply brains act. Human brain installments will be inserted next monday (you'll get a call from your doctor).
BTW i don't really diss you, i'm just high on pollution.

International Organization of Elimination of Gene Pool Contaminents switches "KHinfcube22" from "closely monitoring" status to "demanded for termination" urgent warrant for capture of the carrier of these toxic chromosomes is activated.

---------- Excuse me, persecution may increase feelings of inferiority thereby continuing immature behavior. There is always hope . . . . . . I hope.

[Kedas]

Have we taken the term "Survival of the fittest" a bit too far?

To add on what I already said:
The real question is why do you think that such a no human influance world is normal and this one isn't?

on the other hand if people can get addicted to pressing the point button (.....). well, then maybe we did take it to far. ;)

[Sayonara³]

Kedas said in post #11 (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=30319#post30319):
'goal' is probably a bit too strong word more like 'a way of doing'.
Well, it was your wording and not mine:
"Nature has a goal(way of doing) and we are the TOOLS/WAYS to get there."

You also said nature had "a plan".

What's the evidence for this?

[YT2095]

Ok, a question just popped up again about evolution and the sort of things mentioned in here.
although I DO stick to what I wrote in here previouslyly and am more or less convinced now that it`s correct, I wish to know if damage that reoccurs is genetic or what?
here`s my obeservation, I had several injuries as a child to the ) shaped white bit on my finger nails, the bit where it comes out of your finger, and now ever since then, every month or so, I will have a bent/ridge appear in them, it`s as regular as clockwork, and when it gets to the end of my finger (grown out) it`ll look like a claw shape, when it`s totaly gone and been cut off, within a week a new ridge will appear.
Now, is that genetic?
I ask because surely it would just do it all the time and be a total ridge without a month or so gap of being fine, so there is SOME sort of "timer" going on here, what is it? :)

[Kedas]

Sayonara³ said in post #13 (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=30393#post30393):

Well, it was your wording and not mine:
"Nature has a goal(way of doing) and we are the TOOLS/WAYS to get there."

You also said nature had "a plan".

What's the evidence for this?
- I'm not an exact definition generator so you don't have to overanalyze my sentences.

- why 'Plan' I don't believe in an universe that doesn't know it's next point (maybe not detailed)

- about evidence: Evidence is the problem of the non believer. ;)

[Sayonara³]

You'd be surprised how little that helped.

[Kedas]

Sayonara³ said in post #16 (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=30441#post30441):
You'd be surprised how little that helped.

LOL (not surprised at all)

wait a few decennia if you want to know those answers :)

[Kylon]

This might come off slightly offensive but

I think we are going to degenerate, unless we develop or find some advanced genetic engineering techniques, I think humans are going to degenerate from an evolutionary stand point.

People with genetic conditions that make it impossible to produce certain proteins to live for instance, with medicines(although I am quite happy that we have them and glad to see these people live) people can reproduce that have genetic characteristics that severly impair themselves and the genome.

I also think that our culture influences to a tremendous degree who we mate with. The "wierd kid" is most likely NOT TO BREED. Nobody is attracted to the "wierd kid" because, well, he's wierd! But wierd is totally defined by culture. For instance, if you were in a heavily conservative society and you were liberal, you would be wierd. On the other hand if you were in a heavily liberal society and you were heavily conservative, you would be considered wierd. To my knowledge at least 40 % of our personalities are inherited from our parents. That means that it's probably genetic.

I have a genetic abnormality known as Asperger's Syndrome. This imparts higher intelligence when it comes to engineering, specialization, problem solving ect But impairs ones social abilities, empathy, co-ordination, sensing motivations and carrys some enhanced sensitivities to certain things(I am super sensitive to sound, loud noises hurt my ears). However, no matter how advanced someone with my condition might be, no matter how much technical prowess someone like me might have, my chances of breeding are slim, if not non-existant. My dad was lucky.

In short, if the culture promotes perversity, then perversity is what the gene pool is going to be directed towards. If it is directed towards benevolence, then benevolence is what the gene pool tends to go towards. Thus crappy culture = crappy gene pool.

The thing I think that deteriorates the gene pool the most, I am sad to say, is the laziness of the intellectuals. The intellectuals don't reproduce as much, compared to dumb people who reproduce like rabbits.

Anyway just a few insights, hope there helpful!

[iglak]

The thing I think that deteriorates the gene pool the most, I am sad to say, is the laziness of the intellectuals. The intellectuals don't reproduce as much, compared to dumb people who reproduce like rabbits.
yes, but it's not just laziness, it's also that intellectuals aren't very outgoing. and in addition to that, a few intellectuals look and act like nerds or geeks, not entirely attractive.

another big thing is rape the bottom of the gene pool forcing their way into the next generation. pitiful.

"crappy culture = crappy gene pool."
story of the humans.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

In theory, it is very hard to "degenerate" using evolution. If I died for some human caused event, and others survived, the next time it happened they probably would live. It might kill us first, but then it would help us.

[Sayonara³]

There's no such thing as degeneration through evolution - that's a contradiction in terms.

You either adapt, or you fail to adapt. Whether or not an adaptation is a positive factor in selection in the long run is neither here nor there.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

My point exactly. We may become stupid over time or make our environment killer to life, but that's not evolution. Every one getting more arms to work faster is.

[mam"MATT"us]

Only attributes that increase the number of times you reproduce, success rate, survival of offspring are evolution. For example there is no evolutionary advantage to living to be 200 if you are for some reason unable to reproduce after say 60.

[Sayonara³]

In the first sentence you are talking about Natural Selection, not "evolution". The two are not synonymous.

An organism that exceeds its reproductive period is not necessarily useless. Remember that evolution happens to species, not individuals, and an evolving species by definition has to have generations.

An organism that lives more than twice its reproductive lifespan again can have plenty to offer its species, whether it be in defence, hunting or -- in a species like ours where information is the main fitness currency -- education. This could have a massive effect on the overall rate of reproduction, and it would doubtless be a major selective advantage for the generational groups with the greatest number of most "experienced" elders.

[YT2095]

just a quick question, the term "Mankind" does that cover neanderthal man or Homo Erectus etc.. or is it just for Homo sapiens?

[Sayonara³]

It can depend on the context, but it's usually taken to mean Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

[YT2095]

Charz :)

i just wondered because in order to answer the top question, IF we were to evolve into say Homo Technologicus or something, and Homo sapiens were all "gone" so to speak, could it be considered as "mankind" destroying itself by changing his evolutionary proccess. but I don`t think it`s a very good answer really, still to many definitions outstanding I guess :)

[Sayonara³]

"Out with the old, in with the new" is a constant theme in evolution wherever true divergence doesn't occur - doesn't matter what the method is, just the result.

If that helps...?

[YT2095]

yeah, I guess by then, Homo Technologicus (best I could think of for a name LOL) would then become the new "mankind" and so it continues :)

I still recon our ability to consume vast amounts of pollution will become "as standard" for the New Mankind, it`s an interesting thought, sort of a pity at the same time though.

[Radical Edward]

it would probably be homo sapiens technologicus or something (since there would still be homo sapiens around). nested hierarchies and all that. actually there is already at least one human group on the verge of speciation (the !kung tribe)

[-Demosthenes-]

If you sit in a confortable chair or wear shoes it and you never reproduce you had NO affect of the evolution of the species no matter how many confortable chairs you sit on or new shoes you wear, like suggested in the first post.
What I think is that we are not evolving at all. Thanks to medical science mostly everyone lives. Maybe not all of them reproduce, but not much changes. The only possible evolution process that could happen would be:
Only the most attractive people reproduce, so our species turns into a race of beautiful people! But thats about it.

[Sayonara³]

If that were the case we'd have seen the results a long time ago.

[-Demosthenes-]

It was a joke. Besides how do we know that we don't look better than people did 500 years ago. If we did, it would be very small. Because it only happened in 500 years. People have evolved smaller jaws exclusively because people find it more attractive. That is a fact, not mumbo-jumbo!

[Sayonara³]

People have smaller jaws because of selective pressure due to significant changes in our diet and the way we prepare food.

What you want is some evidence.

[jadote]

EinsteinTheory said in post #31 (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=33835#post33835):

Only the most attractive people reproduce, so our species turns into a race of beautiful people!



This is news to me.


If you were correct in this statement, the future of mankind would be very bleak indeed, as many times beauty and intelligence are in inverse proportion (at least in today's standard of beauty).

No two same people hold the same concept of beauty, so calculating a person's chance of reproduction by physical appearance would be very difficult.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Well said. Ever heard of "dumb blondes"? They may look good, but they may not be intelligent.
If that was true, we surely wouldn't have 6 billion people on this planet. There aren't very many good looking people.

[Sayonara³]

If all blondes looked good, everybody would have one.

[Skye]

They don't? Poor bastards.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I'm assuming you have one, then.

[rockstarjaiden]

i'm not blonde and im darn good lookin...black hair kicks blond hairs tail!

[YT2095]

the only reason Blondes have more fun (allegedly) is `cause ya can see em in the dark :)

anyway, where`s this thread going?

"If you sit in a confortable chair or wear shoes it and you never reproduce you had NO affect of the evolution of the species no matter how many confortable chairs you sit on or new shoes you wear"

I disagree somewhat with that, surely each and everyone of us has some influence on future events, no matter how small or if we reproduce or not, evolution althought taken largely to mean Physical advancment or change, may also include Educational or mental advancement, I`m sure if Einstein had never reproduced (did he or not? I dunno?) we wouldn`t be any further backwards than we are now, or maybe bill gates *spit* even.
and so it`s not ALL about having offspring as I see it :)

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

We all have an effect, even if it is not genetic.

[Sayonara³]

Not reproducing can have as much effect on a species as reproducing can.

[YT2095]

YT2095 rests his case :)

[Sayonara³]

That could have consequences for the evolution of this debate, YT :D

[Daniel]

I think the more concerning thing is how society helps the weakest to survive (well this is the definition of society), and allows them to breed. Technology has changed the selection pressures humans face. Not many humans have to deal with deadly heat or cold, naked. We can use antibiotics to fight dangerous bacterias. We use guns to shoot dangerous wild animals etc. etc. etc.

But there is no such thing as a better way to evolve. The "best" way to evolve is to survive. If it means that we lost our intelligence but gain super immune systems to combat high levels of bacteria in the atmosphere, then this is what is the best way, for that time of course.

The poorer classes outbreed the richer classes. If it is true that the majority of the poor are of less intelligence, then our species is also getting less intelligent.

We do look a lot better than our far ancestors. Believe me. Think of the humans who were around when the neanderthals were around. I doubt they could be made to look attractive.

[Radical Edward]

The poorer classes outbreed the richer classes. If it is true that the majority of the poor are of less intelligence, then our species is also getting less intelligent.

this is a fallacious argument, especially given that in the 19th century and earlier, everyone pretty much was poor.

We do look a lot better than our far ancestors. Believe me. Think of the humans who were around when the neanderthals were around. I doubt they could be made to look attractive.
they would probably think we are ugly - remember evolution has shaped you to think that humans are pretty. It'S about the same reason that chimps don't lust after Nicole Kidman - evolution has shaped their brains to think that other chimps are desirable.

[mooeypoo]

I didn't mean our appearances though, I meant our destruction-behaviour.

The fact we're creating polution --> creates holes in the ozon layer --> changes atmosphere and radiation --> changes our evolutionary system

The fact we're eating junk --> our stomache might adapt to such foods --> changes our evolutionary system

The fact we're barely WALKING anywhere -- we're using transportation, and sit near a computer and tv without moving much --> our legs might get "shorter" / hands longer / fingers changed... --> changes our evolutionary system


My question is -- do you think it's WISE of us? and do you htink this would come to "bite us in the ass" in the future? It *is* said that nature creates balance, whether we want it or not...

What do you think?

~moo

[Ms. DNA]

I think our behavior and enviroment change faster than evolution can keep up. For instance, we developed a taste for sweet foods when they were relatively rare in the enviromnet, but we sought them out because they were a good source of energy. Today sugary foods are all over the place, to the point where it's easy to become overweight or develop other health issues. It would actually be better for us if we didn't crave sweets so much, but humanity's sweet tooth hasn't gone away. And unless poor eating habits suddenly create such big health problems that we die young or have trouble reproducing, I doubt we'll evolve a genetic solution. So we'll have to rely on behavioral solutions for the problems our behavior gets us into.


I didn't mean our appearances though, I meant our destruction-behaviour.

The fact we're creating polution --> creates holes in the ozon layer --> changes atmosphere and radiation --> changes our evolutionary system

The fact we're eating junk --> our stomache might adapt to such foods --> changes our evolutionary system

The fact we're barely WALKING anywhere -- we're using transportation, and sit near a computer and tv without moving much --> our legs might get "shorter" / hands longer / fingers changed... --> changes our evolutionary system


My question is -- do you think it's WISE of us? and do you htink this would come to "bite us in the ass" in the future? It *is* said that nature creates balance, whether we want it or not...

What do you think?

~moo

[Daniel]

"this is a fallacious argument, especially given that in the 19th century and earlier, everyone pretty much was poor."

Not necessarily. The poor back then were poor because of other circumstances. The poor today have more self determination. The general trend remains though, that poorer people usually have more kids.

Then again, it could be a chicken and egg argument. Are they poor because they have more kids, or do they have more kids because they are poor ? Same goes with the intelligence issue. Are they poor because they lack intelligence, or do they lack intelligence because they are poor ?

However smart people don't always have smart kids, and vice versa.
Speaking of which, have they even determined the relationship between intelligence and genes ?

"they would probably think we are ugly - remember evolution has shaped you to think that humans are pretty. It'S about the same reason that chimps don't lust after Nicole Kidman - evolution has shaped their brains to think that other chimps are desirable."

Hmm, I don't know if we can speculate on that. If they were choosing features which were attractive to them, they it could be argued that the average human today has a lot of the attractive features the people back then were looking for. But this is all speculation.

[Sayonara³]

Not necessarily. The poor back then were poor because of other circumstances. The poor today have more self determination. The general trend remains though, that poorer people usually have more kids.
No, the root reasons for people being poor have not changed. I'd agree there is more scope for people to 'not stay poor', but equally there are also greater fiscal pressures on all people in society now than there were, say, 800 yrs ago.

Then again, it could be a chicken and egg argument. Are they poor because they have more kids, or do they have more kids because they are poor ? Same goes with the intelligence issue. Are they poor because they lack intelligence, or do they lack intelligence because they are poor ?
Looking for evidence would be a good way of breaking that nightmare cycle. It gets tricky with humans though, because we behave very oddly for animals which can make prolonged study a bit difficult. Also we tend to have 'motives' for doing things, rather than doing them simply as responses to stimuli, and these can be near-impossible to detect or quantify.

Hmm, I don't know if we can speculate on that. If they were choosing features which were attractive to them, they it could be argued that the average human today has a lot of the attractive features the people back then were looking for. But this is all speculation.
R_E is not speculating - he's drawn that explanation from evolutionary biology and behavourial ecology. I'm sure he could find plenty of studies and papers supporting it.

[Radical Edward]

Not necessarily. The poor back then were poor because of other circumstances. The poor today have more self determination. The general trend remains though, that poorer people usually have more kids.

so you don't consider a terrible education, terrible upbringing and defeatist culture "circumstances"?

Then again, it could be a chicken and egg argument. Are they poor because they have more kids, or do they have more kids because they are poor ? Same goes with the intelligence issue. Are they poor because they lack intelligence, or do they lack intelligence because they are poor ?

do they even lack intelligence? granted they lack "knowledge" but alot of poor kids are intelligent. I know of a few people in the "underclass" of the UK and they know more about rare diseases than any doctor, and they know more about social service exploits than even the best accounants and lawyers. you aren't saying these people are stupid are you? misdirected is the word I would use.

However smart people don't always have smart kids, and vice versa.
Speaking of which, have they even determined the relationship between intelligence and genes ?

no, there is no known direct link, though there are hints of it, for example intelligence has been linked with autism, through both the higher instances of autism amongst intelligent couples, and also some fascinating work regarding temporary creation of idiot savants through shutting down areas of the brain with an EM field.

Hmm, I don't know if we can speculate on that. If they were choosing features which were attractive to them, they it could be argued that the average human today has a lot of the attractive features the people back then were looking for. But this is all speculation.

no, because what happens is that there is a steady amplification of both the desire and the feature through evolutionary time. In essence this is sexual selection. what you are proposing is a more-or-less saltationary leap in the desire part of the brain, followed slowly by the physical feature. This would require the brain (or rather the genes for the brain) to know what is going to make for the best sexual partner in several hundred generations time, and evolution does not work like that. You could argue that modern day humans are a version of a "superstimulus" but the problem with that, is that many adaptations are also functional, and not purely sexual. For example the human female waist-hip ratio is a sign of her fertility, and also wide hips indicate that she can have a baby safely. Now early humans would not have had such wide hips, since the brain cases were not as large, and hence wide hips would not have been a stimulus for males that is selected for. Breasts might be a different matter though, however it is difficult to say, since no ancient breasts have been preserved. Still though, it is likely that there was an initial link between breasts and fertility, before sexual selection got a hold, and worked towards a larger size.

[Daniel]

"so you don't consider a terrible education, terrible upbringing and defeatist culture "circumstances"?"

Well that was more commonplace back then, now there is the opportunity to rise above it if you work hard enough. I don't even see how your point relates to what I said.

"do they even lack intelligence? granted they lack "knowledge" but alot of poor kids are intelligent. I know of a few people in the "underclass" of the UK and they know more about rare diseases than any doctor, and they know more about social service exploits than even the best accounants and lawyers. you aren't saying these people are stupid are you? misdirected is the word I would use."

So we are now arguing whether poorer people have less intelligence ? Fair enough. Like I said earlier, I don't know. I used the word "if" to state the reasoning behind my claims.

I do suspect that it works both ways. People who are less intelligent don't rise to the top of society you know. Sure some people let circumstances get the better of them, and that is truly bad luck, but I disagree that the majority of poor people are in that situation due to bad luck.

" but equally there are also greater fiscal pressures on all people in society now than there were, say, 800 yrs ago."

What do you mean by this ? That there is more pressure for people to work towards getting richer ?

"Looking for evidence would be a good way of breaking that nightmare cycle. It gets tricky with humans though, because we behave very oddly for animals which can make prolonged study a bit difficult. Also we tend to have 'motives' for doing things, rather than doing them simply as responses to stimuli, and these can be near-impossible to detect or quantify."

Yes I agree.

I am not sure about selection pressures with regards to looks. Even with humans we see that each person has different taste, what one person finds attractive can be quite unattractive to another person. I think that the perception of what is attractive and what is not attractive (trends spread by the media) do have an effect on what some people will consider attractive. This makes it difficult for the same reasons stated above by Sayonara.

[Sayonara³]

Well that was more commonplace back then, now there is the opportunity to rise above it if you work hard enough. I don't even see how your point relates to what I said.
But was it? The population has increased quite a bit so it depends what you mean by 'commonplace' - gross numbers, or 'poor per capita'?
The opportunity may exist to rise above it, as you say, but the biggest root cause for there being poor people is that only a few can hold onto the majority of funds in an economy, and they'll generally be in a good enough social position to protect that.


What do you mean by this ? That there is more pressure for people to work towards getting richer ?
Money heads upwards. The specific pressures haven't really changed significantly (well, the form has slightly due to changes in culture and technology) but if anything the barriers against people trying to get out of poverty have multiplied. Even a lot of people on benefits have a TV in every room, telling them which consumer products mean more to them than a good diet. Even a mere century ago, there wasn't very much the average poor family spent money on that wasn't food, clothing, shelter or necessities like doctors' services.

[Radical Edward]

Well that was more commonplace back then, now there is the opportunity to rise above it if you work hard enough. I don't even see how your point relates to what I said.

it relates because most of the poor people remain poor because of circumstances, their entire cultural outlook often promotes this crap way of life.

So we are now arguing whether poorer people have less intelligence ? Fair enough. Like I said earlier, I don't know. I used the word "if" to state the reasoning behind my claims.

I felt that was your implication, given the evidence, I cannot see the conclusion that poor people are poor because they are stupid.

I do suspect that it works both ways. People who are less intelligent don't rise to the top of society you know. Sure some people let circumstances get the better of them, and that is truly bad luck, but I disagree that the majority of poor people are in that situation due to bad luck.

does bad luck include the culture you are born in? you have a number of nested statements there which I disagree with and it will take time to go over them.

I am not sure about selection pressures with regards to looks. Even with humans we see that each person has different taste, what one person finds attractive can be quite unattractive to another person. I think that the perception of what is attractive and what is not attractive (trends spread by the media) do have an effect on what some people will consider attractive. This makes it difficult for the same reasons stated above by Sayonara.

Again the preferences as a part of culture is another part of the evolutionary adaptation. This can be seen in birds that lek. In lekking birds, the males all stand around calling out, or looking pretty or whatever and the females wander through and pick their mates. Now this isn't done purely on the basis of which male looks best, since it would take quite a while to check them all out, but it is also judged by which male has the most females around him since other females must have judged him to be good, so why waste time and energy looking at a load of males who have been rejected already? This was further supported by placing dummies of females around males who weren't normally as successful, and sure enough the numbers of females that these previusly inferior males aquired leapt up. This tends to be an enhancement of previously existing traits though, as outlined in my previous posts.

[Orange Crush]

I must state that in no way will we degenerate, as we are nearing a time of having the ability to change the genetic code of our children. Regardless of whether it's ethical or not, enhancements will be made these children of the future in terms of their intelligence, size, athleticism, immunity, resistance to aging, etc. I think we will soon become less influenced by Natural Selection, or reproduction, and undertake the age of Artificial Selection.

[Novice]

Not only will we be able to change the genetics of our children, we will be able to change our own genetics by introducing new genes by way of viral transport packages so that we can replace/repair defective genes in our own bodies.

There is no reason to suffer heart/circulatory disease, diabetes, macular degeneration, alzheimers, ALS or so many diseases caused by malfunctioning of our own personal genetic library. Aging seems to be a progressive loss of the telomeres at the ends of the genes. Cancer cells live forever because they continue to manufacture telomerase. If you prevent the gene that makes telomerase from shutting down due to aging without causing the cells to lose contact inhibition and spin off into cancer, then, at least in theory, you will live forever as the body certainly has the ability to maintain/repair itself.

[Radical Edward]

I must state that in no way will we degenerate, as we are nearing a time of having the ability to change the genetic code of our children. Regardless of whether it's ethical or not, enhancements will be made these children of the future in terms of their intelligence, size, athleticism, immunity, resistance to aging, etc. I think we will soon become less influenced by Natural Selection, or reproduction, and undertake the age of Artificial Selection.

not really artificial selection, more like memetic selection. Memes will become the dominant replicator.

[Daniel]

"But was it? The population has increased quite a bit so it depends what you mean by 'commonplace' - gross numbers, or 'poor per capita'?"

The majority of the population back then were not educated.

People nowadays get educated, or at least finish school. Those who don't want to go to school can drop out, but that is their choice.

School is pretty much a given when it comes to success. Sure there are the highschool dropouts who end up making millions, but those are freak cases.

"if anything the barriers against people trying to get out of poverty have multiplied."

Maybe, handouts don't encourage people to strive for a better lifestyle. There is a safety net that people end up relying on instead of working their way to the top. That is one of the reasons.

"it relates because most of the poor people remain poor because of circumstances, their entire cultural outlook often promotes this crap way of life."

Hmm..............I think the argument goes that man should be able to change his environment and culture. Culture comes from people. I don't deny that it also has the ability to shape the way a person is.

"does bad luck include the culture you are born in? you have a number of nested statements there which I disagree with and it will take time to go over them."

Which culture promotes poverty ? Why do some white people rise to the top, yet other whites stay at the bottom of society ? Already the culture is not that different.

If you talk about class cultures, then why would the poor wish to remain poor ?

From my mother's experience...............her family was quite poor. No handouts either. But now all of her brothers and sister are working, and some are pretty filthy rich. They wanted to get out of the poverty cycle, and realised that it required sacrifice. Family heirlooms were sold off and money was borrowed to send her and her siblings to higher education. It paid off in the end. I am grateful for the sacrifices my grandparents made.