Yet Another Human Evolution Thread

[mezarashi]

My questions here today are:

 

Have we effectively stopped human evolution?

If not, then are we evolving in a different way than we have?

 

My opinion would be that we have ourselves stopped evolution, and are even trying to impose the same thing on animals and plants.

 

This is because we have built for ourselves medicine, and most importantly social welfare. Why does this matter? As Darwin's survival of the fittest model goes. If you are born dumb, if you are born physically weak, if you are born with anything disadvantageous to your survival, you will not live long enough to reproduce, and thus soon your genes will become extinct.

 

This is not the case as it is today however. Schools school kids who are smart, dumb, and with learning disabilities. We have welfare for the jobless, we have medicine for the sick (obviously not all diseases, but still). And the sad truth is, the more "unsuccessful" people have more children. Take for example Africa. Well educated, wealthy individuals however have very few children to carry on whatever genes they possessed to make them "successful". In effect, unless you have a reproductive deficiency, everybody survives long enough to reproduce.

 

Now we try to play God and protect endangered species, try to preserve species, and try to protect the weak that would otherwise not survive. I'm sorry to say, but animals that don't live off humans or for humans (pests, cockaroaches, rats, dogs, cats, cows, chickens) will have no place in our world. That's the way the survival of the fittest game works.

 

Does this worry you? And how will our world be different as a consequence?

[Royston]

Does this worry you?

Yes' date=' the birth rate of Chavs in the UK has risen to 3 a nanosecond.

 

And how will our world be different as a consequence?

Chavs as far as the eye can see.

 

Please see 'regional dialect / slang' thread under general discussion for definition of a chav.

 

I did just write a lengthy paragraph of my thoughts on this subject...but it just goes onto the philosophical debate as to whether all people should have the right to survive, because essentially everyone has the potential to make a difference to the world...or that there should be restricitions to this ever growing fickle consumer society that are wasting our resources and demanding more all the time (and companies responding)...whether that's a direct result of the eradication of 'natural selection' or not, it appears to be a trait of the majority who probably wouldn't have survived under different circumstances.

 

Of course 'the survival of the fittest' has gone out the window due to medicine, animal conservation et.c but it's an ethical situation which you can't really win. It's in our interest to protect our species and others, it just means anybody can survive regardless of disability, IQ et.c

 

Our resources will deplete to cope with demand and we'll just have to pick up the pieces when it's probably too late.

[skuinders]

Now we try to play God and protect endangered species, try to preserve species, and try to protect the weak that would otherwise not survive.

Strangely, you seem to think ethical behavior should be defined by the rules of natural selection? Really think about all of the implications of this line of thought...

I'm sorry to say, but animals that don't live off humans or for humans (pests, cockaroaches, rats, dogs, cats, cows, chickens) will have no place in our world.

Now who's "playing God"?

[mezarashi]

Apparently this may seem to be in the wrong forum. Anyway....

 

Now who's "playing God"?

 

The matter of the fact is that humans now rule the planet. We take what we can from the planet in order to "survive". Apparently our rule for the game is that we try to make as many of our kind survive as possible (social welfare and medicine), but it doesn't matter to us what else we destroy. Without our "sympathetic behavior" for other species on the planet, they certainly wouldn't survive (less the types I had listed). The dying off of endangered species is natural. They are not the fittest to survive in the world of humans. From a species perspective, humans are fit to survive. Species that do not live off of humans or live for humans will not.

 

However, my original question was within the human species itself. Yes, everybody has the right to live. So do all animals, but they don't have the social welfare structure that we have. We have built this, and now things are different. I'm not sure if it's for the better or for the worse.

[Hellbender]

Now we try to play God and protect endangered species, try to preserve species, and try to protect the weak that would otherwise not survive. I'm sorry to say, but animals that don't live off humans or for humans (pests, cockaroaches, rats, dogs, cats, cows, chickens) will have no place in our world. That's the way the survival of the fittest game works.

We have an ethical obligation to try and save and manage animals that are endangered because of our mistakes. So it may not be the way nature works, but the activities of us humans can wreak shockwaves of damage on the natural environment, which is unnatural.

Does this worry you? And how will our world be different as a consequence?

It will be preserved, thats how it would be otherwise different.

[mezarashi]

We have an ethical obligation to try and save and manage animals that are endangered because of our mistakes. So it may not be the way nature works, but the activities of us humans can wreak shockwaves of damage on the natural environment, which is unnatural.

 

I know that certain species like elephants destroy (by eating all in their path) vegetation and in effect the habitat of wherever they roam. This causes hardship for other species that may have relied on those trees as well. I don't see why because we cause "havoc" on a much larger scale, it would be called "unnatural". Just because we are more intelligent... I think now that we are working on imposing upon our world a new meaning to "survival of the fittest".

[PhDP]

You seem to think that "Natural selection = evolution". But you can have natural selection without evolution and evolution without natural selection. And that's the point, even if we would have completely eradicated natural selection in our species (and I don't think it's possible), evolution would still act on us through other mechanism.

[elfstone]

I know that certain species like elephants destroy (by eating all in their path) vegetation and in effect the habitat of wherever they roam. This causes hardship for other species that may have relied on those trees as well. I don't see why because we cause "havoc" on a much larger scale, it would be called "unnatural". Just because we are more intelligent... I think now that we are working on imposing upon our world a new meaning to "survival of the fittest".

 

Is this new meaning good or bad?

The way evolution and natural selection work, they seem to "seek" improvement. If humans are the best improvement of evolution so far, then our survival should be somehow important for nature. The rest of life on the planet should be of less consequence. Species have extinct in the past, mass extinctions have wiped most of life several times, but all has led to homo sapiens who are nature's way to change its rules.

I don't think we have stopped human evolution; I think we will accelerate it even, if we don't self-destruct before we can do it.

[Sayonara]

This topic has been done over and over on this site.

[Carioca]

Interesting take on evolution on this blog http://flyorinvisible.blogspot.com. Personally I would choose invisibility -- just think of the possibilities!