Jump to content

Natural Selection and Mondern Humanity


Recommended Posts

I had a thought a while ago about the state of natural selection as it pertains to modern humans. I'll define modern humans as those living in industrialized nations. My idea is that natural selection no longer applies to modern people. Why? With health care as advanced as is, most people surivive for a very long time, a long enough time so that they have children. This may be based on a flawed perception, as i have not looked at census numbers, but i would guess that a very high percentage of people have children and thus pass their genes onto the next generation. Moreoever, our incredible mobility alows us to find mates where ever we'd like. If no one in our home towns will have children with us, there is someone, some where who will.

 

Centuries ago there were many more premature deaths by natural means, such as animals and dangerous work, and political means such as, wars where a larger percentage of the populace was sent to fight and die. Child birth was also more difficult resulting in a higher infant mortallity rate. Point is, less people were able to pass their genes on in pre-modern humanity.

 

After thinking that and with trhe knowledge that modern evolutionary theory uses natural selection as a mechinism i can up with this questions. What is currently driving humans' evolution? Are we still evolving?

 

Discuss...

 

Nathan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is currently driving humans' evolution?

This isn't really such a hard question. Since there's less pressure on us from our physical environment, things like sexual selection and fecundity will play a greater role.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't really such a hard question. Since there's less pressure on us from our physical environment, things like sexual selection and fecundity will play a greater role.

 

right, thats what i'm saying...but also i'm saying that even sexual selection isn't playing a large role since nearly everyone has children.

 

Nathan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Evolution is not a matter of years, not even of decades.

Okay, you're right if you say, selection is not taking place right now. Most countries have good health care, almost everybody can reproduce, we live in paradise :) .

But on the other hand, think about what drives selection. Events of a dangerous outcome for a species have selectional worth. And now: How many such events took place in the recent 20 years, just in the U.S.? None.

 

My conclusion: Right now there is no real selection,but there is still evolution and always will be. Just wait until the climate changes, a global war gets started, a Virus like Ebola breaks out and turns out to be an air-agent or a Meteor finally hits the earth. I guarantee you: You'll find yourself in a very selective environment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course there is selection. You can't have a situation where there isn't selection, unless every member of the species is completely dead.

 

There is no requirement for selective pressures to be dramatic and obvious, nor for them to work on huge swathes of a population simultaneously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget that there are very different reproductive rates around the world, we are undergoing incredible growth, but it's not even growth. If one population is growing by 5% a year, and another at 1%, then the species is going to become more like the former population.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the West we're actually in a period of dropping birth rates at the moment' date=' for the record.

 

There's a great deal of concern about it (for some reason).[/quote']

 

Yes, wealth and possibly higher I.Q seems to lower birth rates. Civilization is bringing the opposite of "survival of the fittest". But, as Chem-? said, eventually there are disasters that will bring selective pressures into play - AIDS in Africa, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Okay, I didn't make a point, but here's one. Sure, when push comes to shove we're probably going to get back on track, but is that really the best solution? Instead of trying to cure genetic diseases so more people can have healthy kids, so that more people will be around, shouldn't we take the logical aproach and just emove bad genes from the pool so to speak. Snip snip. No more cystic fibrosis. Sorry if I'm being too blunt, but we've grown sentimental. "Give everyone a chance to have more kids," "oh no! Not enough children are being born!!" Cut the crap.

 

For god's sake, we should just start requiring a license to breed. Of course, we'd need some way to ensure a new age hitler didn't get in charge of who gets a free pass on the parental slip n' slide. Also, two kids per couple (or one set of twins, or triplets, or a single first child then a second dose of twins or triplets)

 

Of course, it would also help if we reverted to a more natural lifestyle. Scratch that last bit, I hate the amish...

 

but if we lived in a limited population, in a society where people spent more of their lives out in the real (environmental) world, it wouldn't matter how advanced we became because we'd be more isolated form the rest of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.